Latest news with #NationalParty
Newsroom
a day ago
- Business
- Newsroom
Who Benefits: The power of the farm lobby, part one
Who Benefits is a year-long project tracking and disclosing lobbying and influence, starting with the agriculture sector. The project is supported financially by a grant from The Integrity Institute. Newsroom has developed the subject areas, will be led by what we uncover and retains full editorial control. If you know where influence is being brought to bear, email us in confidence at: trublenzOIA@ Part two of Who Benefits, published on Friday, zeroes in on the freshwater policy under fire from the agricultural lobby: Te Mana o Te Wai. When Christopher Luxon wanted to declare an end to Labour's 'war on farming' he joined lobby group Federated Farmers on a three-stop tour. 'There is nothing more important to New Zealand than the rural sector,' the Prime Minister told the 800-strong crowd at Mystery Creek, in Waikato, last November, flanked on stage by huge 'Restoring Farmer Confidence' signs. A story in Farmers Weekly – written by Federated Farmers itself – carried comments from Te Aroha dairy farmer Carla De Wet. 'It's pretty impressive to find out the Government has already achieved nine of the 12 things Federated Farmers asked for before the election.' De Wet added: 'I think it's bloody awesome to have ticked off so many things in such a short period of time. That just goes to show how influential that farming voice really is.' (In a circular moment, the lobby group's 2023 election policy document was called 'Restoring Farmer Confidence'.) It was Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford who said the 'nine out of 12' line at Mystery Creek. Luxon thought it was so good, though, he repeated it the next day on The Country radio show. 'The other three are still in motion,' the Prime Minister said. Radio show host Jamie Mackay asked if the Federated Farmers-organised tour – to Waikato, Canterbury and Southland – was like preaching to the choir. (For some, it would have confirmed the old adage Federated Farmers is the National Party in gumboots.) Luxon, the National Party leader, said he wanted farmers to know the Government backed them and would work with them. 'That's how it should be. You should have government and industry as adult-to-adult partners working together on the challenges but also the huge opportunities we've got.' The question is, though, where do politicians draw the line? Political parties are elected on a mandate but discrete partnerships can benefit some groups over others. They can even override the broader public interest. Close relationships also raise questions over influence by vested interests, access to power, and, crucially, who benefits. 'Too complex, too expensive' One of Federated Farmers' 12 policy pre-election demands was 'fix our unworkable freshwater rules'. In May this year, the Government proposed an overhaul of freshwater management which has provoked fierce criticism from environmental groups, Māori and others. (Submissions on the proposals close on Sunday.) Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, of National, said the Government wanted to 'restore balance' in freshwater policy, while Act's Andrew Hoggard – the associate environment minister and a former president of Federated Farmers – said existing rules were too complex, too expensive and often ignored 'practical realities'. Absent from the press statement was Environment Minister Penny Simmonds. The economy was front and centre. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, left, with the Prime Minister at Fieldays this year. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook A discussion document covering the proposals opened with this line from Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop: 'This Government is committed to enabling primary sector growth as a key driver of both the New Zealand export sector and prosperity in the wider economy.' The Government is in a hurry to increase economic activity. But there are concerns freshwater protections will be bulldozed to boost exports when many waterways already have poor quality, principally because of intensive farming. In many cases degraded rivers, streams and lakes are still deteriorating. Problems with groundwater can affect drinking water, as shown by problems experienced in Gore. (Strengthening drinking water protections in planning and law was done after the Havelock North campylobacteriosis outbreak that made thousands sick and led to four deaths.) If ministers opt for the more extreme options in the freshwater policy overhaul it may encourage more intensive farming, opponents say, and worsen pollution of waterways. Today's political leaders face the same conundrum their predecessors did over decades: If they don't act now, how much more costly will the clean-up be in 10, 20 or 30 years? Dairy giant Fonterra made an after-tax net profit of $1.17 billion in the 2024 financial year. Photo: David Williams The proposals weren't magicked out of thin air, of course. Ministries for the Environment and Primary Industries met selected groups between October last year and February to float ideas and gather feedback on changes to the national policy statement for freshwater management (NPS-FM) and associated environmental standards. Concern is now being raised about the structure and nature of that pre-consultation, and what emerged in the discussion document. Figures provided to public health researcher Marnie Prickett and Newsroom show agricultural groups were consulted in dedicated meetings more often, and for more hours, than local government, central government agencies, and environmental non-government organisations combined. 'I'm concerned at the amount of time that these agencies have spent with the agricultural sector, given that the agricultural sector is one of the biggest polluters of our freshwater resources,' says Prickett, a research fellow at the University of Otago, Wellington's department of public health – and a member of advocacy group Choose Clean Water. Consultation with the primary sector spanned 34.5 hours over 24 meetings, while 18 dedicated meetings were held with agencies, councils and environmental non-government organisations. Over the pre-consultation period there were also an estimated 12 regular inter-agency meetings – held fortnightly for 30 minutes – taking the total to 31 hours. (The most consulted sector in the target consultation was Iwi/Māori. More on that in part two.) There's also a skew in ministerial time. A diary search of key ministers for official meetings, video conferences, events, and functions (including in other portfolios) spanning this parliamentary term shows 98 meetings with Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb, Dairy NZ, and eight with environmental groups EDS, Forest & Bird and Greenpeace. Obviously, that list excludes ministerial meetings with other groups such as the Meat Industry Association, Dairy Companies Association of NZ, Horticulture NZ, Irrigation NZ, and Fish & Game. Prickett says agricultural groups have a commercial interest in limiting regulation. 'I'm concerned that that means the Government is not operating in the public interest but rather prioritising polluting commercial interests.' The country can have productive agriculture, she says, but within environmental limits. Prickett is concerned that diluting freshwater protections would lead to dramatically more degradation, and make it harder to reverse existing problems. Removing these protections would, she says, be similar to decisions favouring the tobacco industry over the public interest. 'The issue is imbalance' Marie Doole, a researcher of environmental strategy and regulation, says lobbying is an important part of democracy, and regulated parties should be consulted on changes affecting them. 'Here, though, the issue is the imbalance,' she says. 'One of the red flags of excessive influence [is] targeted engagement focused mainly on vested interests.' About the time the targeted freshwater consultation started, Victoria University of Wellington's Policy Quarterly magazine published an article 'Navigating murky waters – characterising capture in environmental regulatory systems'. Doole was its lead author. She tells Newsroom skewed consultations favour parties with greater resources and deeper pockets as they're the most invested in moulding a favourable regulatory environment. Christopher Luxon on the 'Restoring Farmer Confidence Tour' with Federated Farmers in the Waikato. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook 'Government's job is to moderate influence, and they do that by fair and balanced consultation and engagement. If they're not doing it, they're not doing the job.' Environmental Defence Society attended pre-consultation meetings with the environment ministry. Chief executive Gary Taylor defends officials, saying they did a good job 'subject to the directions that they've received from ministers'. He identifies various issues – such as who sets environmental limits, 'simplifying' wetlands and fish passage provisions, 'enabling' commercial vegetable growing – that, in his opinion, shouldn't have made the final cut. 'It's fair to say the Government does seem to be unduly influenced overall by the agricultural sector,' Taylor says. 'This Government is a farmers' government, and they are in there all the time. They're in there with Hoggard, they're in there with Bishop, and in spite of several requests, we're halfway through the term and we've yet to have a dedicated meeting with Bishop, who's driving all this. 'On the basis of my experience with successive governments over many years, that's an extraordinary failing, and a deeply troubling asymmetry of influence.' In response to a Newsroom request under the Official Information Act, Jane Chirnside, the Ministry for Primary Industries' director of resources and rural communities, says the agency led targeted engagement with the primary sector over proposed changes to the national policy statement. 'We met with individuals in their capacity as farmers and/or members of local catchment groups, to understand at a practical level the impact that the NPS-FM has at farm and catchment scale. 'We used existing MPI networks to identify participants and tried to get representatives across regions and farm types, who had an interest in freshwater management, or were involved in catchment groups.' Ministers intervened to add options Prickett, of University of Otago, says a straight line can be drawn between what agricultural groups have asked for and what's in the public discussion document. A November 14 letter to ministers McClay, Hoggard, and Simmonds, written by Federated Farmers vice president and freshwater spokesperson Colin Hurst, said national bottom lines for water quality were, in some areas, 'unachievable', because of, for example, climate change, naturally occurring processes, population growth, land use, and legacy effects. 'Our recommendation is that national direction focus on what outcomes regional councils should seek to achieve, but that targets and timeframes are set at the catchment level, by regional councils, based on the social, economic, environmental and cultural needs of the local community.' In March, after targeted consultation had finished, ministers Bishop, McClay, and Hoggard stepped in to ensure local decision-making would appear in the discussion document. The intervention was recorded in an interim Regulatory Impact Statement – in which officials assess the effects of policy changes. Associate Environment Minister and former president of Federated Farmers Andrew Hoggard says existing rules are too complex, too expensive and often ignore 'practical realities'. Photo: Supplied The additional option was councils should be given flexibility to deviate from national bottom lines when achieving them 'has a high social, cultural or economic cost'. An interim Regulatory Impact Statement (there were several) said giving councils this flexibility 'will address key concerns, including those raised in the Beef + Lamb NZ report about natural variation, and the need to vary by region'. (Prickett, the public health researcher, says talk of local decision-making is, to her, shorthand for decisions made or influenced by polluting commercial interests.) At the March 4 meeting, officials were also directed to add other options to the discussion document: removing Te Mana o Te Wai (a decision-making hierarchy putting the health of water and ecosystems first), or considering a name change; and scrapping the 190kg per hectare cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. Hurst's letter from November told ministers there should be 'no hierarchy of obligations' – a direct assault on Te Mana o te Wai – and asked for a refreshed NPS to balance environmental values with cultural, social and economic purposes. The South Island's biggest irrigation company, Central Plains Water, writing on December 2, three days after its consultation meeting, said many of the problems arising from the national policy statement stemmed from 'how Te Mana o te Wai is framed'. The hierarchy needs 'replacing in its entirety'. The company supported locals deciding if water quality and quantity should be maintained or improved, with the caveat: 'It is based on clear direction set in a NPS'. Directions on nutrient management 'do not need further strengthening', the company said. However, officials noted there would also be an increased risk of 'debate and litigation'. Another passage of the regulatory impact statement quoted a Beef + Lamb report. 'There is also concern from the primary sector that it is not possible to meet water quality bottom lines within the timeframes anticipated to be set, and 'trying to meet them will decimate farming and rural communities'.' (Doole, the independent researcher, says an explosion in catchment groups and community volunteering over the past 10 years suggests people in rural and urban environments are far more aware of their environmental impact. She struggles to reconcile that awareness with ardent advocacy to deregulate with farmers, and a 'weird binary of farmers versus environmentalists' which just feels 'exhausting and boring'.) Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy gave expert opinion evidence in the Ngāi Tahu trial on the extent to which freshwater in the takiwā is degraded, and the causes. Photo: Supplied Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy, a senior research fellow at Victoria University of Wellington's school of geography, environment and earth sciences, shared his submission to the consultation with Newsroom. The submission said councils already had flexibility to deviate from bottom lines – something noted on the environment ministry's website. Joy added there was already an 'out-clause' for waterways affected by naturally occurring processes. There was, he wrote, no justification for not applying national bottom lines. Attempts to weaken freshwater regulation were being disguised, Joy said, by using words and phrases such as 'rebalancing', 'providing flexibility' and 'simplifying'. 'There is, however, no recognition of the fact that water quality has been declining for many decades, thus the regulations they are wanting to weaken are already not strong enough.' A 2020 state of the environment report said more than 90 percent of rivers in urban, pastoral, and exotic forest areas have water quality below recommended guidelines, 76 percent of native fish were threatened with, or at risk of, extinction, and 90 percent of wetlands had been drained. Prickett, the University of Otago researcher, says rebalancing Te Mana o Te Wai would continue the primacy of polluting commercial interests over freshwater policy, which has been happening for decades and has led to declines of water quality and quantity. This degradation, she says, suggests freshwater protections have never been good enough. This despite numerous surveys showing high public concern over freshwater – that they want to be able to swim and fish in rivers and lakes, and drink high-quality water from their taps. National direction policy flood The freshwater overhaul that landed in May was part of a torrent of consultation over national direction unleashed by the coalition Government. Changes are proposed to 12 existing instruments and four new ones, with a focus on freshwater, infrastructure and development, and the primary sector. Environmental lobby group Greenpeace Aotearoa accused the Government of stripping freshwater protections to bolster corporate profits, while Federated Farmers suggested the Government had to pause freshwater rules. What are farmer groups saying now, particularly about their influence on political parties, and accusations of undue influence over that of the public interest? Hurst, of Federated Farmers, says it's 'entirely appropriate' for the Government to engage regularly with farmers and the wider primary sector, 'particularly when you consider the potential impact and cost of these rules'. Farming rules should be practical, affordable and fair, he says. 'We also want to make sure any regulation will actually be effective and achieve better environmental outcomes. 'It's important we get these rules right, particularly when you consider the huge economic contribution of agriculture for the country.' DairyNZ's David Burger, the general manager of farm solutions and policy, says it engages constructively with the government of the day on matters affecting dairy farmers 'and appreciates that other groups do the same'. Kate Acland, the chair of Beef + Lamb NZ, says farming impacts on freshwater need to be managed but there were significant issues 'and massive implications' under the previous government's approach. 'It's critical that ministers and officials first understand the issues, but also critical that they spend time with the sector to ensure rules are practical and workable.' Acland notes anyone can make a submission on the consultation, which will go through parliamentary processes, including a select committee. Ministers respond Newsroom asks ministers McClay, Hoggard, Bishop, Simmonds, and Associate Agriculture Minister Nicola Grigg for comment. Bishop responds, but he's silent on ministerial meetings and the influence of agriculture. We'll quote his comments in full – the reason for which will soon be apparent. 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for eight weeks closing on 27 July, has been shaped by feedback received from a wide range of groups during the targeted engagement phase.' (Prickett points out this selected group didn't include non-polluting commercial interests like the tourism industry.) Bishop continues: 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. 'Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'All submissions received during the public consultation period will be considered, along with feedback from the ongoing engagement, before progressing any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public submissions later this year, when exposure drafts will be released for further consultation.' (Exposure drafts are the raw wording of legislation, released to identify potential problems before it's introduced to Parliament. This seems like a concession by the Government to environmental groups.) A day after Bishop's comments were sent, the Ministry for the Environment provided Newsroom with this statement, attributed to Nik Andic, the manager of freshwater natural environment policy: 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for 8 weeks and closes on 27 July, has been shaped by the feedback we received from a wide range of groups during targeted engagement. 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'We will consider all submissions received during the public consultation period, along with feedback from ongoing engagement, before providing advice to ministers on any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public consultation on freshwater national direction changes later this year, when exposure drafts are released.' Farming groups' influence on Government policy might be a concern but at least the public can be assured the minister and ministry are singing from the same hymn sheet.
SBS Australia
a day ago
- Politics
- SBS Australia
National Party's push to repeal Australia's net zero target
National Party's push to repeal Australia's net zero target Published 23 July 2025, 8:42 am A fresh push to dump Australia's net-zero targets has been launched from within the Nationals. Both coalition partners have begun meetings to determine a new climate policy, a broadside from the backbench igniting further speculation over the Nationals' leadership.
Newsroom
3 days ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
From modern to modular: the revolving door of open-plan classrooms
Analysis: Last week, headlines hailed the end of modern learning environments, following a press release from the education minister saying the Government 'calls time on open-plan classrooms'. While the Government might want parents – and schools – to believe this is the end of open-plan classrooms, that's not quite what's happening. It might have been more accurate to say the Government is sending a strong signal to schools that when they eventually build new classrooms or undertake upgrades to their existing school property, the Government would prefer they opt for one of their kitset, modular spaces now being offered by the ministry rather than completely open-plan classrooms. But without a law change, or at least a change to regulation, the Government is unable to direct schools – and communities – on exactly how their classrooms should be configured. And the education minister says she hopes it won't get to that point. The announcement comes off the back of a long-running discussion about the merits – or lack thereof – of innovative learning environments, which are also known as modern learning environments or open-plan classrooms. While Education Minister Erica Stanford has made comments about these so-called 'barnyard classrooms' since early in the parliamentary term, the move to try and phase out open-plan classrooms comes as the Government also announces a new crown entity to manage school property, off the back of major cost blowouts, poorly maintained classrooms, and a lack of transparency. Innovative learning environments – or what Stanford is calling open-plan classrooms – have been around since the 1980s, but more recently experienced widespread uptake under former National Party education minister Hekia Parata. Parata made a push for the classrooms that were more open, allowing for more flexibility regarding student-teacher ratios for schools under staffing pressure, more seamless use of digital devices, student-led learning, and collaborative teaching methods. In the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes, rebuilt schools were being fitted with these modern learning environments and Parata vowed to revamp every primary and secondary school – all 38,000 classrooms at the time – to the new modern learning environment standards by 2021. New Zealand wasn't the first to adopt these environments, with Australia and (of course) the Finnish also doing away with single-cell classrooms where the teacher stands in front of the rows of desks and students are expected to absorb knowledge. But it didn't take long for parents and teachers to revolt against the push for open-plan. In some cases, the dislike appeared to be that which always comes with change – especially in education. But over time parents, teachers, experts and officials raised issues with the noise in the classrooms. Parents of children on the autism spectrum or with neurodivergence were particularly concerned. Not all spaces were initially fitted with the right materials for acoustic cushioning and furniture that helped diffuse the higher noise levels that sometimes comes from the style of teaching and learning, where several conversations or lessons can be taking place at the same time. Meanwhile, some teachers had these new classrooms foisted on them without the appropriate professional development and training. They did not know how best to operate in the space, the modern pedagogy that aligned with collaborative teaching and learning, and general best practice. According to the secondary schools union PPTA – modern learning environment sceptics: a flexible learning environment is not an innovative learning environment. 'For a space to be innovative, the pedagogy needs to be innovative. Without innovative teaching practice, it is only an 'open plan' environment.' Under this Government and the last Labour-led Government, there has been a push to pull back from these types of classrooms. Some schools have taken it upon themselves to re-introduce walls, or at least sliding doors, to close up the space. And some have gone as far as to label classroom design as a notable contributor to New Zealand's educational achievement woes, citing noise, distraction, students feeling overwhelmed, and general behaviour issues. Just last week, Pāpāmoa College in the Bay of Plenty sent out a note announcing the school – built in 2011 – would be re-configuring all its open-plan spaces into single-cell classrooms. 'Our board considers this current layout as a significant barrier to educational achievement at Pāpāmoa College,' the online notice said. 'The school completed its own due diligence over the past few years and, amongst other things, trialled relocating senior students from the open plan spaces into our temporary relocatable classrooms. This initiative has resulted in positive achievement outcomes for the students and the school.' But it does not appear to be that simple. The research is unsettled, if not contradictory. The PPTA has long been calling for more research in this area, raising concerns that without evidence to support the rollout out of modern learning environments students were essentially being used as guinea pigs. (Primary teachers union NZEI Te Riu Roa doesn't have a position on the classrooms.) A similar message has come from libertarian think tank the NZ Initiative, which has written a report and pushed the message that there is no evidence to support the roll-out of these classrooms, and therefore they are bad. Following public discussion, political discourse, and the continued lurch from single-cell to open-plan and back again, the Ministry of Education did finally commission some research. In 2017, the study carried out at the University of Melbourne found 'open plan learning spaces lead to higher teacher mind frames and student deep learning'. Overall, the results were ambivalent. This report also called for further research. A 2019 study of English-medium primary schools from the NZ Council of Educational Research produced some similar findings, with teachers saying they enjoyed teaching in collaborative, open-plan environments. 'Sixty-two percent of those who taught in an innovative learning environment enjoyed teaching in such an environment, and 55 percent thought their teaching had changed for the better,' the survey report said. However, most of the teachers surveyed said some students found the spaces and way of learning overwhelming. Two years later NZCER carried out another study on secondary schools, which found secondary teachers also believed some of their students were overwhelmed and that teachers had not received the necessary professional learning and development required to teach effectively in these spaces. Meanwhile, New South Wales started to do away with the classrooms and a Senate inquiry also questioned their efficacy, saying many of the classrooms were designed by architects without proper knowledge of education or consultation with educators. One local example of this was at Grey Lynn School in Auckland, which was fitted with open-plan, collaborative learning environments, designed by architects. While there was some consultation with the board and previous principal, the school found it needed to retrospectively create a transition strategy, which helped staff understand the links between pedagogy, space and design. While much of the blame for the wholesale move to open-plan has been dumped at the feet of Hekia Parata, a former government source told Newsroom there were reasons to move in that direction at the time. Some schools were under staffing pressure and this design allowed for flexibility. It also coincided with a time when schools were increasing students' tech literacy and many were moving towards one-to-one device use. Moreover, it was being used in countries that were at the forefront of educational success. The source admitted it wasn't going to be the right fit for every learner or every teacher, but doing away with innovative learning environments without the research to prove they were detrimental was a short-sighted move. The anti-collaborative space debate was already bubbling away under the previous Labour government, and property was a feature of the 2018 Tomorrow's Schools review. The independent taskforce recommended removing school property decisions from boards, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of capacity and expertise when it came to design and project management. Ultimately, it was decided the Ministry of Education would provide advice on the feasibility and cost of taking on more property related responsibilities from boards over the next five to 10 years, while ensuring schools and communities continued to have significant input into the design of their physical spaces. Former education minister and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has also been known to refer to the open-plan approach using the pejorative 'barnyard' description, but he says schools and communities should retain choice in the matter. When asked about the Government's so-called scrapping of open-plan classrooms last week he managed to synthesise the through-line from much of the inconclusive research: 'It comes down to the quality of teaching,' he said. 'It will all come down to whether you know that's actually being properly supported by professional practice. The quality of teaching is what makes the single biggest difference in schools, not the size of the classroom.' Questions about whether teachers have received the appropriate training and professional development to make the most of open-plan, collaborative spaces to enhance their practice and lift student outcomes have been canvassed by the research. But there's been little discussion about those barriers to lifting the quality of teaching, which has nothing to do with open-plan classrooms. This Government has identified the need for improvement in initial teacher education, ongoing professional development, non-contact time for planning classes, and support for students with additional needs. If these issues are addressed, it is more likely teachers will have the necessary expertise and capacity to make the most of innovative learning environments. Crucially, the research also fails to make a causal link between innovative learning environments and poor student achievement. While there is undoubtedly a lack of research to prove these environments are better for children, there is also nothing to prove they are worse. It is easy for school leaders, parents and politicians to point towards a simple, tangible thing as the reason for falling achievement. Especially when it's something that can be physically altered and sold as a fix. What educational research is clear on is that the single biggest factor affecting educational achievement in the classroom is the quality of teaching. But beyond that, societal factors, including a household's economic circumstances and structural racism in the education system are have the biggest influence on student outcomes. So, while the Government might like parents to think they're going to secure their children's future by doing away with open-plan classrooms, it's not that simple. And perhaps more to the point: they can't. While some schools – like Pāpāmoa College – are taking it upon themselves to upgrade or reconfigure classrooms back to single cells, under the current law the Government can't compel them to ditch open-plan. The Education and Training Act (clause 161) lays out what the Secretary of Education can specify, including minimum health and safety standards. Beyond that – without a change to regulations or this part of the law – the secretary (or the minister) can't direct a school what to do. This is why Hipkins has referred to last week's announcement about open-plan classrooms as 'virtue signalling'. But what the minister will be hoping is that it sends a strong signal to schools and communities that when they do come to do maintenance or upgrades on classrooms that they will think about whether to add in sliding doors that allow for partitioning and single-cell learning. Meanwhile, the raft of schools currently on the list to get additional classrooms to deal with roll growth will be offered the kitset, modular classroom design that are no bells and whistles, and can be used primarily for teaching in a single-cell configuration, with the ability to open into a wider space for certain activities, like assemblies, physical education, art or music classes. Essentially, she's looking for a phase-out. But if a school says they want to remain open-plan, or have new classrooms built in this collaborative style, they retain the power to do so. Stanford says she hopes they won't go that route. 'Overwhelming feedback I've received from schools across New Zealand is open-plan classrooms aren't meeting the needs of students. 'While open-plan designs were originally intended to foster collaboration, they have often created challenges for schools, particularly around noise and managing student behaviour,' she says. 'In many cases, open-plan classrooms reduce flexibility, rather than enhance it. We have listened to the sector and new classrooms will no longer be open plan.' The open-plan announcement came the same week Stanford unveiled a $120 million growth plan for Auckland schools that need to build more classrooms to account for new students in their area. This came alongside an announcement that a new crown entity, led by former National Party minister Murray McCully, will be set up to manage school property. When this Government took power it discovered a list of unfunded school property projects, big builds where the prices had blown out, and a general lack of transparency and mismanagement. Stanford set up a ministerial advisory group and commissioned an inquiry. At the time, an architecturally designed classroom was costing as much as $1.2 million, meaning some schools were missing out on new buildings because the funds weren't there. By focussing on kitset and modular designs, finding efficiencies of scale, and removing duplication, the cost of a classroom is now down to $620,000, Stanford says, adding that she thinks it can drop further still. Next in her sights is improving the maintenance programme for classrooms, meaning they'll last longer overall. One of the key priorities of this school property overhaul – and the new agency – is to increase transparency and accountability.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Leading Employment Platform Urges New Zealand Businesses To Prepare For ‘Wage Secrecy' Changes
Press Release – Employment Hero With New Zealands pay transparency bill gaining momentum, Employment Hero urges businesses to get ahead by doing three things – reviewing pay structures, updating employment contracts, and preparing clear explanations of how pay is determined. Wellington Global employment authority Employment Hero, a leading people, payroll and benefits software provider, has encouraged New Zealand employers to prepare for The Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill before it comes into effect. The bill aims to prevent employers from enforcing pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts, making it legal for employees to openly discuss their salaries without fear of reprisal. The National Party backed the bill at its first reading and signalled during the second reading debate that it would maintain its support, increasing the likelihood that the bill will become law. 'The legislation is designed to promote greater pay transparency and equality, helping to identify and address unjustified pay disparities. While it's a welcome change that will bring New Zealand in line with countries that have implemented similar measures, such as Australia and the UK, employers should take proactive steps now to prepare for if the Bill passes,' said Sanam Ahmadzadeh Salmani, Employment Counsel at Employment Hero and workplace law commentator. 'This is an opportunity for employers to drive better pay transparency and better outcomes for both businesses and employees. Aligning with the legislation will not only ensure compliance if and when required but can also improve employee satisfaction and retention. Employees want to know they're being treated fairly and businesses that embrace this change will likely see stronger engagement and loyalty. 'By preparing and making any changes before the Bill passes, employers will be on the front foot and can avoid being caught out later down the track,' added Ahmadzadeh Salmani. Ahmadzadeh Salmani highlights three key actions employers should take to prepare: Conduct a pay review 'Start by reviewing your current pay structures – look for any discrepancies and understand the reasons behind them – whether it's due to role differences, experience or something else. Being proactive here will help you not only stay compliant, but to spot payroll red flags early,' advises Ahmadzadeh Salmani. Review employment contracts 'Employers should also review employment agreements for any clauses that restrict pay discussions. These might not be labelled as 'pay secrecy' and they could be buried under general confidentiality or remuneration clauses. Having a clear plan of what needs updating now puts you in a better legal position once the Bill is passed,' adds Ahmadzadeh Salmani. Prepare clear explanations 'Transparency doesn't stop at removing secrecy clauses. Employers need to be ready to explain how pay is determined and what data or criteria is used, how performance factors in and how employees can progress. This builds trust and reduces confusion or resentment,' she adds. Employment Hero provides free resources to New Zealand businesses on employment law updates and compliance via its website. The latest resource, including Employee Remuneration Disclosure can be found here. About Employment Hero Employment Hero is revolutionising the world of work with the introduction of the world's first Employment Operating System (eOS), a solution designed to address the $20 billion problem of inefficient employment processes globally. eOS is the next generation of employment technology, a revolutionary system that simplifies and automates complex employment processes, allowing businesses to streamline workflows, reduce administrative burden, and focus on growth Employment Hero services over 300,000 businesses globally and its core platform reduces admin time by up to 80%. By launching employers toward their goals, powering more productive teams and taking employment to rewarding new heights, Employment Hero is revolutionising the employment marketplace.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Leading Employment Platform Urges New Zealand Businesses To Prepare For ‘Wage Secrecy' Changes
Global employment authority Employment Hero, a leading people, payroll and benefits software provider, has encouraged New Zealand employers to prepare for The Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill before it comes into effect. The bill aims to prevent employers from enforcing pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts, making it legal for employees to openly discuss their salaries without fear of reprisal. The National Party backed the bill at its first reading and signalled during the second reading debate that it would maintain its support, increasing the likelihood that the bill will become law. 'The legislation is designed to promote greater pay transparency and equality, helping to identify and address unjustified pay disparities. While it's a welcome change that will bring New Zealand in line with countries that have implemented similar measures, such as Australia and the UK, employers should take proactive steps now to prepare for if the Bill passes,' said Sanam Ahmadzadeh Salmani, Employment Counsel at Employment Hero and workplace law commentator. 'This is an opportunity for employers to drive better pay transparency and better outcomes for both businesses and employees. Aligning with the legislation will not only ensure compliance if and when required but can also improve employee satisfaction and retention. Employees want to know they're being treated fairly and businesses that embrace this change will likely see stronger engagement and loyalty. 'By preparing and making any changes before the Bill passes, employers will be on the front foot and can avoid being caught out later down the track,' added Ahmadzadeh Salmani. Ahmadzadeh Salmani highlights three key actions employers should take to prepare: Conduct a pay review 'Start by reviewing your current pay structures - look for any discrepancies and understand the reasons behind them - whether it's due to role differences, experience or something else. Being proactive here will help you not only stay compliant, but to spot payroll red flags early,' advises Ahmadzadeh Salmani. Review employment contracts 'Employers should also review employment agreements for any clauses that restrict pay discussions. These might not be labelled as 'pay secrecy' and they could be buried under general confidentiality or remuneration clauses. Having a clear plan of what needs updating now puts you in a better legal position once the Bill is passed,' adds Ahmadzadeh Salmani. Prepare clear explanations 'Transparency doesn't stop at removing secrecy clauses. Employers need to be ready to explain how pay is determined and what data or criteria is used, how performance factors in and how employees can progress. This builds trust and reduces confusion or resentment,' she adds. Employment Hero provides free resources to New Zealand businesses on employment law updates and compliance via its website. The latest resource, including Employee Remuneration Disclosure can be found here. About Employment Hero Employment Hero is revolutionising the world of work with the introduction of the world's first Employment Operating System (eOS), a solution designed to address the $20 billion problem of inefficient employment processes globally. eOS is the next generation of employment technology, a revolutionary system that simplifies and automates complex employment processes, allowing businesses to streamline workflows, reduce administrative burden, and focus on growth Employment Hero services over 300,000 businesses globally and its core platform reduces admin time by up to 80%. By launching employers toward their goals, powering more productive teams and taking employment to rewarding new heights, Employment Hero is revolutionising the employment marketplace.
