Exiled University of the South Pacific vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia says he is thrilled at the prospect of returning to Fiji.

Speaking to The Fiji Times from Los Angeles in the United States yesterday, he said Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka — when he was in opposition — made a commitment to pay Fiji’s outstanding debt of $90 million to USP and to allow him to return to Fiji.

“Mr Rabuka said it, National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad said it, and the Social Democratic Liberal Party leader also said it,” Professor Ahluwalia said.

“So it’s part of all three parties’ manifestos and part of their public statements, so we as a university are delighted that this amount that has been outstanding for so long will finally come to the university.

“It’s excellent news, not just for the Fijian students but for the entire region because the region has been carrying Fijian students for quite a while and there will now be a chance for us to do a lot of things that we have deferred and not been able to do, particularly issues around maintenance.

“It also means we can now aggressively look for quality academic staff.”

Rabuka issued a statement on Boxing Day saying the prohibition order against Professor Ahluwalia had been lifted and he was welcome to travel to Fiji at any time.

Professor Ahluwalia and his wife Sandra Price claimed that on Wednesday February 3, 2021, 15 people made up of immigration officials and police stormed into their USP home and forcefully removed them at about 11.30pm.

They claimed they were driven the same night to Nadi International Airport and deported on the morning of Thursday, February 4, to Australia.

The FijiFirst government on February 4, 2022 issued a statement that the Immigration Department had ordered Professor Aluwahlia and his partner Sandra Price to leave Fiji with immediate effect following alleged “continuous breaches” by both individuals of Section 13 of the Immigration Act.

Government said under Section 13 of the Immigration Act 2003, no foreigner was permitted to conduct themselves in a manner prejudicial to the peace, defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, security, or good government of Fiji.

Fiji now ‘free country’
RNZ Pacific reports that Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad said all three parties in the coalition had promised this in their election campaigns and manifestos.

The former FijiFirst government have withheld the payments since 2019 over a protracted battle with Professor Ahluwalia, now operating in exile out of Samoa.

“They didn’t like a man who was doing the right thing who exposed corruption within the university,” Professor Prasad said.

“And it has done you know, to some extent, terrible damage not only to the university, but also the unity in the whole region.”

In July, the two unions representing staff at the university said the Fiji government owes the institution F$78.4 million and the debt has increased since then.

“Well, I can’t tell you the timetable, but all I can say is…that the university will receive the appropriate funding, as well as the government will pay what is due as a result of the previous government withholding the grant to the university,” Professor Prasad said.

His revelation comes after the government statement by Prime Minister Rabuka inviting Professor Ahluwalia to return to Fiji.

Personal apology
Rabuka said he wanted to apologise to Professor Ahluwalia in person upon his arrival for the way he had been treated by Fiji.

The prime minister has also invited the widow of exiled Fijian academic, Professor Brij Lal, who passed away on Christmas Day last year to bring home his ashes for burial at Tabia near Labasa.

Professor Prasad said they look forward to welcoming home more Fijians and expatriates exiled during Voreqe Bainimarama’s 16-year-reign.

“Fiji is now a free country. We will welcome everyone who wants to come to Fiji. No one should fear about any kind of vindictiveness or harassment,” Professor Prasad said.

“That is what we promised during our campaign, and that is what this government will deliver.”

Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with Fiji Times permission. This article is also republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Professor thrilled over #USP return – #Fiji to pay $90m #university debt #AsiaPacificReport @fijitimes #rnzpacific @pal_vcp @ShailendraBSing @wansolwara @USPWansolwara @GeraldP87 #Fijipol #education #SitiveniRabuka @bimanprasad https://t.co/bC0ECuzF7d pic.twitter.com/laTlgEH3bf

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) December 26, 2022

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Screams erupted as the sound of gunshots ricocheted around the open-air market. People ran.

It was bloody.

“I saw from my own eyes the gun violence,” says Laurens Ikinia.

“It was just crazy.”

Ikinia was still a child when he witnessed Indonesian security forces open fire at a market in Wamena, the largest highland town in West Papua’s Baliem Valley.

He says it was a massacre. It was later recognised as the 2003 Wamena Incident (or Peristiwa Wamena 2003 in Bahasa Indonesian).

What began as a raid on an armoury led to a two-month operation by the Indonesian Army and National Police. Thousands of villagers were displaced, civilians killed.

It was a response to increasing cries for West Papuan independence.

Some healing in NZ
The trauma of that day lasts, says Ikinia, but in the recent years, studying in New Zealand he has experienced some healing.

Ikinia is one of 125 West Papuan students in Aotearoa, arriving in 2015 and 2016 on a scholarship to study abroad.

He aspires to write Pasifika stories, about the people and places largely ignored by the international media.

He is close to completing a Master of Communications at Auckland University of Technology.

However, the domino effect of legislative changes in Jakarta means the 27-year-old stands to lose it all.

A couple of years before the violence in Wamena, Papua Provincial Governor Lukas Enembe established a scholarship programme for Papuans to study abroad.

The investment in indigenous human resources drew on Special Autonomy funds granted by Jakarta, but employed at the governor’s discretion.

‘Inspired thinking’
“It was inspired thinking on his part,” says Professor David Robie, retired director of the Pacific Media Centre and editor of Asia Pacific Report (APR).

“Get them educated outside West Papua, outside Indonesia, and come back with fresh ideas.”

But in 2021, the money dried up.

In a 20-year legislative review, the central Indonesian government passed a bill ratifying sweeping amendments to the Special Autonomy Law, effectively diverting money and authority away from the provinces.

Despite widespread opposition by West Papuans and calls for an independence referendum instead, the funds propping up several provincial programmes, including the scholarships were allocated elsewhere.

The fallout for the students abroad arrived in December.

A letter to the Indonesian embassy with a list of names — 39 students in New Zealand, and dozens of others overseas, were to be sent home.

‘Underperforming’ students
A translation of the letter says underperforming students and those who had not completed their study in the allocated timeframe would be repatriated by December 31, 2021.

Ikinia’s name is on the list.

“It doesn’t make sense at all,” he says.

“Based on my track record, I was one of the ones that completed the programme the fastest.”

He says all postgraduate students were given a three-month thesis extension due to covid interruptions.

“I am just about to finish.”

He says the decision to recall students is based on incorrect data held by the Provincial Government’s Human Resources Department Bureau (HRDB).

Many phone calls
“We have had a number of phone calls. It seems like people in the department don’t hold the data according to the latest results.

“It’s totally wrong. I did not start my masters in 2016.”

It’s politics, says Yan Wenda, president of the Papuan Student Association in Oceania, and a postgraduate student at the University of Otago.

“The central government in Jakarta changed the law without any input from the provincial government.

“They did the review, and in some areas changed how they managed the money between the provinces and the districts.

“It affects the students studying abroad.”

He says calls to the bureau confirmed this.

‘The money is not here’
“[They said] ‘the money is not here. It’s just not happening for you guys, you’ll have to come back home.’”

He says not only have successful students been recalled, but also the allowance for others has stopped.

“As students we are desperate to pay our rent. We haven’t had any allowance in two months.

“This is why we need to speak up about this.

“We have been victims of this change.”

A public statement issued by the newly formed International Alliance of Papuan Student Associations Overseas (IAPSAO) on January 27 urged the Indonesian government to consider the rights of Papuans to obtain a quality education.

Wenda and student presidents from the United States and Canada — where 81 students were recalled, Russia, Germany, and Japan signed it.

Sustainability of the governor’s policy
They requested the 10 per cent fund allocation for the education sector return to the Papua Provincial Government “for the continuity and sustainability of the governor’s policy to develop Papuan human resources”.

“Don’t kill Papuan human resources anymore with political policy.”

The students have since demanded that the Indonesian Embassy facilitate a dialogue with Indonesian President Joko Widodo.

“It is a really sad development,” says Professor Robie.

“It’s all political by Jakarta. It’s all about self-determination, all about denying the rights of Melanesians in the two provinces of Papua to define their own future.”

He says the Jakarta government is uncomfortable with the student scholarships, and says the premise for repatriation was baseless.

“They are trying to curb the rights of Papuan students to get an education overseas.

‘Fundamentally changed’
“What has fundamentally changed is that (provincial) autonomy, that right to send those students to where they want to go.

“Those decisions are no longer in their hands.”

After APR reported on the issue, Dr Robie received a letter from the Indonesian Embassy, stating it was “appalled at the unfounded claims” made in the regional website.

The letter said the Indonesian government was committed to ensuring the right to education for all Indonesian citizens.

In response to questions from the Times-Age the embassy refuted claims that repatriation of students was politically motivated and said the HRDB did not recall students based on academic performance alone.

Length of study and the students’ disciplinary records were also taken into account.

A spokesperson said they could not speak to the accuracy of the information used recall students. However, they said the decision was the result of a thorough assessment by the bureau.

Conceded adjustments made
They denied budget cuts to the Papuan Special Autonomy Fund were responsible, but conceded adjustments were made to the “budgetary system”.

In response to the demands for dialogue with the president:

“[We] have duly engaged and in coordination with concerned students, Students’ Coordinator, student organisations, and the Provincial Government of Papua to further discuss the issue at hand.”

Wenda and Ikinia say scholarship students around the world are united in their stance, they will not return home.

“We are demanding our rights to education. We have no political agenda at all,”  Ikinia says.

“The government claims that we have a hidden political agenda, this is totally incorrect and unacceptable. We have been always participating in the events that the Indonesian Embassy has been hosting.”

When Indonesia staged a Pacific Exposition in Auckland in 2019, Papuan students actively participated in the event. Most of the Papuan students participated as local ambassadors to accompany the diplomats and delegations who came from the Pacific.

“I myself have also been the president of the Indonesian Students Association in Palmerston North and at the same time vice-president of Indonesian Students in New Zealand in 2018-19.”

‘Trauma healing’
Ikinia says West Papuans have become a minority in their own land, and suffering is not an anomaly.

“In New Zealand I realised how other people could treat us, like family,” he says.

“This is the treatment we should receive from the Indonesian government.”

He believes coming to New Zealand goes beyond academic achievement.

“It is part of the journey to find the potential in my life. And it’s part of the trauma healing.”

He says the New Zealand government is in a position to help the students, by acknowledging their Pasifika status.

“We are not Asians, we are Melanesians.

“We know NZ is a generous country that helps minority groups. We hope in this difficult time the New Zealand government will open its arms and have us as part of their Pacific family.”

Mary Argue is a Wairarapa Times-Age reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A convicted Tongan government minister, ‘Akosita Lavulavu, and her husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu have each been jailed for six years.

They were sentenced today in the Supreme Court after being found guilty on charges of obtaining money by false pretences.

The couple owned and ran the educational institution ‘Unuaki ‘o Tonga Royal Institute. They obtained state funding for the training facility, but kept the money.

Supreme Court judge Justice Nicholas Cooper said the couple had a “highly devised plan”, which they committed over about three-years, reports Matangi Tonga.

He said the public money was intended to benefit the children.

The judge said that while ‘Akosita Lavulavu had no previous offences and had pleaded for mercy, she had shown no remorse.

‘Etuate Lavulavu was first elected to Parliament in 2002, but was convicted of bribery in 2016 and forced to resign.

His wife then stepped into his parliamentary shoes.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In the New Zealand 2021 Budget, a big investment of NZ$108 million has been signalled to support the wellbeing of the Pacific population through the rebuild and recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.

Pacific Peoples Minister ‘Aupito William Sio said this was a significant investment for Pacific communities who have been hard-hit by the pandemic in the past year.

“With the Pacific Aotearoa Lalanga Fou Goals as a guide, the Pacific package puts a strong focus on Pacific wellbeing and continues the government’s commitment to ensuring that Pacific peoples are leading this work to achieve confident, thriving, prosperous and resilient communities,” he said.

“Budget 2021 makes this possible through tailored business, health and education initiatives that bolster the vital holistic work Pacific communities are already doing across the country.”

The $108 million Pacific package is made up of the following:

• $99.6 million new operating funding
• $660,000 new capital funding from the Budget 2021 allowances and the Covid-19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF).
• $7.8 million in operating funding is repurposed from existing funding in Vote Education.

The package includes:

• $30.3 million boost to assist the Tupu Aotearoa programme to support approximately 7500 Pacific peoples into employment, training, and education across Aotearoa New Zealand, funded from the CRRF.
• Investing $6.6 million to support establishing the Pacific Wellbeing Strategy – a cross-government initiative that will develop ways to measure Pacific wellbeing across government work programmes and initiatives.
• Supporting Pacific businesses through the impacts of covid-19 with $16.2 million for business support services, funded from the CRRF.
• $20.8 million supporting Pacific bilingual and immersion education in the schooling system, made up of $12.4 million of new operating funding and $644,000 of new capital funding from Budget 2021 allowances, with $7.8 million of repurposed funding from Vote Education.
• $5 million operating funding and $16,000 capital funding to deliver sustained professional learning and development to embed Tapasā as a tool to address social inclusion in the education sector.
• $5.1 million for the development of two new Pacific language subjects, gagana Tokelau and vagahau Niue as NCEA Achievement Standards subjects.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Staff of the regional University of the South Pacific have condemned the Fiji government’s “dictatorial” action in freezing a $28 million grant, accusing it of holding the governing University Council to ransom and jeopardising the future of students.

“Fiji is reneging on its commitment to its people and the region,” say the staff in a letter to Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama.

The letter, signed yesterday by the university’s academic Association of USP Staff (AUSPS) and the USP Staff Union (USPSU) leadership, was sent in support of the 29,000 students following the grant suspension statement by the Attorney-General that has “sent shock waves across this regional institution to which 80 percent of graduates from Fiji are indebted”.

Attorney-General Aiyaz Saiyed-Khaiyum was reported as saying the Fiji government – as the largest grant contributor to the USP – was concerned at the “continuous question marks about the lack of adherence to the principles of good governance in the day to day administration of USP”.

This came after months of conflict at the regional institution between the University Council and the Fiji-based university management.

It also followed recent exoneration by the University Council of popular Canadian vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia who had been targeted by two senior Fiji officials over his reforms.

Yesterday’s staff letter said: “It is poor governance when a single member state of the USP Council attempts to dictate its course of action.

Critical financial position
“The staff of the USP strongly object to the AG and Minister for Economy’s decision to cease Fiji’s grant contribution to the USP,” the letter said.

“This places the university in a critical financial position, jeopardising the education of Fiji students (80 percent) and Fiji staff (80 percent).

“This decision is viewed as an assault on the Fiji students and staff who, to date, in this covid and pre-covid environment of 2019 have been able to continue their education and work with minimum impact under the current vice-chancellor’s prudent leadership and council oversight.

“The government is seen to be using Fiji students and staff to dictate to and to hold the USP Council to ransom whilst holding a ‘gun’ to the head of the vice-chancellor and president.

“The action is tantamount to ‘cutting off USP students and staff legs at their knees’ and therefore their lifelines to coping with living in the current and post-covid environment.

“Not only will hundreds of families suffer, the quality of support and education for USP students in Fiji and the region will be seriously affected due to the domino effect of this decision.

“The question being asked is, why would the government use such strong arm tactics and punitive action to jeopardise the education of its youth who are their voters and the next generation of leaders when the USP’s supreme governing body of 12 regional states and development partners have spoken,” the letter said.

‘Mere pawns on political game’
“Rather than being treated as valuable citizenry, it appears that all are mere pawns
in a political game.

“The vice-chancellor and president is doing what every government, university, corporation and family business in the world needs to do to survive – reflect, redesign and reorganise.

To date, said the letter, no staff member had lost a job, no student had been refused admission – except for “mandated academic reasons” – and there had been an increase in student enrolments.

“The gravity of this decision and its implications require serious reflection on the basis of the decision and in-depth reconsideration by the Fiji government for the greater good of the students of Fiji and our Pacific `vuvale’ [canoe sail].”

Fiji Labour Party Leader Mahendra Chaudhry has branded the Economy Minister’s suspension of Fiji’s grant to USP as “simply childish”, reports Fiji Village radio.

Chaudhry said it looked like Fiji wass on its own, “like a lone wolf crying foul”.

The FLP leader said he was concerned that students’ university education would be affected and it would also affect the reputation of USP.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Labour held a very successful annual party conference in the weekend, projecting a strong degree of unity, progress, and positivity. And perhaps most importantly, it showed it was willing to deliver a major dose of spending where it will yield results, reiterating that this is a government focused on traditional Labour concerns.

This was all best conveyed by veteran political commentator Richard Harman, whose conference wrap-up title said it all: Labour finds its happy space. He begins like this: “For over 30 years the Labour Party could have only dreamed of the conference it has just held. Labour has finally found its happy space; devoid of factional rivalries; bitter personality feuds or fundamental challenges from the party activists to the Parliamentary wing. Delegates who were there for the fights of the 80s or even more recently the Cunliffe challenge in 2012, were left reminiscing about the bad old days.”

Yet, Harman also concludes his insightful column by pointing out that there’s not much about Labour’s latest big announcement for National to disagree with: “That maybe defines this weekend’s conference as much as anything else. This was not a conference that strayed very far from the political centre.”

Generally, the media coverage of the conference was very positive. For the best example of this, see Laura Walters’ article, which reports: “An invigorating, young energy was inescapable at the Labour Party annual conference” – see: Labour aims to balance the old and the new.

Walters draws attention to some of the changes of personnel in the party, which perhaps “signalled the party’s transition to a younger, more vibrant organisation”. She says “there was an unmistakable emphasis on the young” throughout the conference.

Although there was attention on new blood in the party – especially the election of the party president, Claire Szabó – some pointed to the party potentially still keeping too much power with the “old guard” and the Labour leader. Reporting from the weekend, Henry Cooke argued that Labour can still “can feel dominated by people who have done their time with the party”, and he pointed to some candidates for next year’s election who seem stale – see: Labour needs to be more than just Jacinda Ardern.

Cooke’s larger argument was that the party is now entirely reliant on the pulling power of their leader. He pointed to the conference programme to illustrate this: “The booklet for this weekend’s Labour Party conference features 13 separate photos of its leader, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and none of any other MP. Grant Robertson gets in to one picture on the side, but only alongside his leader.  Leaders are always important to political parties, but the degree to which Ardern defines Labour is extreme. This is a party supposedly built on the backs of cooperation between workers and not a single person, no matter how strong their brand is.”

From “Let’s Do This” to “We’re Doing This”

The major focus of conference organisers was to attempt to dispel a sense the Labour-led Government was failing on its self-declared “Year of Delivery” slogan. The problem they were seeking to neutralise was described on Saturday by Jason Walls in his column: Spirits high ahead of Labour’s conference – but has the party been transformational enough?. In this, commentators discuss some of the “embarrassing” failures and lack of progress that might concern supporters of the party.

Such is the level of concern, “it is understood Labour are facing increasing pressure from it’s base to revamp its [Budget Responsibility Rules] altogether and scrap the debt and spending limits.”

Similarly, Herald political editor Audrey Young wrote in advance of the conference about growing disgruntlement within the party – see: Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party is less forgiving and patient (paywalled). But she wasn’t forecasting any major dissent at the weekend: “In the tightly choreographed conference programme there simply isn’t any opportunity for any public grumbling. But in the backrooms and side meetings, Ardern will be getting the strong message that the year of delivery has yet to be felt by some important elements of her party.”

Such dissatisfaction was also discussed by Thomas Coughlan in his pre-conference report, in which he suggests that “Labour’s ‘year of delivery’ is starting to look pretty ropey”. He compares John Key and Jacinda Ardern because they have both been inclined to “hoard political capital” instead of spending it on things they believe in – see: Jacinda Ardern heads to party conference ready to assert herself.

However, he felt the party’s popularity would mean discontent wasn’t likely to bubble up to the surface at the conference: “Ardern is winning wider political arguments and laying the groundwork for a long period in government. The sacrifices the party made in moving to the centre appear to have worked.”

Nonetheless, it was important for the party leadership to emphasise to supporters that the Government is making some serious progress on its agenda. Hence, the conference unveiled its new slogan: “We’re Doing This” – an update on the highly successful “Let’s Do This” from the election campaign.

Sexual assault allegations lead to a new party president

The other major negative that the party wanted to neutralise at the conference was the ongoing sexual assault allegations, which led to the resignation of the party president. Unsurprisingly, there was an enthusiasm for having a woman elected to the role of President, and Claire Szabó staved off a challenge from Labour’s Māori vice president and unionist Tane Phillips. Laura Walters reported: “Szabó ticked all the right boxes: her experience running a large organisation, her experience in Labour, and the fact she’s a woman” – see: Claire Szabó named new Labour Party president.

Szabó played down those identity issues in explaining her new position: “I think young women have played roles in the Labour Party traditionally, I don’t think that’s particularly new. The fact two young-ish women are playing leadership roles in the party is actually unremarkable… I think there’s plenty of precedent for two people of the same gender to play leadership roles in a party.”

For a backgrounder on the new president, see Audrey Young’s Claire Szabo elected new Labour Party president.

Szabó’s qualifications for navigating the party through the ongoing sexual assault allegation problems are emphasised by Henry Cooke and Collette Devlin in their opinion piece, Labour has a lot to clear up at its annual conference this weekend.

They report that the situation is the “elephant in the room” for the party, overshadowing everything else, as the official investigation into the matter continues. Cooke and Devlin argue: “Obviously having a woman – and a woman with serious experience outside of the party – would make sense as the party deals with the results of those reviews.”

The “nation-building” school spend-up

The big policy announcement of the weekend was designed to reassure supporters that this Government is still making progress on its “transformative” agenda. For months, critics have been scathing about Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s refusal to loosen the fiscal purse strings in order to deal with some of the problems in society such as infrastructure. See an earlier political roundup about the building pressure on the Government: Shouldn’t the Government be spending more?.

Robertson and Labour have shown they’re listening, committing to announcing both increased spending on infrastructure and on schools in particular. For the details of this, see Jason Walls’ Revealed: 2000 schools to get $400m bonus – what yours will get.

Not only is the Government making “the largest spend on school infrastructure in 25 years”, but it is also extending “the living wage to all non-teaching staff in schools, including cleaners, caretakers and grounds people.”

According to Audrey Young, such a policy will help the public forget about the rifts in the Labour Party, while being unlikely to get any real criticism from National: “If you were on the right of politics, you would complain that it is not targeted spending, that it is determined only by the number of pupils, not the condition the school is it. But is not one that you’d complain too hard about without sounding like Scrooge. She might not be delivering what everyone wants, but she is ending the year delivering the dosh” – see: PM Jacinda Ardern no longer feeling her way like some experimental PM (paywalled).

To get a sense of how favourably the policy will be received by struggling schools, see Tom Hunt’s article, Government funding boost for school like 40 fairs rolled into one. According to the principal of one Wellington school, the new funding would be “roughly 40 times what it made in a school fair. The money that would likely be spent re-cladding parts of the school before leaks started.”

RNZ’s political editor, Jane Patterson, says the school spend-up will be highly successful: “it’s a policy that will affect every community and families will be able to see tangible results, and in government terms relatively quickly, clearly a bonus as the party readies for next year” – see: Labour gears up for the 2020 election.

Furthermore, she says “it won’t do Labour’s relationship with the teaching sector any harm either”, and will allow the Government to argue it is part of their programme to “rebuild the nation” after National’s “nine years of neglect”.

There might still be some big questions about whether the Government has got the allocation model right for the schools. Although the total spend for the scheme might be calculated as about $700 per student, the funding is not actually being allocated on the basis of student numbers. Hence, it’s being pointed out that smaller schools are effectively getting much higher per-student funding than bigger schools.

For example, Henry Cooke and Collette Devlin point out that “Papanui Junction School near Turakina, which has a roll of 7, will receive the minimum of $50,000 – or $7,100 per student” – see: Government pumping $400m into school property, almost $700 per student.

Another Auckland principle says the funding model is mysterious, arguing there could be iniquitous allocations, for example: “The rollout’s just a little perplexing. You take a school like Avondale with 2700… they’ll be lucky to paint two or three blocks compared to a school of 580 which gets the same amount” – see RNZ’s Schools welcome maintenance funding boost, criticise allocation.

In terms of the bigger infrastructure spend – to be announced on 11 December – there is going to be plenty of disagreement about the best targets for funding. For an example of this, see Dan Satherley’s ‘Damn good idea’ to borrow, but money should go on roads – economist.

And there will be lots of other innovative ideas for where the money is best spent – see Alex Braae’s Credit cards out: Where all that infrastructure money should be spent.

Finally, the most colourful moment of the Labour Party’s conference in the weekend was the traditional story told by the party’s deputy leader about how “the coalition ending nine years of blue darkness”, and “preparing for the return of an election year taniwha”. You can read it in full here – see Kevin Davies’ The speech that delighted Labour.

Exactly a year ago, on 6 March 2018, the government census was carried out. It was a “digital-first” census, with citizens expected to primarily use the internet to answer the compulsory questions about their lives. And it was soon apparent that huge numbers of New Zealanders had been missed out by the exercise – likely to be at least one in ten. 

But we are only now finding out how much of a debacle that event was, along with increasing knowledge of the seriously negative implications for our society and democracy. And to make matters worse, there’s a distinct lack of political or bureaucratic accountability for what has happened.

A number of newspaper stories have been published today about the anniversary of the 2018 census debacle. The most important is Thomas Manch’s 365 days and still counting: Census 2018 results nowhere to be seen. In this, he explains that “The 2018 census data release has been delayed three times due to low response rate” and “Statistics New Zealand remains tight-lipped about when the long-delayed results will be available”.

The article explains that the census operation resourcing was inadequate, especially in terms of the number of field staff hired to help people get their census filled out: “Newly released information shows Stats NZ employed 1800 enumerators, or field staff, to knock on doors and uncover those who failed to complete Census 2018. This was a substantial drop from the 7000 boots on the ground during Census 2013”.

A number of economists and statisticians explain the growing awareness of the severity of the “shambolic” census operations. For example, University of Auckland statistician Andrew Sporle is quoted saying: “It’s a bit of a disaster, we don’t know how bad, but we know it’s a disaster.”

Sporle explains that the data, once it’s eventually released, “will provide increased uncertainty in matters from the Government’s wellbeing targets to the number of Māori electorates.”

Manch looks at the Māori electorates in another article today, Māori electorate seat at risk due to Census 2018 debacle, and says that, due to the way Statistics NZ have run the census, there are likely to be much fewer respondents reporting that they are of have Māori descent, which could lead to one of the Māori seats disappearing.

One specialist is cited as saying that although the 2018 census participation rate is estimated to be about 90 percent for the general population, “the response rate of Māori may be as low as 80 or 70 per cent in some corners of New Zealand”. In addition, “more than 20 new iwi won’t be properly counted” in the census, and this is a problem because “census data was particularly important for smaller iwi trying to do good with fewer resources”.

Societal consequences of the census debacle

There are plenty of other serious implications if the census 2018 data is unreliable, as is increasingly expected. For example, planning and funding for health and education is highly reliant on this population data, and some hospitals and schools might receive inadequate resourcing as a result. Much of this is explained in Cate Broughton’s article today, Health boards, schools may lose funding as Ministries forced to use 2013 census data.

In this, University of Otago’s health systems expert Robin Gauld explains how hospitals might be negatively impacted: “It could have fairly profound implications for a DHB off a $1 billion dollar budget – if you’re a per cent or two off, that’s $10 or $20 million dollars, the difference between surplus and deficit.”

The article points out that this is likely to have a particularly adverse impact on poorer communities, with Child Poverty Action Group’s Alan Johnson quoted: “What you will get in places like South Auckland is there might be 10,000 – 15,000 people missing from the count – well the DHB won’t be getting funded for them so them and everyone else in that area will struggle with less funding.”

Currently the problems with the census data means that government departments are having to rely on 2013 census data. In terms of schools, the president of NZEI, Lynda Stuart, says: “If they are looking at using 2013 census data then yes potentially schools’ [funding levels] could stay the same and yet communities do change so it’s obviously highly problematic”.

So will the census debacle have a negative impact on social wellbeing? Certainly, the Government is making much of putting “wellbeing” at the centre of Grant Robertson’s upcoming Budget, but there must be questions as to the credibility of an approach that emphasises the need to measure social indicators when measures are so inadequate.

Furthermore, the Government has admitted that Robertson’s Budget won’t make use of the latest data: “Crucial funding decisions in Budget 2019 will be made without data from Census 2018” – see Thomas Manch’s Census data won’t make Budget 2019. National’s finance spokesperson, Amy Adams, says that this is “highly unusual”, but the Government has claimed that they never intended to use the new census data in the Budget.

Adams has also asked whether hospitals and schools which receive inadequate funding based on old data will eventually have their correct funding restored and backdated once the new data arrives.

Electoral consequences of the census debacle

The other major census headache is the upcoming general election, which is constitutionally-mandated to be run on the basis of electorate boundaries being redrawn in light of the census. The exercise of the boundary re-drawing is carried out by the Representation Commission (which effectively involves the Electoral Commission and representatives of the Labour and National parties). But if they don’t have access to the latest census data, or if the census data is deemed unreliable, then the whole exercise could collapse or lead to messy court proceedings.

This is best covered by Henry Cooke in his article, Statistics New Zealand confident census data will be ready for 2020 election boundaries. In this, National’s Electoral Reform spokesman Nick Smith challenges the robustness of the likely census data for the election, and says: “It is totally unsatisfactory to be determining electorate boundaries that can effectively determine who will be the next Government on the basis of guesswork”.

If National doesn’t have confidence in the census data being used to re-draw the electorates then the party could take legal action or simply pull out of involvement in the Representation Commission, which would collapse the whole process. This article says that National want the 2013 census data to be used instead, and “National was not ruling out ‘alternative action’ if this did not happen”.

A big issue is the matter of when Statistics NZ manages to get the data to the Electoral Commission, which is currently unknown. National’s David Farrar explains the problems with the timetable: “This would normally have been September 2018, so we’d have new boundaries by March 2019 – well before the election. If Stats NZ can’t release census data before say December 2019, then we’d have final boundaries in June 2020. That would be a disaster. Selections would have occurred by then. You can’t change boundaries just three months before an election. Parliament would probably have to legislate to delay the new boundaries until after the 2020 election. Ideally new boundaries should be finalised before election year. That means Stats NZ really needs to get the data out by June 2019. Any later than that and it will create a real headache for the boundaries review” – see: The census disaster gets worse.

Blame game and unaccountability

Given the anniversary of the 2018 census debacle, there is now a renewed interest in working out exactly what went so wrong a year ago and who is to blame. Journalists have had great trouble getting answers on any of this, because both the Government and Statistics New Zealand have been uncooperative and uncommunicative about what has happened.

But with the help of the Official Information Act, Newsroom’s David Williams has accessed 189 pages of information from Statistics New Zealand, which help illustrate the process during which the disaster unfolded – see his must-read account of “a digital-first experiment gone wrong”: Bungled, costly census to produce less ().

Williams has also been seeking comment from officials and politicians. He says “Stats NZ said no one was available for an interview.” And the Minister of Statistics James Shaw is asked “about his confidence in the integrity of the census data”, to which he rather weasily replies: “I am confident Stats NZ is making every effort and applying as many options as possible to deliver robust Census data.”

And a Statistics New Zealand official is interviewed, who says: “There is no accountability or responsibility being taken internally for what is turning out to be the worst census in over 50 years.”

For a very in-depth and interesting account of the census debacle, see the Otago Daily Times feature story, And then there were nine, by Bruce Munro, which was published in the weekend. This is, so far, the ultimate exploration of what went wrong.

Kathy Connolly, Stats NZ’s census general manager, answers questions put to her about whether the debacle was a result of the previous National Government running down the public service and replies “no comment”. Was the debacle due to Stats NZ being asked to “Go do a cheap census”? Again: “No further comment”.

There is also great debate in the article between Labour and National politicians about underfunding and oversight. They both blame each other, of course.

Munro also reports: “What exactly happened is hotly debated, but not loudly. Most of those close to the action will not talk on the record. At an operational level, when it came to rolling out New Zealand’s first largely online census, several wheels fell off, they say. There wasn’t enough publicity. Statistics New Zealand relied on the diminished postal system to get initial information to people. There were not enough forms. Fewer people were employed to follow up on those who had not filled out their form.”

In the end, the results of the census debacle are likely to impact negatively on the marginalised of society. In this regard, the views of the University of Otago’s professor of public health, Peter Crampton, are reported: “those for whom good social policy is of the highest priority” will be undercounted. The result will be a worsening of their position: “If these groups become invisible in the census then policy-making becomes doubly difficult and some of the least advantaged communities are at risk of becoming further marginalised.”

The decision by Statistics New Zealand to slash the number of census field workers is “beyond comprehension” according to economist Brian Easton – see his opinion piece today: Census mess can be resolved with a new one in 2021. But Easton argues that it’s quite feasible for the Government to get a robust new census up and running for the early date of 2021.

Finally, have Statistics NZ staff been spending too long “checking their privilege” instead of checking the pulse of the nation? Just before Christmas it was discovered that the government agency had their staff carry out a game to determine who was ‘white’, ‘Christian’, ‘able-bodied’, ‘male’, ‘heterosexual’ and had ‘no speech impediment’ – see Dan Satherley’s Stats NZ defends hosting ‘Check Your Privilege Bingo’ game.

This month’s chart uses a correctly proportioned (logarithmic) scale to compare the growth of the average hourly price of labour in Education/Training and miscellaneous Professional Services with wage growth across ‘all industries’ (bearing in mind that most workers are employed in service ‘industries’).

We should relate this to my June Chart (The Future of Work?) and commentary, and with David Graeber’s analysis in mind (Why bullshit jobs are booming [Radio New Zealand], and On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs [Strike, 2013]). We note in particular that, while ‘bullshit jobs’ can be found in all industries – and there are signs that employment in many service occupations is being subject to a process of bullshitisation – Graeber’s bullshit jobs are heavily concentrated in the rapidly growing ‘Professional, Scientific, Technical, Administrative and Support Services’ industry. (This is the PSTAS – or ‘pissed as’ – sector.)

In this month’s chart, we see gridlines labelled ‘500’ and ‘1000’. The ‘1000’ represents a doubling of nominal (ie not inflation-adjusted) hourly earnings. Thus we can see that average hourly earnings doubled between 1989 and 2010. Likewise, they doubled between 1995 and 2018. (The increase from one gridline to the next is about 26 percent. Three gridlines represent a 100% compounded increase.)

In education, hourly wages barely grew in the early 1990s – the years of Ruthanasia, which culminated in the passing of 1994 Fiscal Responsibility Act. Public sector expenditure was ruthlessly (or ‘Ruthfully’?) suppressed at a time when official unemployment reached 11 percent and actual unemployment was double that. However, education wages did catch up in the decade after 1995 – the decade in which the international education industry grew very rapidly in New Zealand.

It was after 2009 that education wages started to fall behind again. In a couple of years in the middle of this decade, education wage growth was basically nil while some PSTAS workers experienced large earnings’ increases.

It is certainly true that education workers need a pay catch-up, and by more than the chart suggests.

Average hourly earnings is influenced by the average experience in the teaching workforce, and by the changing mix between teaching and management staff. As the teaching profession has aged, teachers’ average hourly wages have increased by much more than new-teacher wage rates. (The opposite applies to PSTAS remuneration, as the many new entrants bring down the industry average.)

Further, many people employed in the last five years within the education industry have been managers on six-figure salaries (many doing jobs that fit Graeber’s definition of “bullshit jobs” – jobs the performance of which does not augment social or economic well-being). The industry average earnings growth will have overstated the earnings’ growth of teachers, especially during the 2016 wage spurt.

One of the biggest problems that teachers face was well expressed in the well-received (in Australia) ABC Teaching Special Q+A television program (8 October 2018; downloadable; transcript available) was ‘demoralisation’. Demoralisation relates to incremental though persistent increases in the (essentially bureaucratic) non-teaching workload that teachers face (as in ‘if the students would only go away I would be able to do the work I am required to prioritise’). Essentially this unnecessary work overload is the ‘bullshitisation’ of the teaching profession, and is the deep underlying cause of teachers’ frustration.

More-and-more of teachers’ work is coming to resemble the work done in ‘bullshit jobs’. It means teachers are doing evermore work in total; overtime work they are not getting paid for. If we divide teachers’ salaries by the actual amounts of work they are expected to do, then the average hourly rate of teacher remuneration has been falling. Economists would say that the increased underpricing of teachers’ labour is the root cause of the shortage of teachers and trainee teachers. Add in excessive housing costs, and you have a profession in crisis. This is not a crisis that can be resolved through willful ignorance.