Budget 2025 – A Fiscal Hole Filled By Taking From The Most Vulnerable
Te Pou Ahurei | National Secretary Sandra Grey says 'the funding commitments made, even in the STEM subjects and those described by the ministers as 'workforce demand areas', fail to cover rising costs in the sector.'
'The shortfall of new money will be met by job cuts, increased student fees, and propping up the system by hoping more international students will come.'
'This is another example of a government that has created a fiscal hole, filling it by taking from the most vulnerable. They have done it to Māori by cancelling Whānau Ora contracts, they have done it to women by cancelling pay equity and now they are doing it to young people by making education unaffordable, and defunding subjects like arts and the humanities.'
'Instead of showing leadership by investing money in our future workforce, they would rather give tax breaks to landlords and tobacco companies.'
Craig Marshall, an Associate Professor in the School of Biomedical Sciences at Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka | The University of Otago, says 'it's regrettable that this should have happened and it illustrates a failure to understand what a proper education system is.'
'For funding on STEM to almost match inflation is beneficial but most universities would be looking at ways of ensuring that their humanities programes remain viable. If you don't know the value of what people want and how they intend to use it then the thing has little value. Humanities tell us about the way people think, which is something we also need to know.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
No need for bill protecting campus free speech, unis and legal experts say
Paul Rishworth KC says academic freedom is already protected in the Education Act, and the Bill of Rights protects free speech. Photo: RNZ / Alexander Robertson Universities and legal experts say there is no need for a bill protecting free speech on campus . But the legislation's supporters say universities can't be trusted to uphold freedom of expression. Parliament's Education and Workforce Select Committee has been hearing submissions on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No. 2). If passed, it would require universities to develop a freedom of expression statement and complaints procedure, and report annually on it. The Law Society told the committee the bill created "needless complexity" because freedom of expression was already protected by law. Paul Rishworth KC said freedom of expression was of the utmost importance, but the bill was not necessary. He said academic freedom was already protected in the Education Act and the Bill of Rights protected free speech. "So, to add in to the Education Act a requirement that there be a statement on freedom of expression, introduces a needless complexity," he said. University staff warned the bill would force universities to host speakers spreading misinformation and hate speech. Tertiary Education Union co-president Julie Douglas told the committee there was a lack of evidence that universities were limiting free speech. "What we have now is a functioning model which does not need this level of monitoring," she said. Douglas said universities were special places but were being undermined "with a disregard for science, with a disregard for evidence , with a disregard for expert opinion". "I fear that this sort of move by the government with this sort of clause is meddling in a place where it's just not required," she said. University of Otago vice-chancellor Grant Robertson and Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan appeared before the committee together. They said the law was unnecessary, but if it was to go ahead universities wanted to reduce the associated compliance requirements. "We don't think it's either necessary nor a proportionate response to the issues that are there," Robertson said. Whelan said a similar complaints system in the UK had been "weaponised". New Zealand Initiative senior fellow Dr James Kierstead said staff and student surveys and 21 separate cases proved that universities were not protecting freedom of expression. Kierstead said the problem included staff fearful of losing their jobs if they voiced unpopular opinions and speakers refused the right to appear on campus. "It suggests that university senior management cannot be relied upon to uphold their obligations to academic freedom. If we have plentiful evidence that ordinary academics and students feel stifled and no evidence that senior management is going to solve the problem, then legislation is the only solution." Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said the organisation was sad the legislation was needed. Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith He said students could cope with hearing challenging ideas and opinions. "We should not let a small group of students use their vulnerability... and work with university managers to stop other students hearing views that they think are dangerous," he said. "Free debate, free and open to ideas is part of being an academic, it is part of being a student and universities need to allow that." Canterbury University biological sciences professor Tammy Steeves told the committee should not be required to host any event or speaker . She said academics could judge whether ideas were robust and evidence-based. Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said the legislation was likely to backfire. "It will actually make it worse for free speech on campus, it will politicise it, it will mean that opposing speech on campus will become a political act because it will be seen as opposing the government and I think it will be bad." Geddis said he was on a committee that drew up the university's free speech statement and statement of institutional neutrality. He said translating those statements into legal requirements would be a mistake. "I don't think actually it's the role of government to be trying to impose views on how universities as institutions ought to work. I think that's a dangerous imposition into the autonomy of them as institutions." Geddis said maintaining a culture of free speech would be more effective than making laws. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Mayor slams councillor's 'attack' on Tory Whanau
By Nick James and Ellen O'Dwyer of RNZ Porirua's mayor says an "attack" on Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau by mayoral hopeful Ray Chung is disgraceful and not the type of behaviour expected of a councillor. Chung sent an email, seen by RNZ, to three fellow councillors in early 2023 recounting a story he had been told about Whanau by his neighbour about the neighbour's son. Whanau has declined to be interviewed, but in a statement said the claims were a "malicious and sexist rumour". "What's deeply concerning is that some of the individuals spreading these harmful falsehoods are now standing for election," she said. "Ray Chung has circulated a malicious and sexist rumour - a tactic designed to dehumanise, wear people down, and discourage good people from standing for public office." She said she was seeking legal advice. Ray Chung told Morning Report in hindsight sending the email might not have been the best idea. Chung said he had experienced abusive emails, text messages and calls for the last six months. Porirua Mayor Anita Baker has made public comments in the past about her experience of having received death threats and abuse online. Baker told RNZ that Ray Chung's actions were almost slanderous. "You don't attack someone's integrity, especially another mayor or a councillor and someone you work with closely over three years, I think it is absolutely disgraceful. "Whether it's true or not has nothing to do with it." She said that local body politics had never been as dirty as it was now -- especially online. "I've taken myself off social media and I do post but I don't read anything, it's become so vile." Baker said she would not expect behaviour like that demonstrated by Ray Chung around her council table. She believed that there was an increase in misogynistic abuse against female elected representatives. Victoria University associate professor in politics Lara Greaves told RNZ even just taking the politics out of the actions it was quite a gross situation. "I think if any of us think if we are in our work environment if such an email was sent about us how we would feel or feel about that going on for a woman in their life." Greaves said she thought there was more "heat" in local politics with topics such as the Māori wards, rates and three waters. She said that the spotlight was now being put on local government but through "dirty politics" rather than substantive discussion on issues. Last month Local Government New Zealand announced that it would provide a $4500 allowance for the home security of elected members following the upcoming 2025 elections. Anecdotal reports of abuse and the fact the security allowance had been established showed that it was a problem for mayors and councillors, Greaves said. She said that there was a high level of threat for local government while not seeing the same investment. Greaves said that fundamentally people should not talk about sex and colleagues and that the email was not something people would expect to see in New Zealand politics.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
‘Not just about cost': Why Ruapehu voted against bigger water model
'I have no qualms or ifs or buts,' Deputy Mayor Viv Hoeta said. 'I heard exactly what my community wanted. It was not just about cost, it was also about local voice and relationships with a council we know and trust and share the same values with.' Hoeta said community feedback called for a standalone water entity, 'and if we couldn't go it alone, they didn't want to go big'. The council's acting team leader of policy, strategy and sustainability told councillors larger groupings were the most affordable options because of additional scale. Aggregated water services with up to four neighbouring local authorities were projected to save users $38.7m through cost efficiencies in the first seven years when compared with the two-council model, Todd Livingstone said. Councillor Lyn Neeson, who is standing against Kirton for the mayoralty in October, lives rurally. She is not connected to reticulated water and therefore does not pay council water charges. 'I've invested $50,000 to get my water systems – rural people and small communities have to do that.' She did not believe cost savings would be as high as projected. 'I will be fighting really hard to ensure higher costs don't happen.' Neeson said savings expected from procurement bargaining could be achieved through collective council buying power, regardless of whether Ruapehu was part of a larger council-controlled organisation (CCO). 'A two-council CCO fully intends to make those procurement connections. It doesn't close down any of the opportunities for cost efficiencies.' She said being a 50% partner in a smaller CCO was more palatable for the community and she was proud of the debate and its outcome. 'This was democracy in action. It was a fundamental, directional shift from chasing potential savings to listening to our community, following the awa, following the community of interest and following our relationships to Whanganui.' Fiona Kahukura Hadley-Chase, who is also running for mayor, said pricing alone was not reason enough to choose a bigger entity. More important was a strong relationship with a council that was bound by obligations to Te Waiū-o-te-Ika and Te Awa Tupua (the catchments of the Whangaehu and Whanganui rivers) as well as agreements with each other. Her vote against the proposed four-council grouping was based on 'the weight of public opinion', including from iwi leaders. 'I would rather wager on creating and keeping good relationships with people who are interested in the Whanganui River and its tributaries and people.' Councillor Rabbit Nottage said two-thirds of the council voted against the four-council proposal, including the three Māori ward councillors. 'I was comforted by that. They are the voice of Māori and iwi.' Nottage said his decision took into account all submissions because there were concerns that consultation questions were skewed towards the four-council option. 'In my opinion, we made the best decision for the Ruapehu community. If people think otherwise, the elections are coming up in a few months.' Councillors Korty Wilson and Channey Iwikau also voted against a four-council entity. In a report to the council, an analysis of submissions during consultation showed 36 supported a larger water entity if it helped reduce long-term costs, with 16 opposed and eight undecided. Kirton said he was 'pretty gutted' at losing the vote. 'I thought we'd be able to get a bigger entity over the line, based on evidence that the bigger the number of councils, the greater the efficiency gains and flow-on benefits for pricing. 'The rationale of elected members suggesting that relationships and not pricing are more important is foolish if not irresponsible.' Kirton said the district's affiliation with the awa would not be compromised by a four or five-council model. Te Awa Tupua legislation would remain a cornerstone for council values. 'The relationship would continue regardless and probably get stronger.' Kirton said price did matter, particularly for water users and ratepayers who were struggling, including pensioners and people on benefits. In his report to the council, Livingstone said the difference between the two-council and four-council models in the first year was $4m, with savings of $14.5m across the first three years of a new entity, and $38.7m across the first seven years through till the end of the Long-Term Plan. A five-council model would result in costs in 2027 of $1488 per water connection. 'The four-council model is 8% more expensive ($123 increase) in the first year, while the two-council model is 67% more expensive ($996 increase), with standalone being nearly three times as expensive ($2589 increase),' Livingstone said. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
