NZ government hold line on Palestinian statehood
Tags:
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Diplomatic Merchandise: Exploiting The Issue Of Palestinian Recognition
They have been the playthings of powers for decades, and there is no promise that this will end soon. Empires and powers seem to come and go, yet the plight of the Palestinians remains more horrific than ever. Now, in the next instalment of the grand morality game, France, the United Kingdom and Canada promise to recognise Palestinian statehood at the September meeting of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. From the perspective of soothing the conscience, this is a mighty thing – for those in Paris, London and Ottawa. It does not save a single life on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, provide a single meal for a starving family, or rebuild a single destroyed school. But President Emmanuel Macron, and Prime Ministers Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney can all commune as a triumvirate of principled statesmen. Macron, the first of the three, had been making signals on the issue earlier in the year. The French leader had hoped that a UN conference sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia would be the venue for joint recognition, but it came to naught with the resumption of hostilities in Gaza and Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. In turning to the G7 nations, he hoped to amplify the urgency of recognition. In doing so, the onus was also on the Palestinian Authority to make certain concessions to add momentum. A letter from PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent to Macron duly came, condemning the attacks of October 7, 2023 by Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages and pledged the holding of elections and reforms to governance. Hamas – not that Abbas had any claims on this point – would also 'no longer rule Gaza' and would have to surrender 'weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian Security Forces, which will oversee their removal outside the occupied Palestinian territory, with Arab and international support'. On July 24, Macron confirmed in a letter to Abbas conveyed via France's Consul General in Jerusalem that recognition of a Palestinian state would follow in September 'in light of the historic commitments that were made' and the threatened two-state solution. On July 28, in his opening speech to a plenary session of the High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement on the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Nöel Barrot stated the 'prospect of two States, whose rights are recognised and respected, is in mortal danger.' But assurances and momentum had been achieved, with Barrot acknowledging the condemnation by the Arab League of the Hamas attack and the insistence by its members on the release of the remaining hostages, the disarming of the group and conclusion of its rule in the Strip. Of the G7, Starmer was the next to be swayed, but with a notable proviso: 'the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two-State Solution.' To this could be added the need for Hamas to release the hostages, accept a ceasefire, disarm and 'play no part in the government of Gaza.' In shabby fashion, room is left to withdraw the offer for recognising Palestinian statehood. 'We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps.' Carney, the latest addition, claimed on July 30 that the two-state solution growing from a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority had been eroded as a prospect by four factors: the threat of Hamas to Israel; accelerated building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including numerous instances of Israeli settler violence; the E1 Settlement Plan and the July vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank; and the ongoing failure by the Israeli government to arrest 'the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with impeded access to food and other essential humanitarian supplies.' The Canadian PM, in reasons almost identical to Macron, had also been swayed by 'the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms' in governance, including the promise to hold elections in 2026 that will exclude Hamas, undertaking anti-corruption measures and the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state. A resounding theme comes through in the latest flurry of statements: Palestinians continue to be lectured and harangued under the guise of humanitarian understanding, told who can represent them or not (a reformed Palestinian Authority promisingly good, Hamas decidedly bad), and whether they can have any semblance of a military force. 'Recognising a State of Palestine today,' states Barrot, 'means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.' Standing, it would seem, with a certain type of idealised Palestinian. The Palestinians have become diplomatic merchandise or bits of currency, to be gambled with in the casino of power politics. Starmer is the worst exponent of this, hoping for such returns as Israel's halt to the slaughter and famine in Gaza and the release of the hostages by Hamas and its disarmament. But the idea of Palestinian recognition remains, at this stage, a moot point. At the end of any diplomatic tunnel on this lies certain requirements that would have to be met, not least the criteria of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. Despite gathering some dust over time, it outlines the relevant requirements for statehood: any recognised state in international law must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a discernible government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In the UK, some 43 cross-party peers have sent a letter of warning to Starmer arguing against recognising a Palestinian state, citing such familiar, legal grumbles. There was, for instance, 'no certainty over the borders of Palestine' nor 'a functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies'. Neither could enter into relations with foreign states, with one entity having not held elections for decades, and the other being a 'terrorist organisation'. Despite the UK not signing the Montevideo Convention, recognising Palestine 'would be contrary to the principles of governing recognition of states in international law,' the convention having become part of international customary law. On the bloodied ground, where legal abstractions dissolve into fleshy realities, Israel is doing its level best to make sure that there will be nothing left of a Palestinian state to recognise. For Israel, the case is not one of if or when, but never. The machinery of slaughter, deprivation and dislocation is now so advanced it risks smothering the very idea of a viable Palestinian entity. Israeli policy till October 2023 was engineered to stifle and restrain any credible progress towards a Palestinian state, crowned by feeding the acrimonious divisions between Hamas and Fatah. After October 7 that year, the sharpened focus became one of expulsion, subjugation, or plain elimination of the general populace. Palestinian sovereignty remains, to date, incipient, a bare semblance of a political self. This egregious state of affairs continues to be supported, even by those wishing to recognise Palestine. In some ways, those sorts are arguably the worst.
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
NCEA changes: What led to Government's radical overhaul, why we shouldn't be shocked
The proposal does, however, represent massive upheaval for a sector that has faced its fair share of stop-and-start in the past few years and is a step away from the flexibility beloved by some in the education community. Education Minister Erica Stanford revealed the proposal on Monday morning. Photo / Alyse Wright The Government's proposal would lead to two new certificates being established for Years 12 and 13 that are more structured and subject-driven than the current standards-based model. Instead of students trying to grab every credit they can across disparate standards like kids in a money booth with paper notes blowing around in the air, they will be tested and marked on their knowledge of an entire subject. The return of an 'out of 100' and A to E letter grade is intended by the Government to be a clearer indication to parents, employers and tertiary education providers of a student's knowledge. The package is one of the most consequential steps the coalition has taken this term and will likely be remembered as a landmark moment in this Government's approach to education. Pending any last-minute adjustments during consultation, these changes will have a direct impact on the readiness of future generations entering the workforce and tertiary education. When the Government talks about tackling the infrastructure deficit, improving productivity and ultimately achieving its prized economic growth, there are, of course, short-term initiatives to get the ball rolling. But long-term, it's students in class right now who will have a lot to contribute. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who has spent considerable time working overseas and is known to be personally passionate about education, is clearly concerned NCEA isn't preparing Kiwi kids to be the top of class internationally. You only have to look at an OECD study released last year that found New Zealanders aged 16 to 24 had below-average literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills. The results have worsened compared to a similar study in 2014-15. Asked by the Herald last month about possible fixes, Luxon made it clear the Government was readying for a 'fundamental overhaul' of secondary school assessments. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has a passion for education. Photo / Michael Craig What led to change? This hasn't come out of nowhere. Stanford has been looking to make changes to NCEA for years, including when she was National's education spokesperson in Opposition. The then-Labour Government announced a programme of work to deal with various issues facing NCEA. It devised new literacy and numeracy co-requisites and fewer standards to refocus students, but there were delays as the sector asked for more implementation time. Stanford believed the change programme was 'fundamentally flawed' and thought simply making tweaks wasn't enough. After taking office in late 2023, she pushed out the introduction of some reforms. But the new minister didn't have enough time to halt the Level 1 amendments set to begin just a couple of months later. So she later commissioned a review by the Education Review Office (ERO), which found that despite the overhaul, Level 1 remained 'difficult to understand' and was not preparing students for future achievement. It said one option was to drop it entirely. That report was hugely influential and formed the basis for discussions about what to do not just with Level 1, but the entire qualification. Stanford told the Herald last month that ERO 'unearthed a lot of things that we weren't possibly expecting'. Over the following year, Stanford received more briefings, including papers from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) the Herald got hold of. They warned of a credibility crisis over 'overused' flexibility, a lack of coherent vocational education pathways and an over-reliance on internal assessments. They also showed nearly half of Year 12 students who achieved Level 2 last year did so 'without engaging in a full programme of coherent subject-based learning'. About a third of Year 12 and 13 students who achieved Level 2 or 3 relied on unit standards from 'disparate' subjects. Education Minister Erica Stanford has been thinking about reform since her time in Opposition. Photo / Mark Mitchell A more prescriptive approach While this was happening behind the scenes, Stanford was beginning to announce reforms focusing on primary and intermediate schools. This sequencing was important. Stanford believed to address issues with students at high school, you first had to start with the challenges facing them earlier in their school life. The Government instructed teachers to spend an hour a day teaching reading, writing and math. Structured literacy and numeracy was rolled out, while standardised testing was brought in much earlier in a child's school life. The actions showed the Government's prescriptive approach. Today's secondary school qualification proposal keeps to that pattern, rolling back some flexibility and replacing it with more direction. The Opposition sees this as the Beehive enforcing 'one-size-fits-all' and has argued the minister is moving too fast. But the Government thinks the 'back to basics' style is easier for students and parents to understand, and also simpler for teachers. Stanford wants an overall education package driven by consistency, with the hope children can move between schools and expect the same level of learning, driven by the same assessments and standards. Whether that works out will depend on how well the changes are implemented and if the minister is able to bring those in the sector along with her. Stanford is critical of how reforms were being rolled out under Labour, though Chris Hipkins – current Labour leader and former Education Minister – says they were disrupted by factors such as Covid-19. He believes Labour's work provided insights into NCEA's issues. Labour's main point of concern on Monday was not directed at the substance of the proposed changes, but instead around the uncertainty caused and ensuring teachers, parents and others had an appropriate period to share their views. The Post-Primary Teachers' Association responded to the proposal by saying while no system is perfect, the current one has 'clear advantages' over the previous qualification and no changes should be made 'for change's sake or political legacy'. 'The lack of adequate support for, and political flip-flopping on, NCEA means teachers are left trying to fill the gaps. We need stability and certainty.' Consultation will take place over the next six weeks, while any new qualification won't be introduced until the end of the decade. Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Hawke's Bay school leaders react to NCEA being abolished
Students will need to take at least five subjects and pass four to receive the NZCE or NZACE (rather than obtain a certain number of credits). For Year 11 students, there will not be a certificate offered – essentially getting rid of what is now NCEA Level 1. Instead, there will be a focus on literacy and numeracy (English and maths) and a 'foundational skills award' test for that year group. It is likely students who fail that test will still be able to advance to Year 12 and have another attempt at the test then, although feedback is being sought. Current Year 8 students, who start high school next year, will be the first cohort to go through the new system, graduating Year 13 in 2030. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the 'heavy flexibility' of NCEA was not preparing students as well as it could. 'Too frequently, students are choosing subjects simply because they are easier to pass rather than developing the skills we know they need.' Napier Girls' High School principal Dawn Ackroyd says more detail is needed, but is generally supportive of the changes. Photo / Napier Girls' High School Napier Girls' High School principal Dawn Ackroyd, who is also the Hawke's Bay Secondary Schools Principals' Association chairwoman, was generally supportive of the changes. 'The main benefit is it is much clearer for employers and clearer for parents to understand, and has a focus on the foundational skills.' She said more detail was needed, but the proposal was keeping good parts of the NCEA system – such as a mix of internal and external assessments – which was positive. She said her concern was around how much support schools and teachers would receive. 'It is going to be really vital for us to have a realistic timeframe for implementation. 'We need resources, professional development and learning opportunities to enable us to prepare.' She encouraged everyone in the education sector to provide feedback. Taradale Intermediate principal Marty Hantz, whose Year 8 students will be among the first to go through the new system, said National and Labour would need to be in partnership for it to work. 'From my perspective, and I don't think I'd be alone in saying this, we really need to have this set up as a multi-party deal so that if National were not to be successful in the next election it's not going to be flipped and flopped.' He said the school was 'heavily invested in our kids' and wanted certainty around future qualifications. As for the actual proposal, he said he could see its benefits, which could 'decrease the murkiness of what's been happening in that space for the past two or three years'. Tukituki National MP Catherine Wedd said the changes would impact her family personally. 'I have a child who is in Year 8 who will be the first cohort to go through the new system and will be in the first year of students to obtain the proposed qualifications – the New Zealand Certificate of Education at Year 12 and the New Zealand Advanced Certificate of Education at Year 13. 'I am really excited to see this proposed progressive change for the future of our Kiwi kids who deserve an internationally benchmarked qualification, which will set them up for success.' Labour Party education spokeswoman Willow-Jean Prime said the six-week consultation period was a 'short window'. 'Previous rushed overhauls have led to students being the guinea pigs for failed change – like national standards – so we must get this right.' Gary Hamilton-Irvine is a Hawke's Bay-based reporter who covers a range of news topics including business, councils, breaking news and cyclone recovery. He formerly worked at News Corp Australia.
