Luxon and Stanford visit 1980s, Shane Jones’ quick-bill method in madness – Claire Trevett

Anyone who watches Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford talk about banning mobile phones in schools will wonder if they have been overcome with nostalgia.

They are both gen.
Xers who went to school in the 1980s (a few years apart) and were clearly feeling a little nostalgic for those days before cell phones and social media came along.

On Monday, Stanford proudly reported that principals had told him that the joyful sounds of children laughing and playing at recess had returned since they banned cell phones, and that children were even going to libraries.

Out with notifications, in with hopscotch and books.

It was as if they had created a sanctuary from the 80s school environment and a pink version of it at that.

Stanford’s education announcements this week were overshadowed by several political dramas – from Green MP Julie Anne Genter’s complicated attempt to show National MP Matt Doocey some transport data to Winston Peters finding himself at the end of a lawyer’s missives by former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr.

They deserve more attention.

Stanford made its priorities known and followed up with its long-announced announcement that structured literacy would return to all state schools.

Many other countries have already returned to structured literacy. Stanford presented its case, pointing to evidence showing that structured literacy was effective and the low rates of eighth graders who are currently at the expected level in reading and writing.

It also plans to revamp the curriculum to make it more prescriptive and easy to understand. Even the Labor Party agreed that it needed to be clearer. This should make things easier for both teachers and students.

It is part of National’s attempt to get the education system back to basics, in the hope of improving student achievement. If that requires a return to the mores of the ’80s, so be it.

All of this sparked some debate in the education sector, including discussion over whether politicians should tell schools how to teach children.

However, it is likely to be welcomed by parents, many of whom were schooled in the 1980s. Parents are debating whether and when to give their children a digital device. They are worried about cyberbullying and worse. They know how they learned to read and may think that what was useful to them will also be useful to their children.

National also plans to bring back simpler school reports and some form of standardized testing.

The cellphone ban could test its claim that it would be based on data and evidence, but Stanford has so far resisted falling into ideological traps and has done everything it can to convince the education sector that it would listen to them.

While other ministers avoid talking about any issues that might be specifically for Māori, Stanford spoke of his plans to work with Māori education providers on a program of Māori education work.

She even revealed that she gave her cell phone number to some directors who contacted her and told them to call her to discuss any concerns.

Meanwhile, NZ First’s Shane Jones was busy with his own structured literacy project.

“Coal, coal,” Jones shouted, not very much and very loudly, during question time this week.

It was the latest in a continuous eruption of monosyllables from the usually polysyllabic Jones.

Despite appearances, Jones doesn’t have fun simply mocking the Green Party.

There is a method to their madness, and it is not so much to please the mining companies as to please those who work for the mining companies.

In a fortnight, Jones will head to the coal capital of Blackball on the west coast to give a speech.

He has chosen that location partly because of its history with mining, but mainly for political shenanigans: it was the birthplace of the Labor Party.

Labor Party leaders return there from time to time to mark that link. But in Jones’ opinion, the party is a far cry from what it was then.

He feels that he has abandoned his traditional provincial working-class blue-collar voters in favor of pursuing identity issues, has “woke” things and has become city-centric and union-dominated.

He has clearly determined that there is a potential pool of votes for NZ First.

Your job is to get them. NZ First needs a backup group of voters in case the ones it courted in the last election (the Covid angry ones) disappear. The 1News Verian poll released this week was not encouraging in that regard, putting NZ First on 4 per cent.

Jones is a former Labor politician who leaned more towards the progressive end of the Labor Party than towards the working class. The way he wants to attract voters is by creating jobs in industries like mining and in the parts of the country that once depended on them.

His vehicle for doing this is to be one of the Three Musketeers of the Fast Track Bill, alongside Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop.

Jones’ previous vehicle, the Provincial Growth Fund, was a hodgepodge of small projects scattered around. These were small amounts compared to the likely fast-track projects, which are quite large and will create jobs.

Jones has taken some opportunities to state his position in a more nuanced way, admitting that he has taken a theatrical approach when it comes to pushing for frogs to get out of the way of development.

He has said he wouldn’t do anything that would cause a species to go extinct, but he is “pro-human” and believes some creatures should deal with it if the cost-benefit ratio stacks up.

Meanwhile, National’s infrastructure minister, Chris Bishop, has stepped up efforts to try to quash some of Jones’ rhetoric.

The word “mining” has not left his lips. Instead, she has only talked about noble projects such as renewable energy.

Bishop has at least acknowledged that if something is not done, it risks becoming a continuing headline headache for the Government, as local communities begin to respond to projects they do not like in their areas and They question the motives behind decisions.

He has promised to consider changes. Surprisingly, she mentioned reviewing whether ministers should have final approval of fast-track projects, or whether it should be left to an independent panel. This was prompted by submissions raising concerns that ministers could be politically motivated.

It’s probably safe to say that won’t happen, especially since Jones wouldn’t give up his approval powers lightly and if NZ First doesn’t accept it, it won’t happen. If you don’t approve, you may not get the credit.

There will most likely be changes around the mix of ministers and the processes around how ministerial conflicts of interest are handled.

It was the first week of presentations on the expedited approvals bill. There were 27,000 submissions about it. Not everyone was opposed, but a large part was. Even some of the major players in the industry were concerned about the environmental effects (especially if they were the ones who took charge of it).

Forest and Bird appeared and warned that if the legislation proceeded in its current form, the Government would see protests like it had not seen for some time. Iwi and Māori groups were also concerned.

Several of the petitioners – even among industry bigwigs – thought that the Environment Minister or the Conservation Minister should be included in the group of ministers with approval powers. Among them was the gold mining company Oceana Gold.

As things stand, there are three ministers involved, all with portfolios focused on the economy. May the fourth be with them.

Claire Trevett is the political editor of the NZ Herald and works in Parliament in Wellington. She started at the NZ Herald in 2003 and joined the Press Gallery team in 2007. She is a life member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.