For people blessed with privilege, their head start becomes so normalised that the advantages of wealth, better education, good housing, better healthcare, white skin and maleness are invisible to them. Many of them really seem to think their success has been self-made. Yet making good choices is relatively easy when since childhood, one has been insulated from the realities of poverty, hunger and abuse.
In an ideal world, people blind to social inequity should not be given the power to govern the less fortunate. Yet here we are. Among other things, David Seymour and his ACT Party minions are seeking to reduce the cost to business of making their workplaces safe, despite the fact that New Zealand’s figures for deaths, injuries and sickness in the workplace have long been far worse than those in Australia, and in the United Kingdom.
This week, ACT also appeared to be behind the drive to scrap the Ministry for Women, and the Ministry for Pasifika Peoples. In the past, people had fought and argued for those ministries, in order to ensure that the voices of women and of the Pasifika community were being heard at the heart of government policy-making.
Not anymore. To Seymour, the very existence of such avenues of equity are wrong on principle. “ACT has long questioned what is the purpose of a ministry for a specific type of person when all government services should be delivered with all people in mind… we believe that if anything, the emphasis should be on every department serving every person.”
This approach can only entrench inequality. The status quo happens to be skewed, and the ACT Party aims to keep it that way. While doing so, it continues to demonise any attempt to bridge the existing social gaps in income, health and opportunity. Some of these gaps have been the product of a colonial legacy that Seymour and his ACT colleagues prefer to think never existed, or that has no modern relevance. To that end, they seem intent on rewriting the school curriculum in monocultural terms.
The fate of the ministries for women and Pasifika peoples already seem to be sealed. Not because their work is irrelevant, but because the coalition government ignores it. ACT’s Brooke van Velden scrapped the raft of pay equity claims without even consulting the Ministry for Women about the impact this will have on women workers.
Footnote: Here’s a highly relevant example of van Velden in action. A few weeks ago, she announced that changes are soon to be announced to the workplace requirements with regard to scaffolding. (Construction sites are one of this country’s most deadly work environments.) She professed to have no idea what the changes will ultimately be, and therefore had no idea whether the changes would be safer, or what cost savings they might deliver.
How could she guarantee that this will deliver cost savings, she was asked, if she doesn’t know what she changes she will be making? “Because,” van Velden replied, “We’re not staying with the status quo. Its not going to be a good policy change if it costs more money.”
Wow.. So its good policy only if it reduces the cost of doing business. Reducing the compliance costs to business of work and safety is the government’s priority. No wonder people are worried we are setting the workplace scene for another Pike River tragedy.
Ignoring Māori Health
On taking office, the coalition government scrapped the Maori Health Authority. This was in line with its hostility to any affirmative action designed to bridge the existing gaps in social inequality. Last week, and in a report that seemed like light from a distant star, the Public Health Advisory Committee (set up in 2022 by the previous government) delivered the first major investigation into the determinants of health and equity in Aotearoa that this country has had in over 25 years. It sank without a trace.
The report begins:
A child born today in New Zealand can expect to live longer than their parents or grandparents, and we have access to medical treatments we never imagined However, our health system is overstretched and the wellbeing we enjoy is not evenly shared across our communities. Māori, Pacific peoples, and those on low incomes continue to have worse health outcomes than other groups in our country.
Those unequal outcomes are drastic:
A Pākehā (European New Zealander) baby boy born in Waikato today can expect to live eight and a half years longer than his Māori neighbour. Pākehā children can expect to live to 84 years in the northern region, seven years longer than Pacific peoples’ children, a gap that has increased since 2000.
How come?
Today there are some important negative influences on our bedrock, like racism and discrimination, colonisation, and the type of economic system we have. These create unequal access to fertile soil. In the same way, not everyone in our society has access to the resources needed for good health and wellbeing.
Those differences inherited from our history are not set in stone, the report argues. If the will is there they can be addressed, to the wider benefit of every New Zealander:
Closing the gaps in many health outcomes like communicable diseases, alcohol harm and mental wellbeing has benefits for all of us, as these have collective impacts on whānau and communities, not just on individuals. These differences in health are not fixed or inevitable. We can modify them through the social and economic policies and programmes we choose to implement.
Tragically though, it is the ACT Party that is driving the social policy choices being made by the current government. The Luxon administration seems to be implacably opposed to the state taking a targeted approach, and directing resources into areas of greatest need. Cynically, ACT is portraying this devotion to business-as-usual as an exercise in fairness and equality. Much of the damage it is doing will be irreversible.
Cracked Barrel wisdom
If you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, you might be unaware that the decision by the US food chain Cracker Barrel to change its logo has ignited a culture war between MAGA fans of the old brand and the rest of America, which couldn’t care less. Yes, the allegedly greatest nation on earth is tearing itself apart again, this time over a restaurant logo. It is not as if George Washington placed his order for Chicken and Dumplins (sic) under the hallowed old sign. The “old” logo was designed in 1977.
Here’s the difference.
The décor of this low-price food chain conjures up a bygone era of Southern homespun simplicity, complete with rocking chairs on the franchise front porch, candy sticks on the counter, and apple cider served in a frosty mug. Reportedly, the main shareholder of this “authentic”slice of Americana is not Dolly Parton or Willie Nelson. It is Black Rock, the giant multinational investment company.
Naturally, US President Donald Trump has weighed in to say that Cracker Barrel should go back to their old logo. Outraged MAGA faithful have denounced the new logo as the devilish work of the liberal elites. Like most culture war conflicts – and exactly like our current government’s crusade against “wokeness”- the Cracker Barrel conflict is all about re-defining the past, in order to control the future.
You have to ask, though. Why on earth did Cracker Barrel go upmarket with a sleek, cold logo when its whole identity is based on warm fuzzies and fake nostalgia? For enlightenment, I’m grateful to Restaurant Technology News for pointing out that “In an era where digital channels dominate, a restaurant’s logo is as much a piece of technology infrastructure as it is a brand symbol.” When translated, that seems to mean:
The company’s updated logo, a stripped-down wordmark replacing the iconic “barrel man,” was intended to scale seamlessly across mobile apps, delivery marketplaces, in-store digital signage, loyalty platforms, and social channels. Simplified marks are faster to load on mobile sites, more legible in small formats, and easier to adapt for future use in augmented reality or AI-driven personalisation. For a brand that operates more than 660 locations nationwide, those efficiencies are not trivial.
Got to love that “AI-driven personalisation…” Once again, efficiency is not your friend.
Outside, Heading Further Out
What we call “bad” music is usually a poor imitation bereft of effort and inspiration. Outsider music is a different kettle of fish. On these rare recordings, effort and misguided inspiration have been poured into the service of a vision beyond the ability of the performer to realise, or the listener to comprehend.
The recently re-issued compilation album Songs In the Key of Z brought together 25 of these kind of recordings, drawn from a variety of genres. We will never know what motivated Shooby Taylor to create “Stout Hearted Men,” or what he felt about the result:
Much the same chasm between ability and intent applies to the “Hot In The Airport” single by Y. Bhekhirst. Released in 1986, it could be a distant relative of Billy Idol’s hit single “Hot In The City.” It might also strike a sympathetic chord with anyone who’s ever had to sit in an airport for hours in the same sweaty clothes, waiting for a connecting flight. Stay around for the finale. The drummer sticks the landing:
“Jailhouse Rock” though. Can’t go wrong with that Elvis favourite, right? Over to you, Swedish guy.