Christchurch's Mayor isn't swayed either way on a clash between city hospitality and food trucks.  

The Arts Centre Trust is applying for up to 33 food trucks to operate on the site.  

The Central Business Association says that's unfair, given businesses subsidise the centre and commercial rates are higher than residential. 

Mayor Phil Mauger told John MacDonald he sees both sides.  

He says with the museum closed the Centre will want to get money, but 7 days a week is a big shift. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Christchurch's Mayor isn't swayed either way on a clash between city hospitality and food trucks. &nbsp;
The Arts Centre Trust is applying for up to 33 food trucks to operate on the site. &nbsp;
The Central Business Association says that's unfair, given businesses subsidise the centre and commercial rates are higher than residential.&nbsp;
Mayor Phil Mauger told John MacDonald he sees both sides. &nbsp;
He says with the museum closed the Centre will want to get money, but 7 days a week is a big shift.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Phil Mauger: Christchurch Mayor discusses the Arts Centre's food truck proposal, a new City Council CEO, if Mayors should have direct reporting staff

I think the hospitality outfits trying to shut down the Arts Centre’s plans to have more food trucks on-site need to pull their heads in.  

Annabelle Turley from the Central City Business Association has made the bold demand that the council pull its funding from the Arts Centre if the food truck thing goes ahead. 

This all goes back to the city council not providing as much ratepayer funding in its 10-year budget as the Arts Centre had asked for. And so the Arts Centre accepted that and got on with the job of working out what it could do to generate more revenue itself.  

So it came up with a plan to get more food trucks on site. The idea being that it would bring more people into the arts centre and get people spending more.  

Which I think is a great approach. A great attitude. Because the Arts Centre could still be banging on about not getting adequate support from the council. But it’s not. Instead, it’s showing some entrepreneurial spirit and working out how to bring more money in the door itself by having more food trucks there. As many as 25, potentially operating up to 12 hours a day, seven days a week.   

Which has upset the hospitality businesses in town no end. They say the Arts Centre is going to compete head-on with their businesses with all these extra food trucks.  

Which I think is nonsense. And here’s why.  

If I’m planning to have a nice meal at, King of Snake say, just by the Bridge of Remembrance, do you think the food trucks at the Arts Centre are going to put me off doing that? Of course they’re not.  

If I’m in the mood for King of Snake’s Natural Oysters with Nashi Pear and a Black Pepper Vinaigrette; or if I’m in the mood for their Wild Venison Carpaccio with Chilli Black Bean Dressing - do you really think I’m going to cancel at the last minute and go for a wiener sausage from the back of a truck at the Arts Centre instead?  

Of course I’m not. But tell that to the hospo operators in town.  

Annabelle Turley from the central city business association says —instead of dozens of food trucks— they’d be happy if the number of food trucks at the Arts Centre was more along the lines of Little High Food Court. Which, by the way, would have to be the coolest food court in the world.  

But, to be honest with you, I think Annabelle’s argument is a bit all over the place. She says that Little High is the model the Arts Centre should be using, with just eight food outlets.  

She says the Arts Centre is being hypocritical because it’s always banged on about how it’s an important heritage site but now wants to cheapen it with extra food trucks.  

She says, because central city businesses pay rates, they are effectively subsidising the Arts centre to set-up in competition with them.  

And this is the one that really sticks in my claw. Because, ever since the earthquakes, a truckload of ratepayer money has gone into supporting these central city businesses. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.  

I haven’t been able to put my hands on a figure, but millions and millions have been spent. The council and its agencies have done all sorts of things over the years to get people back into the central city so that these businesses that are complaining about the arts centre have a better chance of getting customers through the door and surviving.  

Then there’s all the ratepayer money that’s gone into things like central city security patrols to make the place more inviting.  

Yet these hospitality businesses and the central city business association have the gall to tell the council to pull its meagre funding for the Arts Centre, on the basis of some wishy-washy argument that a few dozen food trucks are going to put them out of business. 

I think the hospitality outfits trying to shut down the Arts Centre’s plans to have more food trucks on-site need to pull their heads in. &nbsp;
Annabelle Turley from the Central City Business Association has made the bold demand that the council pull its funding from the Arts Centre if the food truck thing goes ahead.&nbsp;
This all goes back to the city council not providing as much ratepayer funding in its 10-year budget as the Arts Centre had asked for. And so the Arts Centre accepted that and got on with the job of working out what it could do to generate more revenue itself. &nbsp;
So it came up with a plan to get more food trucks on site. The idea being that it would bring more people into the arts centre and get people spending more. &nbsp;
Which I think is a great approach. A great attitude. Because the Arts Centre could still be banging on about not getting adequate support from the council. But it’s not. Instead, it’s showing some entrepreneurial spirit and working out how to bring more money in the door itself by having more food trucks there. As many as 25, potentially operating up to 12 hours a day, seven days a week. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Which has upset the hospitality businesses in town no end. They say the Arts Centre is going to compete head-on with their businesses with all these extra food trucks. &nbsp;
Which I think is nonsense. And here’s why. &nbsp;
If I’m planning to have a nice meal at, King of Snake say, just by the Bridge of Remembrance, do you think the food trucks at the Arts Centre are going to put me off doing that? Of course they’re not. &nbsp;
If I’m in the mood for King of Snake’s Natural Oysters with Nashi Pear and a Black Pepper Vinaigrette; or if I’m in the mood for their Wild Venison Carpaccio with Chilli Black Bean Dressing - do you really think I’m going to cancel at the last minute and go for a wiener sausage from the back of a truck at the Arts Centre instead? &nbsp;
Of course I’m not. But tell that to the hospo operators in town. &nbsp;
Annabelle Turley from the central city business association says —instead of dozens of food trucks— they’d be happy if the number of food trucks at the Arts Centre was more along the lines of Little High Food Court. Which, by the way, would have to be the coolest food court in the world. &nbsp;
But, to be honest with you, I think Annabelle’s argument is a bit all over the place. She says that Little High is the model the Arts Centre should be using, with just eight food outlets. &nbsp;
She says the Arts Centre is being hypocritical because it’s always banged on about how it’s an important heritage site but now wants to cheapen it with extra food trucks. &nbsp;
She says, because central city businesses pay rates, they are effectively subsidising the Arts centre to set-up in competition with them. &nbsp;
And this is the one that really sticks in my claw. Because, ever since the earthquakes, a truckload of ratepayer money has gone into supporting these central city businesses. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. &nbsp;
I haven’t been able to put my hands on a figure, but millions and millions have been spent. The council and its agencies have done all sorts of things over the years to get people back into the central city so that these businesses that are complaining about the arts centre have a better chance of getting customers through the door and surviving. &nbsp;
Then there’s all the ratepayer money that’s gone into things like central city security patrols to make the place more inviting. &nbsp;
Yet these hospitality businesses and the central city business association have the gall to tell the council to pull its meagre funding for the Arts Centre, on the basis of some wishy-washy argument that a few dozen food trucks are going to put them out of business.&nbsp;

John MacDonald: The anti-food truck argument doesn't make sense to me

Stop building houses in dumb places.  

That’s the message the Insurance Council is giving the Government.  

That bit about “dumb places” isn’t me paraphrasing, by the way. They’re not my words. They’re the exact words the Insurance Council is using after the Government confirmed that changes to the Resource Management Act are one of the 43 things in its final quarterly action plan for the rest of the year.  

And when I heard that, the first dumb place I thought of was New Brighton, in Christchurch. In fact, pretty much anywhere along that eastern coastline, but especially New Brighton and South Brighton.  

Because I can’t understand for the life of me why the city council has allowed building just to keep on keeping on in those areas when it knows that up to $14 billion worth of properties in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula could be at-risk from sea-level rise.   

We learned about that figure in October last year when the council made a submission to parliament’s environment select committee, which is leading an inquiry into climate adaptation.  

So, the Christchurch council says on one hand there are truckloads of areas that could be inundated because of sea level rise —about $14 billion worth of property— but, on the other hand, says yep, you can build that new house you want to build at Southshore. Or tells developers they can build apartments at New Brighton.  

And it’s just nuts.  

You’d think we would have learned not to do this years ago after the quakes.    

Because remember all the head scratching that went on back in 2011 after the big earthquake about why the council had historically allowed building to happen in certain parts of town? Parts of town where things really went pear-shaped after the quakes.  

But it’s coastal suburbs like New Brighton, South New Brighton and Southshore where there’s been a lot of talk about inundation because of how the coastal land dropped after the earthquakes.  

It seems to have been something the Christchurch City Council has preferred to pussy-foot around over. Increasingly so, as time has gone on.  

I remember speaking to Dr Bronwyn Hayward from the University of Canterbury, who has written some of the reports that have come out from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, and I asked her if she could understand why we’re still putting houses in New Brighton and South Brighton.  

She said she couldn’t understand it at all. Especially, when you consider that the council itself knows that there’s $14 billion worth of properties at risk of being inundated.  

On top of that $14 billion, the council also reckons road and water infrastructure worth about $3.2 billion is at risk of being taken out because of sea level change.  

But, despite that, the consents department will probably dish out approval for more building in those areas today. 

I remember meeting a guy who came around to do a TradeMe pick-up a couple of years ago. He’d moved down from the North Island with his family, and they were building a new house in New Brighton. He was really excited about it and I just didn’t know what to say to him. So I said nothing.  

But what I wanted to say was: “Why the hell are you doing that? Don’t you know it’s going to be underwater at some point?”  

And we know it is, because the city council has told us. The same city council telling people it's ok to build there. 

Stop building houses in dumb places. &nbsp;
That’s the message the Insurance Council is giving the Government. &nbsp;
That bit about “dumb places” isn’t me paraphrasing, by the way. They’re not my words. They’re the exact words the Insurance Council is using after the Government confirmed that changes to the Resource Management Act are one of the 43 things in its final quarterly action plan for the rest of the year. &nbsp;
And when I heard that, the first dumb place I thought of was New Brighton, in Christchurch. In fact, pretty much anywhere along that eastern coastline, but especially New Brighton and South Brighton. &nbsp;
Because I can’t understand for the life of me why the city council has allowed building just to keep on keeping on in those areas when it knows that up to $14 billion worth of properties in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula could be at-risk from sea-level rise. &nbsp;&nbsp;
We learned about that figure in October last year when the council made a submission to parliament’s environment select committee, which is leading an inquiry into climate adaptation. &nbsp;
So, the Christchurch council says on one hand there are truckloads of areas that could be inundated because of sea level rise —about $14 billion worth of property— but, on the other hand, says yep, you can build that new house you want to build at Southshore. Or tells developers they can build apartments at New Brighton. &nbsp;
And it’s just nuts. &nbsp;
You’d think we would have learned not to do this years ago after the quakes. &nbsp; &nbsp;
Because remember all the head scratching that went on back in 2011 after the big earthquake about why the council had historically allowed building to happen in certain parts of town? Parts of town where things really went pear-shaped after the quakes. &nbsp;
But it’s coastal suburbs like New Brighton, South New Brighton and Southshore where there’s been a lot of talk about inundation because of how the coastal land dropped after the earthquakes. &nbsp;
It seems to have been something the Christchurch City Council has preferred to pussy-foot around over. Increasingly so, as time has gone on. &nbsp;
I remember speaking to Dr Bronwyn Hayward from the University of Canterbury, who has written some of the reports that have come out from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, and I asked her if she could understand why we’re still putting houses in New Brighton and South Brighton. &nbsp;
She said she couldn’t understand it at all. Especially, when you consider that the council itself knows that there’s $14 billion worth of properties at risk of being inundated. &nbsp;
On top of that $14 billion, the council also reckons road and water infrastructure worth about $3.2 billion is at risk of being taken out because of sea level change. &nbsp;
But, despite that, the consents department will probably dish out approval for more building in those areas today.&nbsp;
I remember meeting a guy who came around to do a TradeMe pick-up a couple of years ago. He’d moved down from the North Island with his family, and they were building a new house in New Brighton. He was really excited about it and I just didn’t know what to say to him. So I said nothing. &nbsp;
But what I wanted to say was: “Why the hell are you doing that? Don’t you know it’s going to be underwater at some point?” &nbsp;
And we know it is, because the city council has told us. The same city council telling people it's ok to build there.&nbsp;

John MacDonald: Why are we building in dumb places?

I’m glad I’m not a teacher today.

If I’m honest, I’m glad I’m not a teacher every day. Couldn’t do it.

But I’m especially glad after this ham-fisted announcement by Associate Education Minister David Seymour that, if schools want to have teacher-only days, they’re going to have to have them outside term time.

Which is essentially telling the teachers that if they want to have any sort of professional development or training, they need to do it during their own time. They have to chew up some of their annual leave or other leave entitlement to do it.

Can you imagine any other employer trying to get away with that? “Oh yeah, looks like a great course, Shona. But you’ll have to do it during your holidays.” As if that would happen.

But that’s what David Seymour wants principals to tell their staff. And what makes this approach by the Government so ham-fisted, is that they’re only doing it for the people screaming on the sidelines.

The people who like to bang-on about teachers having 10 weeks holiday a year. The people who bang-on ignorantly about teachers only working from 9 ‘til 3.

They’re also doing it to grease up to all the parents who like to whinge about teacher-only days.

I’ve been there, done that when it comes to dealing with the inconvenience that teacher-only days can be. Just like everyone else, I’ve been a bit cynical at times about teacher-only days being held on the first day of term or the last day of term.

But, deep down, I’ve known that they are held for very good reasons.

Like everyone else —especially when our kids were young— it meant that we had to juggle things a bit on teacher-only days. And —because I’ve been there, done that— I think I’m qualified to say that, sometimes, parents can be the biggest bunch of whingers when it comes to school.

I can’t remember specific examples, but I bet, at times, I whinged with the best of them when our kids were at school. Some parents are more inclined than others to whinge - but we’re all pretty good at it.

And this is what the Government is responding to with this directive to schools to not have teacher-only days during term time.

And what makes the Government’s approach on this even more ham-fisted, is that it’s doing this at the same time as it’s telling teachers that there are a whole lot of changes on the way, a new maths curriculum —all of that— and, at the same time, they’re telling teachers to forget about having teacher-only days during term time.

But did someone not tell David Seymour that these teacher-only days are when the teachers are going to get their heads around all these changes the Government wants happening from Term 1 next year?

Oh that doesn’t matter. Sod the teachers as long as we’re getting brownie points from voters who, when it comes down to it, don’t know a thing about teacher-only days but “goddam it if I have to get someone to look after the kids after school because of another blimmin’ teacher-only day”.

I see this is being described as “a kick in the guts” for under-pressure staff.

Peter Thorne is the acting principal of Belmont Primary School on Auckland’s North Shore and he’s saying that it’s a kick in the guts because teacher-only days are the opportunity for teachers to get-together and focus on their professional needs and the needs of their students.

And what’s the problem with that?

What this is, is an assault on teachers. And they have every right to feel that way, especially, when the Government is dressing this up as part of the solution to the problem we have with truancy.

Do you really think that the odd teacher-only day now and then is getting kids into the habit of wagging school? It’s absolute nonsense.

<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">I’m glad I’m not a teacher today.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">If I’m honest, I’m glad I’m not a teacher every day. Couldn’t do it.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">But I’m especially glad after this ham-fisted announcement by Associate Education Minister David Seymour that, if schools want to have teacher-only days, they’re going to have to have them outside term time.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">Which is essentially telling the teachers that if they want to have any sort of professional development or training, they need to do it during their own time. They have to chew up some of their annual leave or other leave entitlement to do it.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">Can you imagine any other employer trying to get away with that? “Oh yeah, looks like a great course, Shona. But you’ll have to do it during your holidays.” As if that would happen.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">But that’s what David Seymour wants principals to tell their staff. And what makes this approach by the Government so ham-fisted, is that they’re only doing it for the people screaming on the sidelines.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">The people who like to bang-on about teachers having 10 weeks holiday a year. The people who bang-on ignorantly about teachers only working from 9 ‘til 3.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">They’re also doing it to grease up to all the parents who like to whinge about teacher-only days.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">I’ve been there, done that when it comes to dealing with the inconvenience that teacher-only days can be. Just like everyone else, I’ve been a bit cynical at times about teacher-only days being held on the first day of term or the last day of term.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">But, deep down, I’ve known that they are held for very good reasons.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">Like everyone else —especially when our kids were young— it meant that we had to juggle things a bit on teacher-only days. And —because I’ve been there, done that— I think I’m qualified to say that, sometimes, parents can be the biggest bunch of whingers when it comes to school.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">I can’t remember specific examples, but I bet, at times, I whinged with the best of them when our kids were at school. Some parents are more inclined than others to whinge - but we’re all pretty good at it.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">And this is what the Government is responding to with this directive to schools to not have teacher-only days during term time.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">And what makes the Government’s approach on this even more ham-fisted, is that it’s doing this at the same time as it’s telling teachers that there are a whole lot of changes on the way, a new maths curriculum —all of that— and, at the same time, they’re telling teachers to forget about having teacher-only days during term time.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">But did someone not tell David Seymour that these teacher-only days are when the teachers are going to get their heads around all these changes the Government wants happening from Term 1 next year?
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: repeat-x; background-image: var(--urlContextualSpellingAndGrammarErrorV2,); border-bottom: 1px solid transparent;">Oh that doesn’t matter. Sod the teachers as long as we’re getting brownie points from voters who, when it comes down to it, don’t know a thing about teacher-only days but “goddam it if I have to get someone to look after the kids after school because of another blimmin’ teacher-only day”.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">I see this is being described as “a kick in the guts” for under-pressure staff.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">Peter Thorne is the acting principal of Belmont Primary School on Auckland’s North Shore and he’s saying that it’s a kick in the guts because teacher-only days are the opportunity for teachers to get-together and focus on their professional needs and the needs of their students.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">And what’s the problem with that?
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">What this is, is an assault on teachers. And they have every right to feel that way, especially, when the Government is dressing this up as part of the solution to the problem we have with truancy.
<p style="-webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; margin: 16px 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">Do you really think that the odd teacher-only day now and then is getting kids into the habit of wagging school? It’s absolute nonsense.

Phil Mauger: Christchurch Mayor discusses the Arts Centre's food truck proposal, a new City Council CEO, if Mayors should have direct reporting staff

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips