Imagine a school having $800,000 in the bank.

Imagine all the things a school could buy with that amount of money.

This is a state school I’m talking about, not a Flash Harry private school that can put the call-out to the old boys and the old girls when it needs cash to do something.

So a state school with $800,000 in the bank, and this state school has to spend that money fixing up a cock-up forced on it by the Ministry of Education.

The cock-up I’m referring to is that disastrous experiment called the “modern learning environment” – where our kids have been the guinea pigs, forced into huge barns instead of your old-school single-cell classrooms.

And the school I’m talking about, having to spend $800,000 of its own money to get out of this ideological nightmare, is Shirley Boys’ High School in Christchurch.

Good on it for flipping the bird at the modern learning environment, but I think it’s crazy that the school has to dip into its own reserves to pay to sort it out.

I know whether it’s the school that pays or the Ministry of Education that pays, it’s all pretty much taxpayer money. But the difference is Shirley Boys' is spending money it’s actually got in the bank, which could be spent on all sorts of other things. That’s why I think the ministry should be paying for this work.

I’ve been anti this modern learning environment nonsense right from the outset. Which was pretty much straight after the earthquakes when schools in Canterbury needed rebuilds.

And what happened is the powers-that-be jumped on the bandwagon and started telling schools that this is how it was going to be. That, if they wanted classrooms, they were going to be barn-like structures with up to 200 kids in them.

To be fair, it wasn’t just the Government and the Ministry of Education forcing this one. There were some teachers and principals who thought it was a brilliant idea too.

I’ve mentioned before how I was on the board of our local school for about six years, and they got sucked into the modern learning environment frenzy.

In fact, they didn’t wait for new buildings. They had the caretaker knocking out walls left, right and centre every weekend, it seemed. And I thought it was nuts at the time and I still think the concept is nuts.

As does Shirley Boys'. As does Rangiora High School, which did the same thing. It cost them even more – they spent $1.5 million turning their open-plan classrooms into single classrooms.

But here’s what the principal at Shirley Boys', Tim Grocott, is saying about why they’re doing it.

"The level of distraction was just too high. There was too much movement going on. They can hear what is happening in the class next door. Particularly if something was being played on TV or anything like that. So that level of distraction was a negative factor."

He says the school did a formal inquiry into how the kids and the staff were finding the open-plan set-up and found that there was widespread unhappiness and so the school had no option but to do something.

So it started the work during the last school holidays and will finish it during the next holidays.

Tim Grocott says the changes that have been made so far have gone down very well.

He says feedback has been “overwhelmingly positive and instantaneous”. I bet it has.

He says: “The staff on the first day were absolutely thrilled. One of our teachers was hugging the walls in her classroom because she was so thrilled to have walls. The boys are just much happier too."

Tim says he thinks that open plan classrooms are a flawed concept that just did not work for his school.

Are they ever.

And the Ministry of Education needs to admit that and needs to front-up with the money to pay back Shirley Boys’ High School for the $800,000 it’s spending to fix up this flawed concept, and elsewhere too.

Or, more correctly, it needs to front-up with the money to pay schools back for the mess caused by this failed experiment.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John was joined by Matt Doocey and Tracey McLellan this week for Politics Friday.

They discussed the situation with Shirley Boys High School, who have spent $800,000 to move their school away from the modern learning model. Is it fair that schools have to foot the bill for this? The decision has been made around punishment for Te Pati Māori, does this affect Labour's view of working with them in future, and is there really gas to be found in New Zealand?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I love this idea the Commerce Commission and the Grocery Commissioner have come up with, of supermarkets giving us everyday low prices instead of the ever-changing, so-called “special prices”.

The supermarket specials that really brass me off are the ones where you might see meat in one of the fridges, and they’ll have a sign showing the price per kilo.

That means absolutely nothing to me. Maybe there are some shoppers who know all the ins-and-outs of prices per kilo, but I’m not one of them.

The other thing about specials is that, most of the time, it feels like the supermarkets are yelling “special special special” at me, but it doesn’t look like much of a special.

I’ll be the first to say that I’m in the lucky position of not having to rely on supermarket specials. That’s a financial thing, but it’s also because I’m no longer at a stage of life where there are three kids at home and where it’s not unusual to kiss goodbye to $400+ a week at the check-out.

But I’ve never been one of those people who buy their bananas at one place because they’re cheap and my mandarins somewhere else because their cheaper.

And, when I see and hear the ads about specials, they pretty much don’t register with me.

And it’s not just because I can afford to pay what I have to pay. And it’s not just because the supermarket shops are cheaper these days because there aren’t three kids living at home.

It’s also because I see supermarket specials in the same way I see cafes with signs outside saying “great coffee”. They can tell me what they want as much as they like, but whether I believe it or not is another thing.

The other week I went into Pak 'n Save and when I hit the fruit and veg section there was a sign telling me that the 99 cent broccoli heads were an amazing special.

I wasn’t that convinced because they seemed pretty small to me, but I grabbed a couple anyway.

But as I kept moving around the fruit and veg section, I saw another bin of broccoli heads —again with the sign saying 99 cents a head and “amazing special”— but these things were about twice the size of the smaller ones at the start of the fruit and veg section.

What was that all about?

And it’s little examples like that —as well as the one I mentioned earlier about specials being based on price per kilo— that demonstrate how much of a rort this whole “special” thing is.

So I agree with Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden who is saying that doing away with specials and having everyday low prices instead would be more straightforward and transparent.

He also thinks it would allow any new operators coming into the market to put real pressure on the existing supermarkets. I’m not as sold on that bit, because I don’t think there are any foreign supermarket companies interested in coming here.

But if he thinks that, that’s fine.

The only problem I’ve got with this idea is that it’s going to be voluntary —for now, anyway— whereas I think it should be compulsory.

The Commissioner says they’ll give the supermarkets a year or so to get with the programme, but I want to see this happening ASAP.

So does Consumer NZ. Its boss, Jon Duffy, says: “We know New Zealanders love a special. We also know there’s not much that’s special about supermarket specials.”

He’s spot on there.

He says: “Everyday low prices would benefit all shoppers, so would price transparency. Right now, it’s so hard to know what’s a fair price because the prices of certain goods fluctuate so much.”

And that’s the nub of it right there. If you go to the supermarket today and see all these signs saying special here, special there, all you can do is take their word that it somehow is a special.

And like the sheep most of us are, we think ‘aww, on special…I’ll get a few of those”. But how do we know we are actually getting the best deal?

We don’t. Which is why the Grocery Commissioner and the Commerce Commission think the days of the supermarket special should be numbered.

I think so too.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald this morning for their regular catch up.

In the wake of Raf Manji’s comments about capping rate increases, how does the Mayor feel about its achievability?

ECAN is making a case for a passenger rail in Canterbury – is it a good move? And is selling off Lichfield Street car park a wise decision?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am really torn. Because when it comes to facial recognition technology, I’ve always been of the view that if you’re not doing anything wrong, there’s nothing to worry about.

But, at the risk of sounding like I’m going a bit “civil liberties” on it, I’m starting to change my tune a bit.

Which I’ll admit is a bit weird considering the Privacy Commissioner has announced that he’s all good with the facial recognition trial that Foodstuffs supermarkets have been doing in the North Island.

But what’s making me feel uneasy is the potential for this tick of approval from the Privacy Commissioner to be seen as a licence for anyone and everyone to use facial recognition however they want.

Because there’s an outfit in Christchurch —which isn’t a supermarket— using facial recognition technology right now. Which shows why the Privacy Commissioner is also saying that, as well as the Foodstuffs trial being all good, we need to tread carefully with how this technology is used.

He’s not saying it outright, but I think we’re on a slippery slope if we don’t make sure there are better legal safeguards in place to make sure businesses and organisations —and individuals too possibly— don’t start using facial recognition however and wherever they want.

So that we don’t look up in two years’ time and realise that we’ve got a runaway train on our hands.

Which is why I don’t think Michael Webster giving his tick of approval for what Foodstuffs North Island has been doing —saying that it complies with the Privacy Act— is the be-all and end-all.

I know you would think that it might reassure me that I’ve been on the right track thinking that only people breaking the law need to be worried about facial recognition technology.

But I’m not so sure.

Because it’s not just supermarkets in the North Island giving facial recognition a go. The Richmond Club, in Christchurch, is also using it.

I’ve seen a photo of a poster on the wall at the Richmond Club telling users of its pokie machines that it’s trialling facial recognition software to help it keep an eye on problem gamblers.

The sign says: “The Richmond Club is currently trialling facial recognition software - however, this is only in the gaming room.”

The poster says: “Such footage is used in conjunction with our CCTV surveillance cameras and other publicly-available sources of imagery to assist in identifying individuals for a variety of reasons.”

And it goes on to say that it’s all about identifying problem gamblers and that all footage is destroyed when someone who has been playing the machines leaves the room.

The person who sent me this photo said they spoke to half of the people in the gaming room at the time and none of them were aware that facial recognition was being used, despite the sign on the wall. And they didn’t like the sound of it.

Which I can understand.

Because using pokie machines isn’t illegal. Even though I can’t stand pokie machines, they’re not illegal. Just like having a gambling problem isn’t illegal.

Stealing stuff from a supermarket is illegal, but going and playing the pokies on a Saturday afternoon isn’t.

Yes, the Richmond Club is legally obliged to look out for problem gamblers, but does it need facial recognition to do that? There’s no doubt it’s probably very useful, but I reckon the club could easily look out for people without facial recognition.

And I would, generally, say that using facial recognition to track people doing anything that isn’t illegal, is not what it should be used for.

I heard the Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster saying this morning that people are, generally, happy for it to be used to try and stop crime. But at the same time, people are concerned about it being misused.

He referred to a survey his office did which found that two thirds of people are happy to see increased use of facial recognition if it reduces theft and enhances personal safety.

But it also found that 49% of people are concerned or very concerned about facial recognition technology being mis-used.

These survey findings also said that 64% of people are concerned about not being told about or agreeing to the use of facial recognition technology.

So the Richmond Club in Christchurch is ticking the box on that front, with the poster on the wall telling people that it’s trialling facial recognition in the gaming room.

But I think we’re in real danger of this technology being used in ways that most of us would consider to be over the top.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Leeann Watson, CEO of Business Canterbury, joined John MacDonald to give a quarterly update.

Are we seeing signs of recovery in Canterbury? What would a commuter train mean for the city business scene?

And will the Government’s new approach to WorkSafe make a difference for local businesses and how they operate?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If there’s anyone who shouldn't be told they can wind things back on the health and safety front, it’s a New Zealander.

Because generally, we are absolute shockers when it comes to this sort of thing and our health and safety laws are the only thing standing between our “she’ll be right” attitude and misery and tragedy.

Especially when you consider that —even with the health and safety laws we have at the moment— our workplace fatality rate is 60% higher than Australia’s and more than 500% higher than the UK’s.

So a perfect time, isn’t it, for us to be getting rid of what the Government says is WorkSafe's “safety-at-all costs mentality”?

Just in case you think I’m a health and safety freak, I’m not.

But I’m also enough of a realist to know that, without these laws, more people would be going home at the end of the day injured or not going home at all.

Another reason why us New Zealanders are the last people to be told we can go a bit easy on the old health and safety is that we have very short memories.

I haven’t forgotten the 19th of November 2010, when the first Pike River explosion happened. I remember distinctly getting home from work that afternoon and all of us watching the live coverage.

That was what set-in-train a huge overhaul of health and safety laws because, as we eventually discovered, the guy who ran the mine wasn’t the hero we all initially thought he was.

Pike River was where it all started. And the government is setting out today to walk all over the progress that we’ve made since then – apparently because we’ve gone too far with it.

But even though I’m just as capable as the next person of shaking my head at some of the things businesses and employers are required to do in the name of keeping people safe, I’m not happy about the screws being loosened.

But what the Government has in its favour is that most people haven’t experienced the consequences of things going pear-shaped at work.

That’s why it’s so easy to dismiss health and safety as an overreaction. But I bet if you have known someone who has lost their life at work or if you know someone who has been seriously injured at work, then you’ll have a much more realistic view of things.

The irony is we’ve got the Government on one hand saying today that its crackdown on badly-behaved state housing tenants has worked

But, on the other hand, it’s saying that it wants to be less heavy-handed on employers who don’t do everything they can to keep their people safe.

Which is why the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke van Velden, wants WorkSafe to ditch what she’s calling its “adversarial nature” and to move from managing risk generally to critical risk.

But what on earth does that mean?

Do you know the difference between “general” risk and “critical” risk?

Example: is an extension cord running across the floor somewhere at work a “general risk” or a “critical risk”? The answer to that depends on the consequence.

If the consequence of a power cable running across the floor in the office is just a bit of a nuisance and nothing else, then you could probably categorise it as a “general risk”.

But if that cable lying across the floor means someone trips on it and they bang their head pretty hard on a wall and get some sort of brain bleed, then that becomes a “critical risk”, doesn’t it?

See what I mean?

The idea of taking the pedal off the metal and only taking “critical risks” seriously probably sounds great to many of us. But dig a bit deeper or even think about it for a few minutes and you’ll realise that it’s a huge mistake.

It’s a bit like Trump coming in and saying that all this Paris climate change stuff is nonsense and suddenly you’ve got people around the world saying, “yeah yeah, enough of this climate change nonsense”.

And the reason that’s happening is because people like Trump are giving people permission to go all climate change-sceptic on it.

Which is exactly what the Government is doing with its loosening of the health and safety laws. It’s giving people permission to go easy on health and safety, which is the last thing us New Zealanders need when our default position is “she’ll be right”. It is a disaster waiting to happen, all over again.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National’s Hamish Campbell and Labour’s Duncan Webb to discuss some of the biggest stories of the week.

The Government will soon be issuing fines to parents of repeatedly absent students – will this work? Is it a new idea?

Campbell almost manages to explain the RMA changes in one sentence, but what do they mean for New Zealanders?

And is there a place for more dairy cows in Canterbury, along with a passenger rail?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.