Speeding

Just got a speeding fine. I was doing 45 kmph assuming I was in a 50 kmph zone. We were on holiday driving a rental on a road unfamiliar to me, around the Queen Charlotte Sounds. I was taking it easy enjoying the views and pulling over to let others pass when necessary.

Who knew 30 kmph speed limits existed except for roadworks? But in a little place called Ngakuta Bay one does.

My fault for not keeping my eyes peeled for speed restrictions. But what a great place to put a speed camera.

At $80 a pop, it must be very lucrative.

(After consulting a map I sent an email to husband to say, sorry, yes, it was me - we'ed been sharing the driving. His response was, " It doesn't matter.  The whole thing is underhand with speed limits that aren't well sign-posted and systems designed to financially exploit the situation.  Fining us for going too fast in an area we aren't likely to return to any time soon and giving us the message well after we were there doesn't improve road safety as the accident statistics show. ")

Where the babies are born

None of the following is news to me but it's important and doesn't often make mainstream media pages:

Dr Pool said fertility rates were now lowest where women were better educated, had higher incomes and were more likely to be in paid work.
"In both Auckland and Wellington you have a central city/outer city divide," he said. "In Auckland it's Auckland Central and the North Shore versus higher rates in the west and much higher rates in South Auckland. In Wellington, it's Wellington City, the Hutt and Porirua in that order."
These patterns are partly ethnic. Fertility rates are highest for Pacific women (2.73 babies per woman) and Maori women (2.49), while European women equal the national average (1.92) and Asian women have far fewer babies (1.69).

Think about the consequences of that. Add in that the population is growing top heavy with elderly, that the babies born to the best educated parents are also those most likely to leave NZ and build a career elsewhere. Fortunately  many people also want to come and study/live here and immigration presents something of a solution if our politicians allow it to.

But it is crucial that the educational achievement and social stability of people in lower socio-economic areas improves. Less welfare, less taxation > more investment and more jobs. Not what the Greens and Labour call for - more welfare, more taxation > less investment and fewer jobs.

If the poorest people are going to have the most babies it is essential that their prospects, and their children's, are brighter.

Islamic State adherents promote social welfare

In the March edition of The Atlantic Graeme Wood talks to a couple of Islamic State adherents confined to the UK via passport confiscation:

Choudary said Sharia has been misunderstood because of its incomplete application by regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which does behead murderers and cut off thieves’ hands. “The problem,” he explained, “is that when places like Saudi Arabia just implement the penal code, and don’t provide the social and economic justice of the Sharia—the whole package—they simply engender hatred toward the Sharia.” That whole package, he said, would include free housing, food, and clothing for all, though of course anyone who wished to enrich himself with work could do so.
Abdul Muhid, 32, continued along these lines. He was dressed in mujahideen chic when I met him at a local restaurant: scruffy beard, Afghan cap, and a wallet outside of his clothes, attached with what looked like a shoulder holster. When we sat down, he was eager to discuss welfare. The Islamic State may have medieval-style punishments for moral crimes (lashes for boozing or fornication, stoning for adultery), but its social-welfare program is, at least in some aspects, progressive to a degree that would please an MSNBC pundit. Health care, he said, is free. (“Isn’t it free in Britain, too?,” I asked. “Not really,” he said. “Some procedures aren’t covered, such as vision.”) This provision of social welfare was not, he said, a policy choice of the Islamic State, but a policy obligation inherent in God’s law.

Social welfare synonymous with Sharia?

The 'stick' component of  'carrot and stick' welfare regimes takes on a whole new meaning.

Wait till Sue Bradford gets wind of that.  'Ruthless' and 'evil' are already a regular part of her vocabulary describing New Zealand's social welfare regime. She'll be lost for words.

A really bad look for Little

There are things that happen that some would dismiss as 'small beer'. But when Andrew Little was identified as somebody who commissions work, hires help, employs a person - call it what you will -  and then refuses to pay them, it's a really bad look. It immediately reminds every viewer of last night's TV3 news of the time or times it has happened to them and how frustrated and cheated they felt. When negative emotions are evoked the impression left is strong and lasting.

David Cohen wrote about an unpaid invoice in his National Business Review column last week, noting that while Andrew Little had been talking up small business and workers' rights, it made life harder as a freelancer when people did not pay their bills.
Mr Little said the invoice - for about $1000 - has now been paid, but refused to say whether it was after National's Steven Joyce raised the matter during yesterday's question time in Parliament...

Mr Cohen said he could not help but think it was Mr Joyce's question that prompted the payment.
"I think it's reasonable to surmise that after four months of prodding that the intention was not to pay it, so I can only imagine somebody possibly scurried to a computer and effected the payment."
Mr Little said the timing was not the point, it was the fact that he had paid the bill.

I once had a gang member offer to chase a debt for me. I declined, politely. People should pay up without  pressure being brought to bear. Any other scenario merely highlights their shabby, dodgy, dishonesty. Of course "timing" is the point Mr Little. It is going to be very difficult for you to keep throwing stones in the future.

"The relevance of drugs and alcohol in sexual assault"

A recurring theme on this blog is the incidence of false rape accusations. While forced unconsented sex happens, so does seeming consented but later regretted sex. It worries me intensely that lives can be ruined by false rape accusations, prosecutions and imprisonments. So the following (brought to my attention by my dear other half) was most interesting and worth sharing I thought:

The relevance of drugs and alcohol in sexual assault

EDWIN LEAP, MD | PHYSICIAN | FEBRUARY 12, 2015

When I was in residency, sexual assault exams were part of our training.  We spent a lot of time learning how to ask the right questions, how to be gentle and empathetic, how to gather evidence appropriately and thoroughly.

While many hospitals now have SANE programs (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner), I have never enjoyed the privilege of working with one of them.  I have, for two decades, performed sexual assault exams on my own.


In 21 years of practice, I have been in court (as far as I can recall) no more than three times to testify in a sexual assault case.  That suggests to me that one of two things may have happened in the cases that involved me.  First, the case was never prosecuted for any number of reasons (the alleged victim recanted, law enforcement felt the case was too weak, the story was good but the evidence was inadequate, procedural problems, etc.).  Second, the case was prosecuted, and the evidence was so damning that my testimony (separate from the evidence gathered) was irrelevant.  Third, the case indeed went to court but the story and evidence were so poor that no prosecution resulted, and it was deemed unnecessary to involve me.  I am not of a particularly legal mind, so excuse me if I have missed other reasons.

I was recently thinking back to a patient I saw some years ago, who alleged that she had been sexually assaulted.  And then I thought back to residency.  And I remembered something that always troubled me.  In residency, I recall being told not to comment, in my chart, on whether or not the alleged victim had been using alcohol or drugs.  I seem to recall (and I may be wrong on this point) being discouraged from obtaining blood alcohol levels or urine drug screens.  (In like manner I was told to note in the chart whether I saw live sperm in samples, but not to remark on their absence.)

Back to the case at hand: The patient I saw had been drinking copious amounts of alcohol and was clearly very intoxicated.  While I saw her, and law enforcement officers spoke to her, her story changed wildly from assault by multiple men to assault by no men.

Now, I ask you wide and gentle reader, was her alcohol use relevant to the situation?  When asked, “Who assaulted you and describe what happened,” would her recollections be trustworthy?  Would they be sufficiently lucid to possibly put a man, or several men, or a woman for that matter, in prison for years for what could have been consensual sex? And before you accuse me of sexism, remember that in an era of equality, both men and women are capable of sexual adventure as well as being capable of deceit and vindictiveness.

I believe that an alcohol level and drug screen was relevant.  Not in order to punish someone for substance use, not to “slut-shame,” but because like sexual assault, arrest, and prison are serious, life altering things.  And because one’s ability to recollect what happens clearly can be influenced by drugs.

If I were intoxicated and said that I had seen young man commit a crime, and if my story varied wildly with each telling, it would be evident to all that my impairment was an issue in terms of the validity of my testimony.  I don’t see how it can be any less in sexual assault.

Sexual assault is a problem.  False accusations of sexual assault are also a very real problem. But covering up reality to attain a particular end, however gilded our intentions, is never the right thing to do.

Edwin Leap is an emergency physician who blogs at edwinleap.com and is the author of The Practice Test and Life in Emergistan.

from http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/02/relevance-drugs-alcohol-sexual-assault.html

'War on the poor'?

The weekend's Auckland protesters are styling their latest slogan after UK counterparts. The UK Labour Party officially launched a 'stop the war on the poor' campaign last year.

It's a powerful, catchy rallying-cry but what is this 'war'?

Sue Bradford talked on TV this morning about "ruthless" housing policies.

These would be:
 

• increase the number of social houses provided by either Housing New Zealand or other providers
• ensure that those houses better meet the needs of tenants
• deliver Government assistance in a way that stimulates housing supply
• help more New Zealanders into housing independence when they are capable of making that transition.

It is certain that some people are finding they have to jump through more hoops to continue to receive a benefit as a result of welfare reforms but requirements like  attending parenting or budgeting  courses aren't unreasonable. The sanctioning regime was introduced to create consequences for failing to try and find work but it was introduced under the last Labour government which also officially recognised that work was the best way out of poverty.

In a Listener column last year I described some of the measures taken to address child poverty:

Many other practical developments over the past few years have targeted poor children. Insulation of over 200,000 homes; increased access to GPs; an intensive campaign to reduce rheumatic fever; boosted budgeting advisory services; low cost procurement of household essentials like washing machines; low interest loans to combat loan sharks; partnering with charities providing food and clothing to poor children; home visitation programmes like Early Start; extended income-related rents to non-government social housing; and Whanau Ora, to mention some.

'War on the poor'?


When I listen to Paula Bennett speak I believe that welfare and other reforms - especially those affecting young people and children - were based on genuine, compassionate and aspirational sentiment.

Protesters calling them 'war on the poor' is baseless and the "filthy Tory" rhetoric does nothing to persuade middle NZ to  their cause. In fact it probably does the opposite.

The more things change...Feb 9, 1935

Here is a piece written and published in the Evening Post 80 years ago.

FUTURE OF MAORIS
NEED FOR UNDERSTANDING
A MODERN RENAISSANCE

There is a widespread belief that no native,people have ever been so fairly treated by Europeans as have the Maori people, said Dr. I L G Sutherland, of Victoria University College, in a paper read before the Melbourne meeting of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science. If the story of .the contact of Europeans with native peoples is fully told it is everywhere much the same.

The  Maori people have survived, but this on analysis proves to be largely due to their own characteristics and their own efforts rather than to any specially favoured mode of treatment.Themselves immigrants from Central Polynesia, they had already proved that they were strikingly adaptable before they had to face the task of adaptation to European civilisation

The first European observers of the Maori were shocked by some of their customs, but the splendid physique of the race, their intelligence, and their dignity and grace of bearing were so impressive that again and again we find the chiefs and the people as a whole described them as noble.

MIND AND CULTURE. Present-day psychology makes it clear that since mind and character are so largely constituted and determined by culture and its institutions, when culture is progressively destroyed minds disintegrate. Their reintegration in terms of the new and more complex culture or in terms of a com- promise between the new and the old is a difficult process With the coming of Europeans, at one bound the ideas of the Maoris became enormously extended and their established equilibrium at once disturbed The outstanding first result of the coming of Europeans was a great intensification of inter-tribal warfare and a fearful slaughter of Maori by Maori

The story of the subsequent conflict of Maori and .European is one of a struggle for the ownership of the land of the country At first the Maoris largely received the useful white man and adopted, his ways, but they were quick to see the threat to their natural existence of organised settlement. By the sixties of last, century they were feeling the disintegrating effects of the loss of their own ways of life and feared that they were in danger of national submergence. But land sales were insisted upon and war was the result. When the  Maoris were defeated wholesale confiscations took place ,

LOST LEADERS. When the wars were finally concluded in the early-seventies most of the tribes were in a mood of utter defeat. They had suffered outward .and also inner defeat. With the loss of their ancient religion in particular the people felt that they were destroyed. The leadership of the chiefs had always been an important feature of Maori society, and this had been lost and nothing put in its place. Characteristics actually resulting from the destruction of Native culture were now assumed to be inherent in the people and the Maoris were blamed for becoming what the white man had made them.

The extinction of the race was for a long time predicted and their numbers fell as low as 40,000. The present day shows an astonishing change. The Maori population is now 73,000, though probably only half of this number is of full blood. Their rate of increase  is now greater than that of the European population.. The Maoris will not be rapidly-absorbed or assimilated as is often stated Their present renewal of life is largely the result of their own efforts through the re-emergence of leadership m the form Of the Young Maori Party. 

One knows of no other instance of a native people, so largely dispossessed and destroyed setting to work to regenerate itself and adjust itself to new demands. 

THE FARM SCHEMES. In the Young Maori Party the moving spirit has been Sir Apirana  Ngata. The farm schemes initiated by him are of the greatest significance for the future of the Maori people. They have no aptitude nor inclination for commerce and their future is on the land. Already 8000 persons are involved in the schemes. Maori economic life will approximate to that of Europeans, but their mental and social life will for a long time in many ways remain distinct. Many features of Maori artistic and social life persist and others are deliberately revived.  Maori leaders are consciously aiming at some degree of Maori individuality. Maoris cannot really be Europeans and there is. no good reason why they should try. There are two races in New Zealand and there are likely to be for some time to come. Good will towards the Maoris is shown by the European majority but thf»re is need for more understanding. The Maoris cannot be a self-respecting people if they are regarded only as museum objects or as a show for tourists. They are a living and increasing people whose experience has been on the whole a bitter one and who have been making their own efforts at 
renewal and adjustment.

Unfortunately this was written on the eve of the great exodus from the land to towns and cities. Maori could not derive their economic parity with Europeans from farming.

The further difficulty is for those people who were the product of both races. If, "Maoris cannot really be Europeans" the reverse is also true. Which world do the children of Maori and NZ Europeans move in?

The question of leadership is as pertinent today but Maori leadership itself is riven.

So while some of the above has familiar overtones, much of the prediction was wrong. And to indulge my own theory, the prediction about achieving economic parity would have had a better chance without government hand-outs in the form of benefits.

 

John Key's wish for 2040

In his Waitangi Day speech, before he mentioned wanting to change the flag - the only aspect of his speech I heard reported - John Key talked about the progress he wants for Maori:

I also think we’re maturing together, as a nation.
Nowadays, almost every time people sing God Defend New Zealand – at a school, at a sports match or a formal ceremony – we sing it in both Māori and English.
It wasn’t always that way – only in the past 15 years has it become widespread.
New Zealanders just started doing it, because it felt right.
It feels like the right kind of representation of who we are as a nation.
It’s the type of understated change that appears small, but one I think speaks volumes about how we have grown.
So in 25 years’ time, when New Zealand celebrates 200 years of nationhood, there are some changes I’d like to see.
In 2040, every willing and able iwi will be settled.
In 2040, all Māori owned land will be far better utilised, delivering jobs and prosperity, particularly for those in regional areas.
And in 2040, I want to see the disparity in educational achievement eliminated.
For young Māori, this means really digging in to lift achievement.
For the Government, it means ensuring our education system works for all students. It also means developing initiatives to support young people and families in other areas.
Like free doctors’ visits for under-13s.
Like subsidising early childhood education.
And getting our schools, social organisations and law enforcement agencies to work together so children don’t stumble into a life of petty crime or welfare dependency.
Governments can’t make these changes by themselves.
We also need to get alongside families and give them the right support. It’s not just about throwing money at a problem.
Because you can’t buy the dedication of communities who want to rid their streets of drugs and crime.
And you can’t buy the dedication of a mother who is trying to keep her 14-year-old son in school.
When you give families what they actually need, great changes can happen.
Māori children, for example, are now being immunised at nearly double the rate they were in 2007. So I’ve no doubt the willingness – and the ability – to chase success in education is there, with the right support.

Because welfare dependency got a mention I thought I'd look at Maori statistics.

5 years ago 31.4 percent of people on benefit were Maori. Today it is 34.5 percent. Over a third of working-age people on welfare are Maori, yet Maori make up just 15 percent of the total population.

The Maori working age (18-64) population is 386,360 with 106,567 on welfare - 27.6 percent. High but it's been worse.

There are 37,275 Maori on Sole Parent Support compared to 32,378 NZ European.

Roughly, Maori are three times as likely to rely on welfare than non-Maori.

As well as aiming for the "elimination of disparity in educational achievement" by 2040, the elimination of disparity in welfare dependence would be a great thing. Perhaps the second will follow the first. I hope I am around to see it.

Morgan gets it in the ear from the Left

Yesterday I wrote, when questioning why only 19 people were interested in Gareth Morgan's meeting, "[perhaps] the Maori that Morgan would curry favour with don't want him on their case." I might extend that to left-wingers.  LudditeJourno writes for a left-wing feminist site and this is exactly the sort of reaction I expected:

When the media could be covering incredible orators with vast knowledge like Moana Jackson and Annette Sykes, when they could be asking young Māori what Te Tiriti means to them, when they could be approaching Pākehā historians like Anne Salmond or James Belich to educate us, to expand our views, to move us on, they are trailing around after a bloke who doesn't like cats.

No disrespect Mr Morgan, but check your privilege here.  I don't actually like the things you are saying - I think they are cloaked in dangerous, racist discourses like one law for all and Treaty industry - but as importantly, I don't like the fact you are taking advantage of your privilege to influence public debate on a topic you are ill-qualified to comment.  Perhaps you could use your influence to help ensure we hear the voices of people who have dedicated their lives to understanding Te Tiriti and colonisation?

The divergence between public and scientist's thinking

Fascinating infographic from the Scientific American  shows  big gaps between what scientists believe and what the public think. Jeepers. A lot of people (both public and scientists) must spend a lot of time worrying. I never give food safety, human evolution, nuclear power, world population growth, space exploration funding, offshore drilling or fracking more than a passing thought. When inexpert I tend to trust scientific consensus. A poll of difference between what the public and social scientists think would be more up my alley.

 

The Morgan flop

What went wrong with Gareth Morgan's plan to re-educate those people who 'ignorantly' share in what he calls 'Brash-think'? Only 19 people turned up at Orewa. Apparently that number was matched by the media presence.

Morgan got the pre-publicity through Monday's NZ Herald. Then Sean Plunket picked it up and got Don Brash on his show to talk about whether his views had changed in the interim. Later Morgan was a guest on the Mau/Jackson show (though I didn't listen so can't confirm that.) Next Morgan invites Brash to Orewa which should set up a showdown guaranteed to attract hundreds.

If you saw him on TV3 last night - during the news, then on Campbell Live - you were watching a very disgruntled man. Made even more glaring by Don's usual imperturbability and good humour.

Whereas Morgan was sniping at Brash's political appeal to ACT, United Future and NZ First types (code for red-necks) Brash expressed his view that for Maori to get ahead reformed: education, welfare and land ownership were key. I am also pretty sure that after a shot of Gareth and Don chatting amiably 'off-camera' the next offering was Morgan describing Brash and similar thinkers as 'racist' out in the car park.

Declaring my bias, I do not like Gareth Morgan. My own personal experience of him left me suspecting his motives.

Perhaps he has become over-exposed? Perhaps his popularity and influence are wearing thin. Or perhaps those of us who think like Brash are tired of arguing about it and stayed away. And the Maori that Morgan would curry favour with don't want him on their case. You may have your own answer. I'd be interested.

The following are the Brash speech notes:

NOTES FOR REPLYING TO GARETH MORGAN, 4 FEBRUARY 2015

Thanks for inviting me here today, and for the opportunity to comment on what Gareth has said.  I didn’t see the speech in advance of course, so these comments are just immediate reactions based partly on what Gareth said a few days ago in a speech to a Ngapuhi audience.

Let me say first that there are some of Gareth’s views with which I agree.  He said in his Ngapuhi speech that he is opposed to separate Maori electorates, Maori wards (and by implication the Maori Statutory Board in Auckland) and quotas for Maori in educational institutions.  Granting any group special rights is contrary to Article 3 of the Treaty he said, and I totally agree with that.

It’s also patronising, and implies that Maori aren’t quite competent enough to have their voices heard in the political arena without a special leg up.  Of course that is nonsense: when I was in Parliament, there were 21 Maori in Parliament – roughly the same percentage of Members of Parliament as Maori are in the wider population – only seven of them elected in the Maori electorates.  The other 14 were elected in general constituencies or were placed in a winnable position on a party’s list.

Similarly in Auckland: the first election of councillors after the super-city was established in 2010 saw three people of Maori descent elected – not in Maori wards but on their own merits – and again three Maori out of a total of 20 councillors meant that Maori on the Council were in roughly the same proportion as Maori in the general population.

But as explained in his Ngapuhi speech his basic position seems to be that –

“.. the Treaty is whatever a reasonable person’s view of the following four taken together leads them to – not any one taken in isolation, but all taken together:

1)      Treaty of Waitangi

2)      Te Tiriti O Waitangi

3)      Principles of the Treaty

4)      Post-1975 Consensus on the Treaty.”

And I think that that is a nonsense.  The so-called principles of the Treaty have often been referred to, frequently in legislation, but have never to my knowledge been fully explained, let alone agreed.  And to refer to a “post-1975 consensus on the Treaty” is again a meaningless concept – I know of no such consensus, and the whole reason for the ongoing debate is that there is no consensus about what the Treaty means, or should mean.

In one of his Herald articles recently he talked about Maori having a partnership with the Crown, making us, in his words, “one nation, two peoples”.  I also think this is nonsense, Lord Cooke notwithstanding.  The idea that Governor Hobson envisaged the British Crown – the representation of the most advanced country in the world at the time – forming a partnership with a disparate group of Maori chiefs who were, at that time, scarcely out of the Stone Age, is ludicrous.

So I disagree with Gareth’s starting point, and as a result I disagree with many of his conclusions. 

I think making the teaching of te reo compulsory in primary school, as he advocates, would be a complete waste of valuable teaching time for most New Zealand children, many of whom can’t even read and write well in English – which is not just the dominant language of New Zealand but is also the dominant language of the whole world.  Being able to read and write in English is of fundamental importance to all New Zealanders, whatever their ancestry.  And yes, there may be merits in terms of brain development in learning a second language at an early age, but if a second language is to be learnt it should be one which would be of benefit in the wider world, such as Mandarin or Spanish.  (Interestingly, I took part in a Maori TV programme a few years ago, on a panel of six people discussing whether te reo should be a compulsory subject in primary school.  Even though I was the only non-Maori on the panel, the panel voted by clear majority against making the teaching of te reo compulsory.)

And the idea of having an Upper House with 50% of its members being Maori strikes me as utterly absurd, and totally at odds with any concept of democracy.

Many of our problems today stem from the way in which Te Tiriti O Waitangi – the real Treaty, which Maori chiefs signed – has been reinterpreted to suit the desires of modern-day revisionists.  But its meaning is totally unambiguous.

The first clause involved Maori chiefs ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, completely and forever.  And there can be not the slightest doubt about that.  That Maori chiefs understood that at the time is abundantly clear from the speeches made by the chiefs themselves, both those in favour of signing and those opposed to it.  This was further confirmed by a large number of chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860, and confirmed again by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1920.

The third article of the Treaty provided that all Maori – “tangata Maori, katoa o Nu Tirani” – should receive full citizenship rights – and this included the many slaves of other Maori, most being held in abject conditions and often the victims of cannibal feasts.  Today, we tend to see this clause as no big deal but in 1840 it was an extraordinary thing for the Queen’s representatives to offer – nothing similar happened for the Australian aborigines, or the American Indians.   All Maori, no matter their status, were offered the “rights and privileges of British subjects”, putting them on a par with every other British subject – not, it may be noted, ahead of other British subjects but on a par with them.

The second clause is what has caused so much angst.  Actually, the clause is redundant since all it does is guarantee the right of citizens to own private property, and British subjects have this right anyway.   But note that the guarantee was made to all the people of New Zealand – “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” – in clear distinction to the third article which specifically applied only to Maori – and “all” means “all”.  In other words, rights of ownership were guaranteed to all New Zealanders, not just to those with one or more Maori ancestors.

There is ongoing debate about what “tino rangatiratanga” meant at the time but it is impossible to believe it meant what modern-day revisionists try to take it to mean.  Why on earth would Hobson have asked Maori chiefs to sign a Treaty involving the complete cession of sovereignty in the first clause if the second clause contradicted that first clause?

Let me say that I have always supported the payment of compensation by the Crown to any New Zealander, Maori or non-Maori, who can establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that their property has been illegally confiscated by the Crown.  There are clearly suspicions that some of the claims which have been settled in recent times have in fact been settled on several previous occasions, and that brings the settlement process into disrepute.  But in principle nobody can object to the Crown paying compensation to any New Zealander whose property has been illegally confiscated.

So in summary, I like the Treaty: it is a very simple document recording the cession of sovereignty by the Maori chiefs who signed it; extending to them in return the full rights of British subjects; and guaranteeing to all New Zealanders the right to own property.

But it does not require us all to learn te reo; it does not provide for separate Maori electorates or Maori wards; it does not give Maori a power to veto RMA resource consents; it does not give Maori any preferential rights over natural resources; and it certainly provides no basis for an Upper House with half its members being Maori.

Don Brash

Orewa, 4 February 2015

One more disadvantage single parents face

Statistics NZ released some interesting data yesterday about access to the internet and transport. Relevant to my area of interest is this:

One-parent households are the most likely to have no access to a motor vehicle. 

I've had a car since I could drive. When we started our family we purchased my car from the company I'd worked for. I'd had it since new and so its history was known to me. My car and my dog (who constantly travelled in it with me) were an extension of self. Having children made having a car even more essential. Not having a vehicle would be, for me, an isolating experience.

This is just one more disadvantage single parents have to face. In general it will limit their children's opportunities and experiences. It's not hard to imagine how being carless even puts them at greater risk.

I've banged on about single parents for a long time now. It's not personal. It's about this idiot welfare system that subsidises a family structure which doesn't serve the interests of their children.

I am incredibly thankful that the teenage birth rate is dropping because that is the source of many single parent families. Long may the trend continue to be a positive one.

Quote of the Day

 From the NZ Herald:

"I don't think we should help Maori more because they happen to be Maori. That to me is a nonsense. Some Maori are as affluent as I am. Some could be more affluent than I am. Help them because they need help."

Don Brash

Social worker registration

For a number of years the Left has  demanded that all social workers be compulsorily  registered. The new Social Development spokesperson for Labour has some 'shocking' statistics:

“Since the system of voluntary registration was introduced in 2003 there have been seventeen cases of reported misconduct of people who worked as social workers or community workers, sixteen of which were unregistered,” says Carmel Sepuloni.

An average of 1.3 cases of misconduct a year.

Apparently, according to the last census, there are around 14,000 social workers.

There were  146,657 care and protection notifications to CYF in the 2012/13 year alone. That's just one arena in which social workers operate.

A great number - the majority - of social workers remain unregistered for reasons best known to them. But any additional bureaucratic requirement that would deter people from becoming or remaining social workers will only reduce their numbers.

Then Labour will be up in arms about an overloaded workforce. For instance, Jacinda Ardern:

“CYF staff are under enormous pressure. The number of notifications it receives has more than doubled over the last six years, averaging 400 a day.
“It has confirmed social workers, who have higher caseloads than in many other countries, are struggling with both the increased demand and higher standards of investigation as cases become more complex and difficult.
“Ms Bennett admits resources are stretched. She should also admit that this isn’t about human error but about human overload.”

It seems fairly obvious why calls to make registration mandatory have not come to fruition.

Interesting juxtaposition re the Green's future direction

Two columns offer quite contrasting views.

The first from Rodney Hide:

The David Cunliffe experiment of tacking left is over.
That's good news for the Greens: they can hoover up left-wing voters.
It's good news for Labour: they have to win the middle to win Government.

(BTW Rodney predicted Norman's demise as leader in his Radio Live predictions for 2015).

The second from Chris Trotter who, with out providing specific examples, I have a sense often gets things wrong.

Under Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons, Russel Norman and Metiria Turei, the Greens belonged to the Left. Under its next set of co-leaders, especially if their names are Shaw and Genter, the Greens will belong to whoever offers them the best deal.

Under Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons, Russel Norman and Metiria Turei, the Greens belonged to the Left. Under its next set of co-leaders, especially if their names are Shaw and Genter, the Greens will belong to whoever offers them the best deal. - See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/01/30/repositioning-rightward-the-political-consequences-of-russel-normans-departure/#sthash.y2wzbHUm.dpuf

And?

From today's Herald on Sunday:

A 3 News Reid-Research poll has revealed 55 per cent of voters think Little is potentially a better match for Prime Minister John Key than his Labour Party leader predecessors.

If I'd been asked, I'd be in the 55%. Look what the respondent is being asked to compare him to.

3 News political editor Patrick Gower said the poll result was a huge boost for Little.

Why?

I think he's 'better' because he appears more decisive. But he decided to do two things that made the chance of me voting Labour even more remote - scrapping the end of life bill and moves to raise the Super qualifying age.

In any case, each of Labour's recent incoming leaders has enjoyed initial support and confidence. Hasn't lasted though.

On education and gradualism

Two articles from NCPA today:

Charter Schools: Doing More with Less Money

January 29, 2015
In honor of School Choice Week, organizations across the country are promoting school choice and explaining how giving parents and students options can allow children to thrive academically. At Reason.com, Jason Keisling, Nick Gillespie and Lisa Snell have compiled an infographic with some potentially surprising facts about charter schooling:

• Charters produce more, with less money. In fact, charter schools receive 30 percent less per student than what a typical public school receives, yet they perform better -- for every $1,000 in funds, charter school students perform better on standardized testing -- 16 points higher on reading, and 17 points higher on math.
• Charter schools have more racial diversity than traditional public schools. Whites make up 52.4 percent of traditional public school students but just 35.6 percent of charter school students.
• Minority children from low-income families see real academic gains from charter schools. For example, blacks from low-income families attending charter schools receive the equivalent of an additional 7.5 weeks of math instruction and 6.5 weeks of reading instruction.

The Reason report notes that 91 percent of students in New Orleans attend charter schools today. Remarkably, as economist Jared Meyer of Economics21 noted in The Hill, the high school graduation rate in New Orleans has risen from just 54 percent in 2004 to 78 percent today.
Source: Jason Keisling, Nick Gillespie and Lisa Snell, "5 Facts About Charter Schools," Reason.com, January 28, 2015.

 And:

Want to Raise Incomes? Support School Choice

January 29, 2015
Groups across the country are calling for raising the minimum wage, but Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, says they should be focused on another issue: school choice.
School choice, says Furchtgott-Roth, would be a much better way to raise wages, incomes and opportunity for low-income Americans, because it slashes dropout rates, improves academic achievement and ultimately leads to economic gains. For example:

• Researchers from Harvard University and Columbia University determined that replacing a poor teacher with a merely average teacher would boost a student's lifetime earnings by $14,500.
• A study from the Brookings Institution and Harvard University found that private school vouchers boosted college enrollment for black students by 24 percent.

Allowing students to attend the schools that work best for them is a better way to improve economic mobility than mandating that employers pay minimum wages. Rather than help low-income workers, minimum wage increases reduce employment and job prospects, especially for teenagers.
Source: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, "Minimum Wage Advocates Should Support School Choice," Economics21, January 27, 2015.

There are some people who insist on advocating solely for private schools; the immediate and complete abandonment of state funding for education (and health and welfare). These advocates have a role to play. I differ.

There are these word puzzles that go something like, 'change the word class to growl in 5 steps' changing one letter at each step to form a new word (a do-able example if you want to have a crack).

I view societal change in the same manner. Charter schools or vouchers may only be the first or second step but the third won't be reached until those earlier steps are. And change is dynamic. So by the time the 'final' step is reached, a whole new impetus is working for even further change. Especially when technology is transforming the learning environment so rapidly.

Victim of her own naivety

Tom Scott's DomPost cartoon this morning was predictable.

Here's a comment I sent to Sean Plunket yesterday:

Eleanor Catton  was NOT a victim of the 'tall poppy syndrome' - the existence of which is questionable nowadays - but she will certainly now experience an unpleasant but justifiable backlash, which she will claim proves her point.
Being generous, I think her comments demonstrate  naivety as much as anything else. 

ACT on Little's speech

 Like it.


"This morning the new Labour Leader gave his first state of the nation speech – a chance to see the new direction, if any, that Labour is taking. As they say, talk is cheap, and this speech was bargain basement.
Fully embracing minimalism, the speech didn’t just skimp on details; it tried to make a virtue of it. It was chock full of “finding ways to”, “ensuring that”, “getting serious about”, “harnessing the power of”, “developing a programme of”, “will make sure that”, and so forth."

More

Nice work if you can get it

...I couldn't. None of the required qualifications. More to the point, I wouldn't be interested.

The Families Commission (now expediently renamed with the safer, amorphous  label of SUPERu) is advertising for commissioners (now board members.)

The daily fee is $565 - plus expenses - with an expected 10 meetings yearly.

But here's the pre-requisite I kept coming back to when first reading, and then revisiting the application forms:
 

·         practical knowledge and understanding of the diversity of New Zealand families and family groups, with particular reference to Mäori

Why with "particular reference to Maori"?

Are they intimating that Maori families are more in need of intervention than others, or is it some sort of 'honouring the Treaty' convention?

I am reminded of Bill English telling the Ratana gathering that Labour hadn't adjusted to modern Maori  rejection of paternalism. Yes, well....