Modern science is a beautiful area of learning and professional pathway that was established in the Middle Ages and greatly enhanced by the development of instruments such and the telescope, microscope and others – through their enhancement of the observation ability of human senses.

A key feature of modern science is that it has: objectivity, ethical neutrality, reliability.

The “scientific method” is key: observation, background research, hypothesis, experiment, data analysis, report conclusions.

Everyone acts “scientifically” every day (I even watch my cat do it with water in the hand basin). A child can observe a red element, wonder why it is that colour, hypothesise “hot”, place a hand near (or even touch), analyse the data and conclude (possible with tears).

No one becomes a good scientist without learning the basics very thoroughly – including the history of the disciplines. Key to this are the convenient divisions of Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Mathematics. Many of the important aspects are wonderful developments in the history of humanity – including the deeply fascinating – when well taught – Periodic Table of Elements.

In true science there are no facts – only theories that have not been disproven yet. This is often hard for people to understand as we are often coerced into seeing conclusions as “facts” or “settled science” and scientists as deeply reliable people. The truth is that if a “scientist” is calling his/her finding factual they are out of line with their disciplines.

Human beliefs/faiths are important and there has been much controversy over the years when people have asserted that there is a conflict between belief systems and science. They are two different things and many great scientists have been, for instance, Christians, who understood that. For something to be “scientific” it MUST be open to being refuted.

There is also a significant difference between a scientist and an activist. A person can do both, but they should clearly understand, and communicate, which role they are playing at any time.

I have taught Science (including Mathematics) in NZ schools for 20 years to middle school children (10 – 15 years of age). I have loved doing it and the vast majority of students have very much enjoyed the learning, with many moving into fields of science through tertiary pathways.

This NZ Herald “Opinion Piece” by Sara Tolbert from the University of Canterbury would be the single worst piece of writing on the topic I have read in the last 10 years. This person is involved in teacher education and is exactly the type that should not be. She gives herself away early by using the phrase “scientific facts” of which there are none. That she states; “Decades of research have shown that school science that focuses predominantly on decontextualised scientific facts and theories has not supported student learning.” with no reference or possible alternative reasons for why school science teaching is failing – e.g. underqualified teachers – is very poor thinking.

If Tolbert is a scientist she ought also to know that alternate knowledge systems can only be included as “science” if they are open to experimentation and refutation. It is clear she is an activist and not acting as a scientist.

Learning science is important and like any great discipline from academics, the arts, music, sports – you must learn the foundations of the subject and then apply them in an accurate way to contexts. Tolbert writes as an idealogue who appears to have lost her foundations. She acknowledges that New Zealand education in science is lacking compared to many countries but fails to state the obvious reasons as to why and those countries that are leading the way would go nowhere near the style of the NZ draft Science Curriculum.

She states that some schools are leading the way. I can assure people that the schools that are leading the way in science (and will continue to do so) are those that teach foundation Science, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Earth Sciences and Astronomy completely faithful to the scientific method and the great developments. Those schools will completely reject what Tolbert is supporting and will continue placing young people into tertiary study best equipped in the foundations of the subject. Those who follow the proposal that Tolbert supports will place students on a pathway to further academic failure and, most certainly, no prospects outside of New Zealand in any study or professions connected to genuine science.

There is also an excellent piece on this behind Newsrooms paywall by Michael Johnstone who knows a thing or two and is reasonably eloquent: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/the-reading-wars-lessons-for-teaching-science

As I have stated before students, of all ages (and Sara Tolbert), in New Zealand could do no better that to start with Bill Bryson’s remarkable: A Short History of Nearly Everything.

​Alwyn Poole
www.alwynpoole.substack.com

Stuff reports:

A social media interaction between Spark NZ and a prominent transgender activist has led to threats of boycotting the company.

Over the weekend, the telco’s reply to a post from trans activist Shaneel Lal on the new social media platform Threads ruffled the feathers of some of its customers.

Lal’s post read: “Dear Threaders, Can we agree that we won’t tolerate TERFs on Threads. They’ve made the lives of trans people living hell on almost all platforms. Let’s not allow their hatred to poison this app too. Requested with love.”

To which Spark NZ replied: “Yes PLEASE, wholeheartedly co-signed” accompanied by two emojis including the transgender flag.

This was a pretty huge blunder by Spark. They messaged that they want people whose opinions differ on issues of gender to be banned from social media. And this wasn’t even in response to a query – they just decided to offer their view, and when asked if that was their official view, said yes.

Why do corporates think it is a good idea to take a stand on political issues?

They are very lucky that it is harder to swap telcos that it is to swap beer brands.

Stuff reports:

Labour has well and truly lost its pandemic popularity, according to the latest political poll.

The Labour Party has fallen to its lowest point since 2019, on the Talbot Mills corporate poll. Talbot Mills is also the Labour Party’s pollster, but this poll was for its corporate clients.

It polled just over 1000 people at the end of June and start of July, shortly after concerns were reported about Labour minister Kiritapu Allan’s management of staff and after Michael Wood slowly and then spectacularly lost his job as a minister.

Compared to its last poll, Talbot Mills reported a major slump for Labour. It was down five points, to 31% – five points below National as well.

ACT was on 12%. The Greens, 8%.

Both Te Pāti Māori and NZ First came in at about 4%, just below the 5% mark required to enter Parliament without an electorate seat.

Based on those reported figures, the seats in Parliament would be:

• National 47 (+14 from election)
• Labour 41 (-24)
• ACT 16 (+6)
• Greens 11 (+1)
• Maori 5 (+3)

National and ACT could govern on 63 seats out of 120.

Radio NZ report:

The Defence Force has conceded Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ trip to China was the first time it had sent along a dedicated backup plane, despite earlier defending the practice as “nothing unusual”.

The decision last month to send a second Boeing 757 to Asia in case the first broke down attracted international attention and strong criticism from National and ACT, who described it as a source of national embarrassment.

At the time, a spokesperson for Hipkins defended having a Plan B to ensure the mission’s success.

“It is not unusual for the Air Force to provide backup aircraft, where available. This has occurred more frequently following a highly publicised series of breakdowns affected a delegation led by [former prime minister] John Key in 2016.”

A Defence Force (NZDF) spokesperson also told RNZ the practice was “nothing unusual”.

On further questioning by RNZ, however, the spokesperson could cite just two other instances since 2016 when aircraft were “officially tasked as backups” for prime ministerial travel – and neither were ultimately used for that purpose.

So both the PMs Office and NZDF said that sending a second plane along was nothing unusual, and weeks later we find out the truth – it had never occurred before.

So much for the podium of truth!

Craig Greaves writes in The Australian:

New Zealand’s governing Labour Party is shooting itself in the foot with its biggest re-election glitch possibly coming from within its own ranks.

Months out from the October 14 general election a steady flow of allegations of ill-behaviour and proven transgressions by Labour MPs and cabinet ministers is helping to seed the idea that the party is stale, arrogant and lacking in good character and competency. …

A darker metaphor to describe the government’s cracking, creaking working condition is perhaps the tragic final journey of the ‘Titan’ submersible in the North Atlantic, near the wreckage of the Titanic. The sub seems to have imploded, in large part, due to vastly imperfect working parts operating under great pressure. 

To a certain degree and within less violence, this is what seems to be happening to the Labour government.

Vastly imperfect parts operating under great pressure – very apt.

But now Hipkins is being prevailed upon to clean house as best he can in the hope of restoring this party’s image. Part of the problem is that image also includes growing evidence that talent is not widely dispensed across Labour’s parliamentary team.

Looking back to Ardern’s 1st cabinet, they have lost so many of their original Ministers. Gone are

• Iain Lees-Galloway
• Jenny Salesa
• Clare Curran
• Poto Williams
• Kris Faafoi
• David Clark
• Meka Whaitiri
• Phil Twyford
• Stuart Nash
• William Sio

Time before the election is running short for Labour to rehabilitate its image and install public confidence in its component parts. It is starting to look ragged, and even cynical and entitled, beyond its two terms in power. That’s electoral poison for any party.

They call it third termitis, arrived early.

Lloyd Burr at Newshub writes:

Are Labour’s woes ill-discipline, arrogance, or incompetence?

Why the or? A strong case can be made it is all three.

The Hipkins era was defined from the outset as a back-to-basics administration that would focus on the cost of living rather than enacting Labour’s wishlist of controversial policies.

This clean-slate approach started out well and appeared to be a smart way to transition and differentiate from Ardern’s regime.

But like any item of white clothing, Hipkins’ clean slate soon attracted stains. One stain is annoying, two is frustrating – but any more than three leaves people questioning your life choices.

There are now six stains: Nash. Whaitiri. Tinetti. Wood. Allan. Leary.

Soon it may be quicker to list the MPs who are not stains!

It could be a coincidence that these scandals have surfaced under Hipkins – or it could be a sign that Labour has lost all discipline under his leadership.

Are his MPs going rogue? Are they just arrogant? Or are they politically incompetent? Whatever the answer, something needs to change.

Lock in “all of the above” for ten points.

Here are the number of violent crimes recorded by Police for the first four months of each year since since 2016:

• 2016: 16,385
• 2017: 16,802
• 2018: 16,384
• 2019: 17,152
• 2020: 19,932
• 2021: 22,499
• 2022: 23,137
• 2023: 25,318

Almost a trend eh!

Newshub reports:

Hipkins has also stressed while New Zealand may have an independent foreign policy, “independent does not mean neutral”.

Hipkins told a crowd of diplomats, business people and officials at an event at Parliament it was “humbling” to recently meet Ukrainian civilians being trained by the New Zealand Defence Force in the United Kingdom.

He said that had “strengthened my resolve” in relation to providing support to Ukraine “in order to defeat Russia” and also “the absolute necessity to avoid armed conflict where we can”.

There are many policy areas where I disagree with the current Government, but in foreign policy I think Ardern and Hipkins have done a pretty good job in changing our foreign policy so that we clearly stand against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and have moved closer to like minded countries in NATO.

We are not neutral when it comes the the invasion of Ukraine. We independently decided not to be neutral and to back the democratic country against the authoritarian invader.

Newshub reports:

Appearing on AM’s political panel, Newstalk ZB’s senior political correspondent Barry Soper and Newshub’s Patrick Gower from Paddy Gower Has Issues slammed the current Labour Government. ,,,

Soper said earlier this year he told Hipkins, who took over the reins from Jacinda Ardern, his Government is going to “fall apart” because of “the numpties that surround [him].”

“He had a bonfire of policies but he needed to have a bonfire of the numpties,” Gower replied.

“His Government looks like an utter shambles. It has been a terrible year…. They look like an arrogant, out of ideas Government in its third term rather than one in its second term.”

Numpties, shambles, terrible, arrogant – not quite the words you want your Government described as.

One News reports:

The Government have announced a ban on most disposable vapes from August, but one health professional says they’re a positive for public health overall. 

Speaking on Breakfast this morning, Australian anti-tobacco campaigner Dr Colin Mendelsohn, says disposable vapes are a tool in helping people give up smoking cigarettes. 

“I think there’s no question now, the evidence is becoming stronger and stronger, vaping is a highly effective method, it’s the best method we have, it’s not perfect but it’s by far the most effective method,” he said.

They are highly effective. Without vaping we would have no chance of meeting our 2025 target of fewer than 5% smoking tobacco.

Across the ditch, similar concerns around vapes prompted a crackdown on the sale of disposable vapes – and the requirement to obtain a prescription, but health experts say it’s having the reverse effect – driving an underground, black market. 

He believes it would be a “big mistake” for New Zealand to go down the same path. 

“There are no age restrictions in the black market and the products are not being assessed for quality or safety.”

Dr Mendelsohn says the prescription model is a “slow train wreck”.

I hope we listen to him.

The Herald reports:

Cabinet Secretary Rachel Hayward said it was “highly unusual” for Labour MP Michael Wood to continue to have shares in Auckland Airport despite being told repeatedly to sell them.

She also said the “difficulties in getting traction on the issue” called for the involvement of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, which usually resolved the issue – but in Wood’s case, it had not.

The letter is below:

This reinforces a point that I have made before – the PMs Office under Ardern was reasonably incompetent. There is no way they should have allowed it to stretch on for months yet alone years. And when you can’t get even such basic stuff right, is it no surprise that the Ardern Government failed to deliver on so many of their promises?

Let me illustrate how this issue would have been dealt with by three previous PMs Chief of Staffs:

• Doug Martin (Jenny Shipley): “Minister, this is untidy. It should have been resolved by now. It shouldn’t have even got to me, but now it has, we are going to make sure I don’t need to tell the Prime Minister she has a problem with her Transport Minister”. Outcome: shares sold in 72 hours.
• Heather Simpson (Helen Clark): “Michael, you will sell those shares today. I want to see the sale certificate by Friday, otherwise don’t come in on Monday”. Outcome: shares sold in 12 hours, and several sessions with a psychiatrist to recover from an H2 encounter
• Wayne Eagleson (John Key): “Michael, I’ve just had the Cabinet Secretary in. This may seem minor to you, but it exposes the Prime Minister to potential attacks that his Cabinet is acting in self interest, not the public interest. It needs to be sorted really quickly, otherwise I’m going to have to talk to the boss. I haven’t bothered him with it yet, because it’s my job to look after stupid stuff like this, so if you get it sorted this week, then all will be good”. Outcome: shares sold in 72 hours.

I can guarantee you that under Martin, Simon or Eagleson this would not have dragged on for two and a half years.

Robin Grieve writes:

In a recent opinion piece, Herald senior writer Simon Wilson challenged National and Act party donors to prove that their donations were not motivated by their desire to pay less tax. His implication being that they were.

As a former member of the Act party board and having met many of these donors, I can say that Wilson’s characterisation of them is unfair, offensive even. …

Likewise, Wilson’s characterisation of them ignores the fact that these donors will have concerns and opinions on any number of areas in which government policy has an impact, not just tax.

A higher standard of living for all New Zealanders, a world-class health system, a world-leading educational system, safe streets, a sound democracy where everyone is valued and respected equally, and where freedom of expression was paramount, were the most common desires of the National and Act donors I spoke to for this article. These are the reasons they gave me for making their donation and none of them mentioned tax.

Some had more specific concerns and one such donor is Chris Reeve, who is a donor to both National and Act. His latest donation to Act was motivated by his desire to help the party with a private members bill to repeal legislation that has led to children in the care of Oranga Tamariki being ripped away from the only stable and loving family they have ever known.

For the Government, the emotional harm these children suffer when it tears them away from their families is not a concern, it seems. For Reeve it is, and he is prepared to use his money to help these children by getting this abuse stopped.

I was going to do a column for Stuff on this issue, but Grieve has covered it off quite nicely.

I have been staggered by how many people have made massive donations to National and ACT in the last 18 months. Most large donors give $30,000 to $50,000 but we have seen dozens giving $100,000 or more including a recent $500,000 donation to National.

I know a few (not many) of these donors. It is definitely not tax policy which has led to such huge donations. At this point in time National’s tax policy is to index the brackets to inflation. This will only benefit someone earning say $1 million a year by a few thousand dollars. No way are you donating $500,000 for that.

I think the answer is quite simple, for many of the donors. They see the current Government leading New Zealand down a path away from democracy as we know it, to a country which doesn’t value equality of suffrage, freedom of speech and other human rights. They worry that such changes, if embedded in, will fundamentally change NZ for the worse.

You don’t give $500,000 on the basis of indexing tax brackets to inflation. You don’t give it on the basis of their regional development policy. You give it because you want to get rid of the Government, because you think it is a terrible Government.

The reasons will vary as to why donors think the Government is terrible, but that is what is motivating large donors – not tax policy.

Stuff reports:

Housing is a human right, and the current and future Governments should use all available resources to tackle the housing crisis, Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission says.

It has released its final report after a two-year housing inquiry.

The report makes six recommendations including committing to legislative recognition of the right to a decent home, integrating the right to a decent home into policymaking, appointing human rights, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and equity officers in housing agencies, and strengthening accountability across the housing system.

Amazing – two years looking at housing and they have nothing to say on what drives up house prices – land restrictions.

Let’s look at what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says on housing:

• Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
• Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services

So what it says is you should have the right to own property, a right not have it taken off you arbitrarily and a right to a standard of living adequate to afford housing.

That does not mean the Government has to own or even provide housing. It means that people should have an adequate standard of living so they can afford housing.

Thomas Coughlan writes:

The Greens have proposed a 1.5 per cent tax on assets held in trust, mainly so that trusts cannot be used to avoid the wealth tax. The difficulty with this is that we know very little about how many people will be caught up by this tax and how it will affect them.

The two key things to remember about this asset tax, is it applies from the first dollar, and it is on gross, not net assets.

You will pay $15,000 a year tax on your family home if it is owned by a trust, whether or not it is mortgage free or if you have an $800,000 mortgage on it (which means $15,000 tax on $200,000 of equity).

For active trusts that filed a return this year, the median net equity in the trust is $370,060 – hitting the trust with a tax bill of $5550 a year.

That is net equity – but the tax will apply to gross assets so higher than that.

An information vacuum is ideal for a scare campaign and some of those numbers look very scary. If there are, say 500,000 trust beneficiaries, that would equate to 12 per cent of all taxpayers – 1 million trustees would equate to a quarter of income taxpayers.

Yep, a huge number will be affected.

The Herald reports:

The Government is being accused of “mind-boggling” mismanagement because it has $531 million worth of rapid antigen tests (RATs) still in stock. …

Te Whatu Ora has almost 60 million RATs around the country, with 30 per cent of them already expired or due to expire by the end of July. The total cost of all of these RATs, at almost $9 each on average, is $530 million.

$530 million is more than the cost of the proposed new medical school at Waikato University, which the Government says can’t be afforded.

It is around one third of the cost of the new Dunedin Hospital, which the Government is downgrading as it says it can’t afford to spend more.

Such shocking waste.

Mike Hosking writes:

Labour is a bit of an open question between now and election day given so much seems to be a shambles both internally and economically.

The simple equation is this: they look worn out and chaotic, we are in recession, crime is appalling and there is a dangerous malaise and growing anger around the running of the country.

But large parties bottom out in the 20s, so it’ll be a bad night but not necessarily catastrophic.

So, my call is: National 38-42 per cent; Act 12-15 per cent, an easy election-night victory; Labour 29-32 per cent; Greens 6-7 per cent.

That would certainly be a nice result!

The Herald reports:

Boys at single-sex schools tend to leave school with higher qualifications than their counterparts at co-educational schools, a new study has found.

The findings contradict the traditionally-held belief that boys do better in co-educational schools while girls fare better in single-sex settings.

I’ve never heard of this so called traditionally-held belief. I’ve been aware for a long time boys do better in single-sex schools.

I blogged in 2021 the 2019 UE data which showed the following UE rates for school leavers:

• Girls single sex 55% vs co-ed 39%
• Boys single sex 43% vs co-ed 25%

I also noted:

Boys at a single sex school are 68% more likely to get UE than those at a co-ed school while girls are 40% more likely.

For schools in the top quintile (deciles 9 and 10) the male UE rate is 43% for co-ed and 69% for single sex. For those in the bottom quintile the male UE rate is 9% for co-ed and 37% for single sex. So almost as many boys get UE in bottom quintile single sex schools as in top quintile co-ed schools.

If we want to improve the dismal education stats for boys in New Zealand, I would do two things:

1. Amend our zoning regulations so that all children are zoned for both a same sex school and a co-ed school – so they can choose which type of school is best for them
2. Require a proportion of new schools built, to be single sex (there have been no new ones since 2004)

Stuff reports:

A third of patients who visited Wellington Hospital’s emergency department this year spent at least some time waiting in a bed in the corridors, new data shows.

At some stage during virtually every single day since the start of the year, the ED has reached or surpassed 90% capacity, Te Whatu Ora Wellington’s interim lead on hospital and specialist services Jamie Duncan said.

One in three ED patients in corridors. That’s horrific

In addition, just 44 to 51% of ED patients were admitted, transferred or discharged within six hours – falling well short of the 95% target.

It was only six years ago that almost 95% of ED patients were being seen within six hours. Now it is below between 44% and 51% in Wellington. Many more people will be dying because of this.