Nate Cohn at the NY Times reports:

Overall, his preferred primary candidates underperformed other G.O.P. candidates by about five percentage points.

This is a very good analysis. The Republican’s actually won the actual overall vote for the House by close to 5% it seems. But they barely scraped in with a majority as in the competitive districts the Trump endorsees under-performed – in fact they went backwards from 2020.

This analysis didn’t include the Senate but there six of the seven competitive seats were lost by Trump nominees.

Hopefully for 2024 they will select better candidates.

The article by Anne Salmond on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and ‘Race’ is well worth a read. It is 23 pages long but makes a very strong argument that the Court of Appeal got it wrong by starting us on the path that the Treaty is a partnership between races.

Michael Bassett writes:

Have you noticed recently how many shops have signs wanting staff? How many tradesmen are hard to hire because they can’t find enough skilled workers? How many hospitals are bursting at the seams because they lack sufficient nurses and doctors? How many buses and trains aren’t running because there aren’t enough drivers? And how slow the government is to open up the borders to skilled migrants who could help? …

Why then are our shortages currently so dramatic? I’m convinced that the borders are deliberately being kept closed because Jacinda Ardern’s so-called Labour government believes it can force employers to lift wages for workers by maintaining a super-tight labour market. Some of this is the belief of a few mad scientists like Immigration Minister Michael Wood who seems convinced that pushing wages up for low-skilled jobs will benefit our society in general, and not accelerate inflation.

Our hospitals have a staffing crisis, and the Government maintains it hostility to making it easy for skilled migrants to reside in NZ.

Neither Jacinda, nor Carmel Sepuloni seems to care a fig about the consequences of the mad scientists in their ranks who keep the borders closed but then refuse to restore meaningful incentives to find jobs. The rest of us suffer because services that society needs – plumbers, electricians, builders and odd-job people – can’t be found for love nor money.

It is happening everywhere. Takes two months to get an electrician in. No doctors appointments available for three weeks. The first appointment for the panel beater is in three months time. This must be what like in the USSR was like!

Liam Hehir writes:

Age is not an immutable characteristic. Treating children differently to adults is not the same as treating people differently based on race or sex. And 18 years is the generally agreed-upon age at which a child becomes an adult.

For most New Zealanders, the idea of 16 and 17-year-olds voting defies common sense. Large majorities of people surveyed reject the idea. Letting kids vote is less popular than letting prisoners vote.

Liam is right. Three separate polls have found NZers massively opposed – Colmar Brunton had just 13% in favour and 85% against.

Of course, there is increasingly little room for common sense in New Zealand’s appellate courts. Not, at least, when the opportunity for the promotion of liberal opinion is concerned. Our justices are no longer so shy of broad political questions that touch upon subjects not usually reducible to legal reasoning.

In the case of the Three Strikes Law, the Supreme Court decided it can over-ride the statute, despite there being no legislative authority for them to do so.

Liam proposes four reforms:

• Repealing the recent amendment to the law requiring the elected branch of the government to respond a judicial finding of legislation being inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
• Add a new section to the Bill of Rights specifically stating that the courts have no jurisdiction to make decisions involving inherently political questions, particularly those where voters and representatives can be reasonably expected to resolve those matters.
• Add a new section to the Interpretation Act 1999 providing that no international treaty, agreement or other instrument will have any bearing on the interpretation of New Zealand except to the extent it is incorporated into legislation.
• Add a further provision that that legislation should be interpreted based on the understanding of their meaning at the time they were enacted.
• Perhaps most controversially, amend the Constitution Act 1986 so that a judge’s flagrant unwilingness to carry out the will of Parliament provides grounds for removal from office.

I disagree on his first point, but like the other four points, especially the last one.

Guess what proportion of prisoners are enrolled in literacy programmes? 25%? 15%? 10%? 5%?

The answer is 1.2%.

And now guess what proportion are enrolled in numeracy programmes?

0.8%

Isn’t this Government meant to be about rehabilitation?

Shouldn’t a priority be getting prisoners able to read, write and count so they may one day be able to have the option of a job, rather than welfare or crime?

A guest post by Simon Lusk:

Next year’s election has the potential to be extremely good for National electorate campaigns across the country. At the 2020 election Labour beat National in the Party Vote by nearly 25%. In 2023 the Party Vote gap will not be anywhere near 25%, and there is a reasonable chance National will lead Labour.

This means that there are many winnable Labour held seats. The historical precedent is that it is possible to overturn a majority of 6500 votes in a single election. On this number alone there are 17 seats that National can win off Labour, with 17 new National electorate MPs coming into parliament in a wave that is bigger than the National intake in 2005.

This theory needed supporting with some hard data.so I asked David Farrar to poll Napier. This kind of poll is extremely useful in deciding what seats to invest time & money in, and the results suggest a very high chance that National will win Napier.

The poll is published here in its entirety so others who are trying to win seats from Labour can see what they get when the pay for an electorate poll from Curia. If you are running or campaigning in any seat with a majority of less than 8000 you should fundraise to get a poll as soon as Curia can undertake it.

DPF: Simon lives in the Hawke’s Bay so he was interested in polling in his local area to see what the mood was like. He did this in his own right.

It is very kind of him to recommend electorates poll early, but I would stress always talk to the National central campaign team first, to make sure anything you want to do is consistent with their plans.

Newsroom reports:

Leading anti-smoking campaigners say officials’ modelling wrongly suggested the Government’s plan would reduce smoking rates by 85 percent within five years

In a new review released early Monday morning, researchers from Action on Smoking and Health say the modelling underpinning the Government’s plan to mandate cigarettes be sold without nicotine is “significantly flawed”.

So this is ASH saying the Government is over hyping the impact of their proposed policy.

Modelling commissioned by the Ministry of Health and referenced in Cabinet documents and the bill’s Regulatory Impact Statement suggests the denicotinisation could be expected to reduce smoking rates by 85 percent within five years.

Youdan says this is based on a misreading of a clinical trial on the provision of nicotine-free cigarettes to people who wanted to quit smoking.

“The assumptions that they put into the model are massively overestimating the likely impact of that policy.”

The trial provided people motivated to quit with behavioural support. Some also received nicotine-free cigarettes, while a control group didn’t. Six months on, 28 percent of those in the control group said they hadn’t smoked in the past week, compared to 33 percent in the denicotinised group.

The Government’s modelling assumed that denicotinising all tobacco products in New Zealand would lead to a 33 percent quit rate each year and an eventual 85 percent reduction after five years, which Youdan says is erroneous for a number of reasons.

First, the nicotine-free impact in the clinical study was only 5 percent – the bulk of the quit rate came from the behavioural support provided to all participants.

This is a huge stuff up. Basically the impact of nicotine-free was to increase quit rates by 5%, not 33%. And they compounded the 33% figure to get the absolutely implausible figure of an 85% quit rate in five years.

The minister in charge of the Smokefree 2025 plan, Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall, said she hadn’t relied too much on the modelling in question when designing the policy and the findings wouldn’t have changed her decision-making at the time.

That is a farcical denial. Officials said hey Minister this will reduce the number of smokers by 85% in five years, and Verrall claims that was not a significant factor in approving the policy.

Given the findings of the review, ASH has asked the Government to have the modelling independently vetted and allow the most dependent smokers access to nicotine cigarettes in a controlled way.

Verrall said she would look at ASH’s review but suggested it probably wouldn’t change the Government’s direction.

“I always welcome scientific debate. I think, though, I am confident of the measures that we’ve got and I’m very pleased to be taking strong action to getting tobacco out of our community.”

This isn’t debate. The official advice was clearly wrong. And the so called strong action is in fact window dressing.

Good on ASH for putting the science first. If only the Government would follow the science.

One of the very good things happening in NZ society at present is that Kiwis are becoming more aware of the state of our Education system and the need to improve things.

Next year a part of each schools funding is through an Equity Index number. The is replacing the decile system. Each school is allocated a specific number that is an indicator of how many students they have with 37 “risk factors”. The higher the number that more “at risk” students a school has – and the more funding they receive.

This is important information for all schools, families, communities, etc.

Last week I complete a data process that compares all high schools in NZ to each other. It has Excel sheets showing:

1. School number listing to EQI.

2. EQI ranking from lowest to highest.

3. School size to EQI.

4. 2021 L3 for leavers ranked by school.

5. 2021 UE for Leavers ranked by school.

6. EQI divided into tenths (deciles).

7. UE Ranking with 10th.

8. UE ranking by tenth.

9. UE to EQI gaps.

10. UE rankings/EQI for State funded schools only.

11. State UE to EQI gaps.

12. 2020 Level 7 (degree) study ranked- with EQI.

13. To L7 (degree)  study  by tenths (deciles).

14. To L7 (degree) study by EQI.

15. 2021 L3 to UE gap for every high school (ranked).

16. 2021 Retention until 17yo for every High School (ranked).

17. 2021 Progression to Degree study for every High School (ranked).

18. EQI & decile sector measures: attendance, transition to degree, UE for school leavers, 

19. Broad sector measures: UE for school leavers by governance type, UE for leavers by school type, UE for leavers by gender, UE for leavers by ethniicity.

20. Decile 1 vs Decile 10 retention to 17yo example.

21. Raw data for EQU vs L1, L2, L3 NCEA and UE.

22. NCEA Level 1 for leavers ranked for every high school with nationwide scatter diagram against EQI.

23. NCEA Level 2 for leavers ranked for every high school with nationwide scatter diagram against EQI.

24. NCEA Level 3 for leavers ranked for every high school with nationwide scatter diagram against EQI.

25. UE for leavers ranked for every high school with nationwide scatter diagram against EQI.

26. Retention to 17yo ranked for every high school with nationwide scatter diagram against EQI.

27. Progression to degree level study ranked for every high school with nationwide scatter diagram against EQI.

28. School summary sheet for staff to complete.

For schools and profession use the cost in $300. For personal/family use free or a donation.

Alwyn Poole

[email protected]

Melissa Lee points out:

The Government’s planned media mega entity will need hundreds of millions a year in extra taxpayer funding due to the decision to destroy TVNZ’s commercial model, National’s Broadcasting and Media spokesperson Melissa Lee says.

“Documents obtained by the National Party reveal the combined media entity would require $6.3 billion in additional Crown funding over the next 30 years, or an average of $211 million a year.

The Government is really good at burning money on pet projects that no one wants and will make things worse.

An answer to a PQ from ACT MP Simon Court shows that NZTA found only 32% of NZers support lowering speed limits to improve road safety with 40% opposed.

The way to improve road safety is to stop stealing money from motorists on cycle bridges and the like and spent it on improving actual roads.

Labour seem determined to take us back to the 1970s with an 80 km/hr speed limit on open roads.

Here is the speed limit in other countries:

• 137 km/hr – US
• 130 km/hr – Netherlands, Serbia, France, Greece
• 120 km/hr – Canada, Belgium, Finland, Switzerland, Israel
• 112 km/hr – UK

There are many more I could list at well above 100 km/hr let alone 80 km/hr. You can design roads that are safe at these speeds, as seen in those countries. So again the answer is spend more on roads.

A reader writes in:

In case you missed it, the National Ticketing system for public transport that was launched last month looks like it will have a high cost per ride. The Greater Auckland website covered it (https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2022/10/26/a-new-national-ticketing-system/) and stated that it will cost “nearly $1.4 billion to build and operate over the next 15 years. That might sound like a lot, and I’m sure some people will say it should be just used to make fares free, but it’s worth noting that pre-COVID, total fares collected across New Zealand were about $340 million annually. That $1.4 billion would only cover a few years in that scenario.”

I then did some calculations. $1.4 billion divided by $340 million gives 4.1 years of fare revenue. If the system only has a 15 year life then 27.4% of fare revenue will be spent on the system. This looks very expensive and puts it in a similar league to the NZTA road tolling system which when I checked a few years ago absorbed about 30% of the money collected.

Put another way the NTS will cost 55 cents per boarding on 2018/9 MoT data (https://www.transport.govt.nz/statistics-and-insights/public-transport/sheet/boardings-all-modes) which had 168.4 million public transport boardings. The web page doesn’t define boardings, but I think it is each time someone boards a public transport vehicle as opposed to a trip which might consist of boarding a bus to get to a railway station and then boarding a train to get to the destination.

Public transport patronage in Auckland is still well below pre-COVID levels in 2019, although it has been climbing from 42% of January 19 levels in January this year to 63% when September this year is compared to September 19. (https://at.govt.nz/about-us/reports-publications/at-metro-patronage-report/)

I am a huge fan of having a national integrated ticketing system, but the price tag of $1.4 billion is eye staggeringly large. I understand the Auckland HOP system only cost $100 million or so.

Having 25% of the cost of a fare go simply on the ticket is insanely high.

As 99% of NZers have a smartphone, wouldn’t it be cheaper to just have a smartphone app that can work on all public transport?

Someone asked me which National MPs had the most followers on Twitter, so I checked it out.

So Judith Collins has by far the most followed by Chris Bishop and Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis. Nine MPs in total have over 5,000 followers.

I’ve got around 19,000 but I don’t have a constituents to look after 🙂

The Herald reports:

For the first time since MMP began, the former Deputy Prime Minister and New Zealand First leader has emphatically ruled out working with a major party. …

“We are not going to go with the Labour Party, this present Labour Party crowd, because they can’t be trusted….

To double-check whether there was any wriggle room in his position on Labour, he is asked if he is ruling out working with a Jacinda Ardern-led Government. …

“Most definitely,” he says

This is extraordinary, for a number of reasons.

The first is that never before has Winston explicitly ruled out going with one of the two main parties. He drops hunts and speaks in code, but always leaves wriggle room because by not ruling out a major party, you are more powerful in post-election negotiations.

But here he has explicitly said he won’t with with an Ardern-led Government.

What is even more extraordinary is Winston made her Prime Minister. In 2017 he made her PM and in 2022 he says he will never work with her again.

He feels Ardern and Labour lied to him over He Puapua and Three Waters,

Roger Partridge writes:

The root of the problem is the Government’s distrust of immigration. It stems from a belief that productivity improvements will come from restricting the supply of migrant labour. Unfortunately, that belief is not founded on economic evidence. And it risks tarnishing our longstanding record as a favoured destination for skilled migrants.

The distrust also contrasts starkly with the new Labor Government’s approach to immigration in Australia.

In her address at the Anthony Albanese-led “Jobs and Skills Summit” in September, Minister for Home Affairs Claire O’Neil declared, “Immigration is one of the biggest levers we have to drive our country forward, and it is fast, and it is powerful.”

O’Neil promised her Government would switch from a system focussed almost entirely on keeping people out to one that “recognises that Australia is in a global competition for talent.”

“[F]or the first time in our history, Australia is not the destination of choice for many of the world’s skilled migrants,” she said.

O’Neil described Australia’s migration system as “fiendishly complex” with “multiple skilled occupation lists… and an outdated visa processing system that is anything but fit for purpose.”

If this sounds all too familiar, the Minister’s prescription was anything but. O’Neill promised, “A simple, fast system that’s easy for businesses, big and small, and for migrants, to use.”

Wouldn’t it be great to have a NZ Minister give such a speech!

A guest post by Barry Brill:

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s address to the the UN General Assembly 24/09/2022:

“We will remain a strong and passionate advocate for efforts to address the weapons of old but, also, the weapons that are new. The face of war has changed. And with that, the weapons used … prolific disinformation and manipulation of whole communities and societies.

How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?

But there is cause for optimism. Because for every new weapon we face, there is a new tool to overcome it.

We have the means; we just need the collective will.”

With these stirring words – at the very centre of the international stage – New Zealand’s leader declared all-out war on those who do not believe that climate change^[1] exists. All non-believers. Everywhere.

The NZ prime minister says “we” (by which word she presumably embraces all believers throughout the world) now need to muster the collective will to overcome the non-believers – by using the new tools that are now available. Non-believers must be made to recant their dangerous ideology. Their hateful rhetoric must be silenced.

It is no surprise at all that the Prime Minister employs the language of belief and ideology, rather than the language of science.

Beliefs

As “the greatest moral challenge of our times”, the dogmas of the climate change cult are no longer limited by any secular need for evidence or data

If climate change policy was ever based on “the science”, then that basis has long been overwhelmed by politics and tribal groupthink. It is now the very badge of a progressive left-wing worldview. In both USA and Australia, climate change alarm is the single greatest differentiator between the left and the right of politics.  .

The “climate justice” narrative is a post-modern cultural phenomenon, intertwined in endless mysterious ways with race and gender and other categories of perceived Marx-like oppression. Belief in the climate change credo is a sine qua non for every left-leaning politician (or journalist) – in the English-speaking world and further afield.

While an ideology for some, it is a quasi-religion for others. As long ago as 2003, author  Michael Crighton declared that mankind’s greatest challenge was to distinguish reality from fantasy, in the context of environmentalism becoming a religion. Regrettably, over the ensuing 20 years, faith in climate change has moved inexorably to fill the large vacuum left by the rapid decline of Christianity.

Intolerance

But religions can have their downsides. Over the centuries, there have been many instances of religious populations demanding total obeisance to the dominant dogma of that time and place. Some religions have even developed a fierce intolerance towards ‘infidels’ or ‘heretics’ who might tend to undermine the majority creed.

We have recently seen it in jihadist extremists, such as the efforts of ISIS to exterminate adherents of the Yazidi faith in Iraq  Earlier, it manifested in ruthless pogroms against jews and other minorities – and, the most infamous of all, the Spanish Inquisition.

Just as Torquemada declared war in the 15th century on those who could not believe in the teachings of the Vatican’s Holy See, Prime Minister Ardern has declared war in the 21st century on those who can not believe in the teachings of the United Nations’ IPCC.

The Inquisition used the old weapons of the thumbscrew, the rack, and the burning of books. Ms Ardern is a proud cheer-leader for the use of the “new weapons” of hate-speech laws, de-platforming, and cancel culture.

Now she anticipates new and even better weapons, calling for –

“…research and understanding of how a person’s online experiences are curated by automated processes. This will also be important in understanding more about mis and disinformation online. A challenge that we must as leaders address.”

So, given the collective will, how will new automated processes on the web overcome those who do not believe that climate change exists?

 Perhaps bots will detect such people and assign them demerit points, or impose instant fines? Or automatically erase their incorrect messaging; or bar them from access to the internet?  While we don’t yet know the details, we do know that the NZ government is assiduously researching all possibilities (at taxpayer expense).    

Orchestrated propaganda

And the dauntless Ms Ardern does not stand alone. By an extraordinary coincidence, the World Economic Forum (WEF) held a seminar on Davos Radio in the very same week: – “Tackling disinformation – how can we combat the lies that go viral?” – denouncing the “polluted information environment”.

Melissa Fleming, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, said the UN puts out lots of messages to its millions of social media followers that “give people agency to take climate action”.

She described how the UN’s country offices all around the world “localise” the central messages sent from Geneva and New York. They deploy influencers who have huge followings, and work with TikTok in “a layered deployment of ideas and tactics”.  

Ms Fleming said: “We own the science and we think the world should know it” –   explaining how Google searches are now massaged to ensure that only UN-approved messages appear on the first page of results.

This is big

Roll over Josef Goebbels: your stunted canvas was but a single nation. Now we have the entire globalist population of the planet united behind the most ambitious propaganda campaign in history – with limitless funding and with no tether to any known system of ethics.

The propaganda has been the carrot. And now Ms Ardern introduces  the stick.  No doubt chosen for this role by the UN (or WEF), she proclaims herself to be a “passionate advocate”

Her conviction is absolute that dangerous heresies like climate denial must be banished from this earth…

“But while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value.”

Watch this space.

^[1] The term “climate change” is, as usual, employed as code for dangerous human-caused global warming

David Harvey writes:

There is an ambivalence in New Zealand towards freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It guarantees not only the expression of information – the outward flow – but also the receipt of information – the inward flow.

The receipt is arguably the most important aspect. If you stop someone publishing a book because you regard it as “harmful” then only one person’s outward speech rights have been curtailed but potentially millions of people’s right to purchase and read the book and consider its arguments have been curtailed.

Coincidentally there developed over the pandemic emergency a greater use of two terms – misinformation and disinformation. These became predominantly news media shorthand for any statements that departed from the received wisdom of the government.

Misinformation meant information that misled. Disinformation was false information that the disseminator intended to mislead – in other words lies.  The problem was and still is that those words lack certainty. It seems that they mean what people using them want them to mean and consequently they have taken on a perjorative aspect.

In June 2021 the Classification Office, headed by the then Chief Censor Mr David Shanks, released a paper entitled “The Edge of the Infodemic: Challenging Misinformation in Aotearoa”. It argued that misinformation\disinformation (neither term defined in the paper) was a problem, that it came primarily from Internet based sources, that when people rely on misinformation to make important decisions it can have a harmful impact on the health and safety of communities and can also affect us on a personal level, contributing to anxiety, anger, and mistrust.

It argues that that we should be looking at solutions that work to increase access to good information; lower the volume of misinformation; improve resilience to misinformation; and build levels of trust and social cohesion that can serve as a counter to the more harmful effects.

That this document emerged from the Classifications Office is something of a concern. The Classifications Office is involved in the administration of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. That Act allows for censorship of films, videos, publications, and online content in certain limited and restricted circumstances.

It seemed to be part of a concerted effort on the part of the Classifications Office to expand the scope of censorship and information control currently enjoyed by the Classification Office – another example of “mission creep”.

Absolutely it is attempted mission creep.

Thus we have developing a number of strands that seem to be directed towards suppressing or marginalizing dissent or disagreement. Although the Disinformation Project casts a sinister shadow over the terms, and although the Classification Office may see misinformation and disinformation as having potential objectionable qualities, the reality is that every expression of disagreement or dissent, every expression of a contrary view or opinion, every expression of a challenge to the State message is a part of the normal discourse of society. Disagreement is a fundamental aspect of being human. We all have differing points of view, beliefs, values and standards. And it is part of the democratic tradition that we should be able to express those views.

Let’s agree to disagree used to be a common saying. Less so today.

Ms. Ardern is possessed of a high sense of the righteousness of her cause. She does not debate ideas. She rejects them or refutes the premises of opposition without engaging in debate. She therefore avoids confronting the uncomfortable reality that she may be wrong. And by rejecting and refuting she adopts an air of superiority that views dissent as evil and, because it has become “weaponized” it is too dangerous to allow.

It is perhaps evidence of that sense of righteousness that Ms. Ardern went to the UN and called upon the General Assembly, looking for support for her cause. She called upon the nations present to exercise their collective power to deal with this new weapon of war – contrarian speech.

But deeper than that what Ms. Ardern is talking about is ideas. What she is concerned about, what has been “weaponized” is the way that those ideas have been expressed. Ideas that conform with hers are benign. Ideas that conflict with hers must be stamped out. The days of debate are over.

A good summary.

Stuff reports:

Inflation is adding significantly more to the Government’s tax take than its new top tax rate, data shows.

Inland Revenue annual reports show the tax take has increased sharply over the past five years.

In 2017, total tax revenue was $69.2 billion, of which individual taxpayers contributed $33.2b.

By the 2022 financial year, tax revenue had hit $100.6b, of which individual tax was $51.4b.

This is why greedy Governments love inflation – it pushes people up into higher tax brackets, and the tax take explodes.

Inflation-indexing the tax thresholds going forward is not a tax cut though – it simply prevents taxes from automatically ratcheting up whenever the Reserve Bank lets inflation run hot.”

This is what I want to see happen under the next Government – automatic inflation indexing of tax thresholds. Stop inflation from robbing you of more of your pay.

The Herald reported:

The school, nestled in the heart of Fenton St on the corner of Tilsey St, caters for up to 45 children aged 5 to 13. Today was the first time its representatives had spoken publicly about their plight since the area became a hub for emergency housing.

The school’s property manager Roger Marshall, principal Lanea Strickland and former board chairwoman and current board member Victoria Finch listed incidents that had left the staff and students fearful and stressed.

The school has spent $70,000 on security fencing – money it had set aside for a new adventure playground to replace one that rotted and was destroyed. Right now, the children don’t have an adventure playground, they said.

Since emergency housing proliferated, Marshall said the school had kept record of more than 60 incidents of either abuse, assault, vandalism or other crime. There were none in the previous decades.

So from no incidents over ten years to 60 incidents in the last two to three years. Well done Labour.

So readers can see how dramatic the change in attendance has been for school students, I’ve graphed the official data.

Only 40% of kids attended school regularly in Term 2 of this year, compared to 63% in 2017.

For Maori students, it is even worse. They’ve gone from 55% to 27%.

Now some apologists for the status quo claim that not making 90% is no big deal, as one week off school can qualify. This is true, but one week off school every term is equal to a month every year and over 13 years, it is equal to missing an entire year of school).

So to show the problem isn’t just people missing one week a term, I’ve also graphed the data for the chronically absent – those attending less than 70% of the time.

The proportion of students chronically absent has gone from 6% in 2017 to 14% today. That is 1 in 7 students are missing over 60 days of schooling a year.

And for Maori students it is 1 in 4 are chronically absent. No amount of co-governance, working groups or authorities will impact Maori disadvantage as much as improving the attendance rate at school.