Through the work that I do and the data-sets I process on NZ high-schools I do receive a lot of contacts on the issues in NZ education from families. My first point often is, that if you are asking, you are heading towards the right path for your child(ren) to be doing well because you are engaged. There is, of course, more to being a parent that supports and enhances a child’s education than that – but if you are indifferent things are not as likely to turn out well.

The NZ education system, through Boards of Trustees (BoTs), is designed to be lead by families. This is often de-emphasised as the Ministry of Education, or school senior leadership seem to hold all of the cards and keep them close to their chest. This coming week most newly elected BoTs will hold their first meetings.

It is the BoTs that are the employers of the Principal and staff. The BoTs can have a huge role in setting the direction of a school and in improving outcomes for students. The past three years, around the globe, have seen parents come back to the realisation that need to be much more pro-active for their children and challenge what is being taught, the quality of teaching and how their children are doing. There has been significant growth in home-schooling – even in New Zealand.

Most new Board members will be aware that there are significant challenges in our system. They might be aware of NZ’s rapid comparative decline in international measures of literacy and numeracy. They might be aware of the attendance problems in the NZ system (although the government seems very reluctant to release Term 2 figures). They might even feel that they have some understanding of how their school does through figures for NCEA that are release in February. Those figures are cohort figures – Year group by Year group for who remains. Some schools are losing 40% of their students before they turn 17 years old and that does not show up in cohort measures.

The figures the new Trustees need are the figures for LEAVERS that are released in August and I do a full process on against a range of metrics that can be compared to every other high school in NZ. I have two data sets available – one against the decile system (still in place this year), and one against the newly released Equity Index numbers – that should have some correlation to achievement – that are being used for some aspects of funding from 2023.

If you – or anyone you know – has gone onto a high school BoT (or simply if you are interested) – please make contact. Please also keep in mind BoT meetings all have to be open to all parents and the public. You can make a difference.

[email protected]

The NZ Association of Economists polled members on the best response to climate change. The results show there is a massive consensus.

• Tightening the Emissions Trading Scheme’s cap on net emissions would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than a collection of policies, such as fuel economy standards for imported vehicles, that target emissions already covered by the ETS. – 87% agree, 5% disagree for +82% agreement
• If other market failures unduly hinder adjusting to rising carbon prices, policies directly targeting those market failures may reduce the cost of mitigating emissions. – 81% agree, 2% disagree for +79% agreement
• Undesirable distributional consequences of rising carbon prices are better handled through a carbon dividend that rebates government ETS revenues to households as an annual lump-sum transfer (potentially with higher transfers to lower-income households) rather than through regulatory measures requiring targeted emission reductions in sectors less likely to affect poorer households or through measures like subsidies for electric vehicles. – 93% agree, 2% disagree for +91% agreement

This is what you would call settled science. The sad thing is the Government is doing the opposite and pursuing policies that will achieve less and cost more.

Radio NZ reports:

Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere is calling an investigation into his charities political donations racist.

The Charities Services is investigating Tamihere in relation to two donations made by National Urban Māori Authority and Te Whānau o Waipareira, of which Tamihere is also chief executive.

Tamihere said they disclosed everything in audited financial statements and that there was no cover up or attempt to be dishonest.

“It is a sad day for democracy in Aotearoa when Māori get demonised for being honest in publicly ensuring that every cent spent to advance the Te Pāti Māori, or Māori causes by Māori people is somehow deemed illegal or unworthy.” …

Tamihere said should the Charities Commission find against them, they would litigate this because he said they had a right to overtly and openly stand up in a free democracy.

You can be a charity or be a political party, but you can’t be both. This has nothing to do with race. It is about charities only being able to spend money on charitable purposes.

Stuff reports:

Michael Hill jewellery store in Albany mall was smashed with hammers on Friday night as people nearby ate dinner.

Eyewitnesses report a group of masked thieves smashing cabinets at the Michael Hill branch at the Westfield mall.

An eyewitness said they saw five police officers guarding the store after the incident, and they could see at least four display cabinets had been smashed.

Shocking that they will break in and burgle a place during daylight hours. They have no fear of being caught or of consequences it seems.

The Chief Ombudsman has found:

Mr Boshier says most agencies have set up media teams to respond to queries from journalists but these teams do not seem to apply the law.

“There appears to be a widespread misapprehension that many media information requests don’t fall under the OIA, and that applying the law is difficult and complicated. These perceptions are false.”

Mr Boshier discovered multiple examples of media teams within agencies breaching section 19 of the OIA.

This is a damning finding. If anyone should be experts in the OIA it should be the media teams. But instead the Chief Ombudsman has found they are the worst offenders.

“In fact, the processes adopted by the agencies have little or nothing to do with the law itself and I intend to consider this matter further.”

Good.

Mr Boshier says he found gaps in all 12 agencies in terms of their record keeping and Information Management systems, with several agencies breaching the Public Records Act.

Most open and transparent Government ever!

This data tells such a powerful story. There are four parts to it.

1. In June 2009 when National had just come in, immunisation rates were shocking. 1 out of 5 2 year olds were not fully immunised. 1 in 4 Maori kids not immunised
2. National lifted overall rates to 92% to 94%, the Maori rate to 93% and the most deprived decile rate to 95%. The unvaccinated went from 1 in 5 to 1 in 20 and for Maori from 1 in 4 to 1 in 14. Rates stayed fairly constant from 2011 to 2017.
3. After Labour dropped the health targets, the rates started to slip for Maori and the most deprived. Maori dropped to 88% and Decile 9/10 to 89%.
4. The last two and a half years have been a disaster with rates dropping to 67% for Maori and 73% for Decile 9/10. We’ve gone from 1 in 14 Maori kids unvaccinated to 1 in 3. We’ve gone from 1 in 20 Decile 9/10 kids unvaccinated to 1 in 4.

We need a Government that will make lifting the immunisation rates a priority.

Greenwald has 1.8 million followers on Twitter, has won multiple journalism awards and doesn’t like censorship. The video has been viewed by over 800,000 people, been retweeted over 5,000 times and has made Fox News.

It is amazing NZ media have almost ignored the extraordinary speech by the Prime Minister where she referred to the free and open Internet as a weapon of war, and the fact that some people online deny climate change as a reason for Governments to step in and regulate the Internet.

The NZ media often report breathlessly that the PM got some minor plaudit in a US newspaper, yet seem oblivious to the fact that millions of people reacting with horror to her UN speech.

The Herald reports:

Vodafone’s NZ chief executive has defended the company’s rebranding to One New Zealand amid criticism the new name has white supremacist connotations.

The telecommunications company ditched the red and white used by Vodafone globally in favour of an emerald or greenstone green.

However, it now shares a similar name to the One New Zealand Foundation, an organisation that describes itself as “concerned about increasing privilege being given to one race of people over all other[s]” and has called the Waitangi Tribunal “an undemocratic and secretive institution”.

The telco’s chief executive officer Jason Paris took to social media to defend the company’s new name.

“One NZ stands for the best of NZ (diversity, inclusion, trust, innovation etc),” he tweeted.

Vodafone is uber-woke so it is hilarious that they chose a new brand name that was best known for being the exact opposite.

I thought Telecom’s rebranding to Spark was a good move (and worked well) but One New Zealand is just so blah.

The merger of TVNZ and Radio New Zealand will cost taxpayers $368 million according to the recent Budget.

The last annual reports for TVNZ and RNZ had their net worth at $298 million and $67 million respectively. Together they have a net worth of $366 million.

So taxpayers are going to be out of pocket by $368 million to merge together two companies worth $366 million. Isn’t it ludicrous? Especially as the merger is a solution looking for a problem.

GWRC are the ones who destroyed the great bus service we used to have in Wellington, so they are important. They have increased their rates 28% in three years. Some people worth rating highly:

Wellington constituency

Glenda Hughes, Simon Woolf, Leigh Catley, Daran Ponter

Kapiti

Penny Gaylor

Porirua

Chris Kirk-Burnnand, Roger Watkin

Lower Hutt

David Bassett, Ken Laban

Upper Hutt

Steve Taylor

In Parliament on Wednesday:

Karen Chhour: So does the Minister agree with John Tamihere when he says his charity and Oranga Tamariki are in a partnership and not a contract, and if Te Whānau o Waipareira is struck off the Charities Register, will the Minister guarantee that this partnership will end?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: What the member needs to do is cross the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi from her pākehā world into the Māori world and understand exactly how the Māori world operates. It’s no good looking at the world from a vanilla lens.

Once again we have a Labour Maori MP denigrating another Maori MP and effectively stating they are not a real Maori because they don’t agree with them. They did it to Simon Bridges and now to Karen Chour.

From Karen’s maiden speech:

Life got so bad that, by the age of nine, I didn’t think I was going to survive to the age of 10. It was around this time that I ran away from home and cried out for help. …

I was bounced from pillar to post, and, by the time I was 14, I had moved schools seven times. I could not keep up, so I did what so many have done before, and I simply dropped out. I got a job and I saved what I could, and eventually I moved into a flat and became completely independent. I worked graveyard shifts at McDonalds while I tried to continue my education by day, doing a course. I drank a bit, I cried a lot, but I was doing OK.

 I, myself, have been on the receiving end of bullying for some of these very reasons. I was judged when I was younger, sometimes very openly, about just being another Māori dropout that would never get anywhere in life.

Yet Kelvin claims she isn’t a real Maori, implying she grew up in some privileged Pakeha family!

By coincidence a near identical thing just happened in the UK. A UK Labour MP described Conservative Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng as “superficially black”. This wasn’t even in Parliament but at a forum at a conference.

The UK Labour MP has been suspended from the Labour caucus for what she said. So the UK Labour Party is more ethical than the NZ Labour Party!

National made increasing immunisation rates a national health target and got the rate up to very close to 95%. Labour abolished the targets and look at what has happened since for two year olds:

• All 2 year olds: From 92.4% to 82.9%
• Maori from 90.4% to 67.1%
• Pacific from 95.2% to 81.3%
• Highly deprived areas (Decile 9/10) from 90.6% to 73.2%

This is a major failure which will see potentially horrible health outcomes for those kids not fully vaccinated.

What do you think would make more of a difference to Maori health outcomes – having a Maori Health Authority or having 90% of kids vaccinated instead of 67%?

The ODT reports:

A 91.75% majority vote to change Playcentre Aotearoa’s constitution has been overruled by some of the organisation’s roopu (governance bodies), Playcentre insiders have revealed.

A 91.75% majority vote to change Playcentre Aotearoa’s constitution has been overruled by some of the organisation’s roopu (governance bodies), Playcentre insiders have revealed.

One parent, who asked not to be named, said the nationwide vote on Saturday morning was designed to change the parent-led child care education organisation’s constitution to a “trust deed” so — among other issues —  more of the funding it received would go to local playcentres, rather than “98%” going to the administrative body, which operates a bulk-funding model.

In the vote, parents and employees at 366 of 400 playcentres voted yes in favour of change.

A massive 92% vote in favour. A huge mandate for change. But …

However, before any change could come into effect, a separate vote from  the organisation’s roopu needed to be considered.

The organisation’s six roopu are “governance bodies within Playcentre Aotearoa, consisting of whanau Maori, to give whanau Maori an equitable voice in Playcentre governance”, which require at least five of the six roopu to agree in order to achieve a consensus.

Four roopu voted in favour and two against, but  the two-thirds  majority was not enough to carry the change.

Welcome to co-governance! Two votes get to veto 366 votes.

This is the future the Government wants for Three Waters. One Iwi can veto and over-rule 22 South Island Councils.

How Grant Robertson can stand in Parliament and is unchallenged by the opposition when he claims New Zealand’s Covid response was world leading.

1. For total cases – we are now 49th – ahead of far more densely populated countries like Ireland and Hong Kong.

2. For cases per million we are now 46th – ahead of the UK, Ireland, Singapore, USA, Sweden, Finland – and many more.

3. Even in terms of deaths per million – mainly through the mild Omicron – we have made it up to 123rd place and are heading towards the world average. Australia has fewer deaths per million.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Has anyone asked why – when the MoH knew that the mRNAs did not prevent transmission by April 2021 – that they remained the key intervention. How many people got the “two shots for summer” and became over-confident? Then got sick and passed it on to vulnerable people.

Why don’t these questions get asked?

The full results are here.

Party Vote

• National 37% (nc from last poll)
• Labour 34% (+1%)
• ACT 9% (-2%)
• Greens 9% (nc)
• Maori Party 2% (nc)
• NZ First 3% (nc)
• TOP 1% (-1%)
• New Conservatives 1% (nc)
• Vision NZ 1% (nc)
• Social Credit 1% (nc)

13% (+2%) undecided.

Seats

• Labour 45 (-20 from election)
• National 49 (+16)
• ACT 12 (+2)
• Greens 12 (+2)
• Maori 2 (nc)

Government

• National/ACT 61/120
• Labour/Greens 57/120

Preferred PM (unprompted)

• Jacinda Ardern 30% (nc)
• Christopher Luxon 21% (-1%)
• David Seymour45% (-1%)
• Chloe Swarbrick 1% (nc)
• Winston Peters 2% (nc)
• Nicola Willis 1% (nc)
• James Shaw 1%

Preferred PM (prompted)

• Jacinda Ardern 47% (+1% from March)
• Christopher Luxon 41% (-4%)

The three main contenders for the Wellington Mayoralty are incumbent Andy Foster, Paul Eagle backed by Labour and Tory Whanau backed by the Greens. One of those three will win, so what matters in this STV election are where they are ranked in relation to each other. Rank the one you most want to win highest, the one you can tolerate second and the one you least want to win last.

All three candidates are decent people, and would bring different strengths to the job.

On policy grounds alone, I have the most in common with Andy Foster. But the Q+A poll had him in third place, so how his voters second preference may decide the election. The Council under Andy has achieved quite a bit, but it has been hamstrung by constant infighting and a lack of unity. Now a lot of this can be laid at the party blocs, but not all of it. The fact that two of the CR Councillors are not backing Foster suggests there is more to it than party politics.

Paul Eagle is endorsed by Labour, but not an official Labour candidate. That is good as it means he is not bound to do what the Labour Party orders, unlike those standing on the ticket. Paul is a former Deputy Mayor and was known to be good at working with Councillors from both the left and the right, which is why he has support from both Labour Party Councillors and some of those on the right. Paul would be the best chance of having a Mayor who can unite the Council.

Tory is endorsed by the Greens. Now on policy grounds I could never back her, but I should say she does come from the sane faction of the Greens. Now yes it might be a very small faction, but it does exist. She actually has a corporate background before getting involved in politics, and is a good person.

Now, as with all Councils, the Mayor is just one vote. Here’s some thoughts on some of the ward candidates.

Northern Ward

My No 1 pick is Tony Randle. I have known Tony since university but that is not why I am so excited he is standing. Tony is an expert on public transport. He is hugely pro public transport but even more hugely pro good analysis. Whenever NZTA or GWRC or LGWM puts out a business case for something, Tony gets hold of the detailed work sheets and literally picks up all their errors, their misguided assumptions etc. The ability of WCC to scrutinise transport projects would be hugely enhanced if Tony is a Councillor. If you want public transport decisions based on reality, not fantasy, then Tony is your person.

I also know John Apanowicz. He has been a good community board chair and would be a sensible voice on Council.

For the third slot, both John Peters and Rachel Qi have been recommended to me as sensible people who would focus Council or doing core things well, rather than drowning us in rates and debt.

If you are left leaning incumbent Jenny Condie is diligent. And Ben McNulty is standing for Labour which means I won’t rank him in the top three, but he is from the more sensible side of Labour and would be more rational than some of his colleagues.

Onslow-Western

Diane Calvert is an incumbent and extremely hard working advocate for her area. I don’t agree with her on all issues, but she is a good Councillor who should be re-elected.

I don’t really know them but Ryan Bothma and Ray Chung both strike me as moderate and concerned about keeping rates affordable. If I was in this ward, I’d have them in my top three.

I should mention Labour Councillor Rebecca Matthews. I disagree with her on the vast majority of issues, but I do admire her staunchness in voting for housing rules that will make housing more affordable for future home owners. On that issue she has been a good champion.

Lambton

Nicola Young is a star, and a superb Councillor. She is principled and will defend her own corner – sometimes a sole dissenting voice. But she is also able to work across ideological lines and has developed good relationships with Labour Councillors etc. She is an easy No 1.

Jane O’Loughlin has really impressed me as a candidate. She has done an excellent blog on the problems with the proposed light rail for Wellington (goes to the wrong place, is too short etc). If you want Councillors who can put reality ahead of fantasy, she would be a good pick.

Karl Tiefenbacher seems to be sensible based on his bio, and again if you want affordable rates a good third pick.

I like Iona Pannett, and if it was a decision between her and Tamatha Paul, you have to back the one who was deselected by the Greens for exercising independent thinking.

Eastern

Tim Brown and Steph Edlin would both be great Councillors. I know Steph well and she would bring rational analysis to the Council, rather than ideology. Tim Brown has had a great business career with Infratril and Wellington Airport and WCC would be lucky to have someone of his calibre on the Council.

I like Aaron Gilmore’s policies, but suspect bad publicity will make it hard for him to come through. Rob Goulden also has good policies.

Sarah Free I have known since I was a child, as I was best friends with her sister. Sarah has also been unendorsed by the Greens. She has been a diligent Deputy Mayor and done her best to make the Council work, and while we disagree on policies I think she is a good Councillor.

Southern

I grew up in Island Bay. It still distresses me to see what the terrible cycleway has done to Island Bay. Cycleways are great when done well. The one between Kaiwharawhara and Petone is gong to be amazing, but the Island Bay one is terrible for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.

Two independents stand out as worth supporting – Paula Muollo and Inoke Afeaki.

Te Whanganui-a-Tara Māori

Labour’s Matthew Reweti is the clear choice between him and Green’s Nīkau Wi Neera.

DNYUZ reports:

Meg Smaker felt exhilarated last November. After 16 months filming inside a Saudi rehabilitation center for accused terrorists, she learned that her documentary “Jihad Rehab” was invited to the 2022 Sundance Festival, one of the most prestigious showcases in the world.

Her documentary centered on four former Guantánamo detainees sent to a rehab center in Saudi Arabia who had opened their lives to her, speaking of youthful attraction to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, of torture endured, and of regrets.

Film critics warned that conservatives might bridle at these human portraits, but reviews after the festival’s screening were strong.

“The absence of absolutes is what’s most enriching,” The Guardian stated, adding, “This is a movie for intelligent people looking to have their preconceived notions challenged.” Variety wrote: The film “feels like a miracle and an interrogative act of defiance.”

So this is a film which humanises four terrorists. Not exactly my cup of tea, but sounds worthwhile as understanding the complexity of individuals is usually a good thing.

But attacks would come from the left, not the right. Arab and Muslim filmmakers and their white supporters accused Ms. Smaker of Islamophobia and American propaganda. Some suggested her race was disqualifying, a white woman who presumed to tell the story of Arab men.

Sundance leaders reversed themselves and apologized.

Abigail Disney, a grandniece of Walt Disney, had been the executive director of “Jihad Rehab” and called it “freaking brilliant” in an email to Ms. Smaker. Now she disavowed it.

The film “landed like a truckload of hate,” Ms. Disney wrote in an open letter.

Ms. Smaker’s film has become near untouchable, unable to reach audiences. Prominent festivals rescinded invitations, and critics in the documentary world took to social media and pressured investors, advisers and even her friends to withdraw names from the credits. She is close to broke.

So because she is white, the woke jihadists made the film untouchable. They are the same ones that think actors can never play someone of a different gender identity, different race etc.

The cowards like Sundance and Abigail Disney who loved the film then cowed to the mob and decried it and apologised for it.

The one film festival that still ran it is one in NZ – yay we are less insane than the rest of the world.

The Herald reports:

The bill, which is likely to be debated by Parliament next month, has two measures: ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship for broadcast sports, and block appeals of councils’ local alcohol policies.

Swarbrick said she felt they were two uncontroversial proposals which were strongly backed by evidence. They would give councils more control over alcohol availability in their areas and prevent young people from being exposed to the “normalisation and glamorisation” of drinking. …

Within Labour, MPs have expressed support for the proposal to prevent councils from facing constant, endless appeals when they try to introduce their own alcohol policies. But there is concern among some of its MPs about the ban on alcohol sponsorship.

Actually I think the worst part of the bill is around the local alcohol policies. The sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 only allows appeals against Local Alcohol Policies if it is “unreasonable”. What this means is that the Council needs some evidence that the restrictions they propose will reduce alcohol harm. This should be pretty simple.

But Council after Council has failed to do this. They think the Act allows them to place whatever restrictions appeal to them, regardless of any evidence that it will reduce harm. And so they pass LAPs, and then get them struck down because they have no evidence to back them up. And as a society we should demand that Councils have evidence before they restrict citizens from being able to do something they want to, such as buy alcohol conveniently.

I’ll give an example, which I have first hand experience of. Some Councils put into their LAPs a policy that supermarkets can’t sell alcohol after 9 pm. They have no idea whether or not that will reduce harm, but they have been persuaded that the more restrictions you have, the better it is.

The supermarkets hire Curia to survey shoppers at a dozen supermarkets who are shopping between 9 pm and 11 pm, who have purchased alcohol as to whether the alcohol is for consumption that night, or later, and why they are shopping at that time. The vast vast majority say they are purchasing it for later consumption, and are merely buying it as part of their weekly shop because that is most convenient for them as they have kids etc.

So the supermarkets have evidence that the LAP will not reduce harm. It merely inconveniences peoples doing their weekly shop. The vast majority of people at a supermarket at 9.30 pm buying alcohol are not halfway through a party and needing to top up their supplies.

So the supermarkets present their evidence, and they wait for the Council to produce their own evidence that their LAP will reduce harm. And the Council doesn’t. It just ignores the evidence, and then has a tizzy fit when the supermarkets appeal.

And what Chloe’s bill does is reward councils for ignoring evidence by making their decisions, no matter how irrational, unappealable.

It is an appalling bill. All Councils have to do is show their LAPs are reasonable. This is not a high barrier.

Oliver Hartwich writes in The Australian:

Good journalists do not start with a message but with a question.

This makes the New Zealand government’s “Public Interest Journalism Fund” (PIJF), set up in mid-2020, a questionable exercise. For local media to apply for a slice of the available NZ$55 million, they first need to sign up to supporting a list of political causes.

The standard funding agreement to access the PIJF contains a section titled “New Zealand Identity and Culture and Public Interest requirements”.

“You will use best endeavours to ensure all Content reflects and develops New Zealand identity and culture,” it states.

It then asks journalists to ensure, among other matters, that content “actively promotes the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner.”

If you are unfamiliar with New Zealand politics, this requirement may sound innocent. Who would object to good race relations? No-one, hopefully.

However, the wording makes it clear that the actual agenda goes well beyond an acknowledgment of the Treaty of Waitangi as an historic document of constitutional significance. It demands that journalists accept the government’s interpretation of the Treaty and then promote it actively.

The problem is that the meaning of the Treaty is a contemporary political issue, and there is more than one political interpretation. Therefore, the expressed requirement to take a side necessarily collides with journalists’ professional ethos, irrespective of their personal stance on the Treaty.

The government paying journalists only on the condition that they agree to spread the government’s message on the Treaty creates an obvious challenge for journalism in New Zealand.

Hartwich gets the heart of the problem – the $55 million is conditional on media organisation’s agreeing with the Government’s view on the Treaty. This is repugnant. Polling by Curia has shown a massive 59% think the PIJF undermines the independence of the media. Only 24% of Kiwis support retaining the PIJF.

I hope the next Government will scrap it entirely. However there may be a case for funding reporting on court cases and local councils. But this would need to be done with no conditions around the Treaty and through some sort of neutral body not appointed by the Government of the day.