A guest post by Alwyn Poole:

A week or so back I talked about how the NZ system is creating a hole for boys within our own nation.

Latest data shows that our systems are failing a great many of our children vs the world. Even against Australia – where Muldoon could no longer say that someone shifting to Australia from NZ increases the IQ of both nations … and not just because he is dead.

Before commenting on the recent international release of Science and Math stats (TIMMS) and before I state the method of how easy it is to catch up to them (next post) – I should also comment that I enjoyed the interaction after listing some of the athletes I had studied and had the privilege of seeing in the flesh. In terms of understanding how people become good at something my other love has been rock(ish) musicians. They are fascinating so, as for the sportspeople, in no particular order, these are some the people I have seen in concert and chosen to study:

Muse, Foo Fighters, Dave Dobbyn, Rolling Stones, Arcade Fire, Paul Simon, Midnight Oil, Fleetwood Mac, Alicia Keys, The Who, Santana, Tom Morello, Smashing Pumpkins, Kanye West, Water Boys, Florence and the Machine, Don McGlashin, Jay-Z, U2, Liam Finn, Kimbra, Split Enz, Bruce Springsteen, Stereophonics, The Angels, Eddie Rayner, Elvis Costello. Hugh Laurie, Cliff Richard, Roger Waters, Nickleback (I didn’t say they were all good), Sting, Paul Kelly, Supergroove, Jack White, Jack Johnson, John Legend, Neil Finn, Crowded House, Jon Toogood, Jimmy Barnes, Lifehouse, Linkin Park, Hello Sailor, Imagine Dragons, Live, Counting Crows, Hot House Flowers, Switchfoot, Michael W. Smith, Dragon, Mi-Sex, Cranberries, Stray Cats, Bic Runga, Chris Cornell. RHCP, The Killers, Simply Red, Pearl Jam, Ben Harper, Mumford and Sons

The point? Not just to annoy people. The key thing about these people is that – to a very significant degree they have mastered their skill set through many, many hours of significant purposeful practice. They are worth learning from. Some of them – e.g. Matthew Bellamy of Muse – has several instruments at the highest level.

It now appears that NZ is locking our young people into a learning spiral that is opening out towards terminal velocity and has very little about it that could be regarded as aspirational in any form.

“New Zealand’s 13-year-olds have recorded their worst-ever results in a major international maths and science test.

It found New Zealand had one of the biggest achievement gaps in maths based on the number of books students had at home with 90 percent of students with lots of books meeting or exceeding the study’s benchmark for low performance, while the figure for students with few books at home was around 60 percent.

McNaughton said the TIMSS report showed where New Zealand students were weakest, such as biology and statistics, and that would help with targeted solutions.

“These are really tough challenges and to be honest we should have solved them but we’re now in a better position to do that.”

He said the Year 9 scores were the cumulative result of teaching in Years 4-8.

Compared to other countries, New Zealand’s scores ranked as follows (with the previous 2015 ranking in brackets) Year 4 maths 40th (34th), Year 4 science 34th (32nd), Year 9 maths 23rd (21st), Year 9 science 19th (16th).

Last year, New Zealand’s 15-year-olds recorded their lowest scores ever in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which tests reading, maths and science. Of the 79 participating countries in PISA, New Zealand was 11th equal for reading, 12th for science, and 27th for maths.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/432451/nz-students-record-worst-results-in-maths-and-science

Is this what we really want? New Zealand leading a race to the intellectual bottom. I asked a journalist today what has the response of Hipkins (occasional Minister of Education been) … he hadn’t even bothered to ask. Who will hold him and his government to account?

It is okay though. The ABs won the tri-nations.

This is a list of all the different courts that have rejected the lawsuits by Trump or his allies trying to overthrow the election results.

Federal

• US Supreme Court
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Arizona United States District Court
• U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
• U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
• U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

State

• Michigan Supreme Court
• Minnesota Supreme Court
• Nevada Supreme Court
• Pennsylvania Supreme Court;
• Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County
• Chatham County Superior Court of the Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia
• Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia
• Michigan Court of Appeals
• Michigan Third Judicial Circuit Court
• Nevada District Court
• Nevada District Court, Clark County
• Nevada District Court, Carson City
• Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
• Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
• Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
• Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
• Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County

The lawsuit from Texas Attorney-General is arguably the weakest one of them all.

If this is what people are pinning their hopes on, they are going to have a big surprise when SCOTUS rejects it 9-0.

The person who wrote this is so wet it is amazing they don’t drown while seated at their computer.

A guest post by David Garrett:

Men of my generation live in a world which is becoming increasingly bizarre in many respects: women who think it’s attractive to have a “sleeve” of tattoos; young people of both sexes wearing bits of wire stuck through various parts of their faces; marriage between two (thus far only two) people of the same sex – and ever increasing tolerance of sexual and gender deviance.

First, a couple of definitions. My trusty Concise Oxford defines deviance thus: “thing or person that deviates from normal behavior”, and abnormal as “exceptional, irregular; deviating from the type”. That being the case, no exception should logically be taken to describing gays as being abnormal or deviant, since we now know that only roughly 3% of people are gay. (Even if one believes the long discredited Kinsey findings that 10% of people are homosexual that still means they are abnormal in the strict sense of the word).

I hasten to add that I am not suggesting for a moment that gays ought to be discriminated against, or worse, harassed or beaten simply for being what they are, as was the case not so long ago. Many readers under 40 may be surprised to learn that up until 1973 homosexuality was still classified as a mental illness in DSM-II, the American encyclopedia of mental illnesses (now DSM-IV). Few would now argue that that should still be the case.

I wonder if I am alone in finding the pace and degree of language change regarding gender and sexuality bewildering? Look at an old movie (of which I am a great fan) made more than about 50 years ago. The word “gay” then meant a light hearted happy person, as in “The Gay divorcee” (note the two “e’s denoting a female divorced person) or a place in which people were enjoying themselves and were probably a little tiddly – even back then not necessarily caused by alcohol.

In the mid sixties everything changed: by 1970 you would have to have been living in a cave or be an elderly person who never got out much not to know that a “gay person” was a person of either sex who fancied their own kind rather than members of the opposite sex. By the end of the 80’s everyone under 50 would know that “LGB” meant people who were either lesbian, homosexual, or bi-sexual.

In the past 30 years – and more particularly the last 10 or 15 –  what has derisively been called the “alphabet soup” of variations in sexuality and gender was growing like Topsy: in addition to Lesbian Gay and Bi-sexual, we now had T for transgender, I for intersex, and A for asexual. Eventually people began to see that the  list of letters  was getting a bit ponderous, and so the latest version – well, so far as this somewhat bewildered senior knows – is LGBTIQA+, the + standing in for  letters denoting all the other supposed variations of sexuality and gender.

Very recently, we are told – instructed might be a more accurate word – that to obey correct “trans etiquette” when meeting new people we should not only say “Hello, my name is David”, but also add “and my pronouns are he/him”. Readers wishing to make sure they get everything absolutely right in that regard may like to read this article which appeared in Stuff on 5 December. What, you don’t know what “deadnaming” is yet? See below and all will be revealed.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life-style-top-stories/123608197/not-deadnaming-elliot-page-and-other-basic-trans-etiquette

Given the pace of change in the area of sexuality and gender, surely it is reasonable to ask at least two questions: When and where if anywhere, is this going to end; and How much acceptance of what was once considered to be abnormal or even abhorrent should we be expected to tolerate?

I am of the view – not shared by any means by all those who study  human sexuality – that people are probably born heterosexual, bi-sexual, asexual or somewhere in between. That said, I suspect the nature/nurture debate on the degree to which deviance – used in the correct sense of the word – is innate or learned is going to continue for a long time yet. It is still quite common to see even well educated people talking of homosexuality as “a lifestyle choice.” For the record, I am with those gays who ask “why would someone choose to be a member of a group or class of persons who continue to suffer discrimination at best, or in  some cultures be at risk of their very lives by loving as they do?”

Now for the tricky bit. While I believe heterosexuals and homosexuals (let’s just stick with those two for the moment to keep it simple) are indeed born and not made, I believe the same is true of paedophiles. While I am exclusively sexually attracted to women, and the Godfather of my children is exclusively attracted to men, paedophiles are “wired” to be attracted to children. Again let me be clear: I am not suggesting there is any connection between homosexuality and paedophilia – clearly paedophiles may be either straight or gay.

Just as unsuccessful attempts were made as recently as 30 years ago to “rewire” homosexuals, equally unsuccessful attempts continue to be made to rewire paedophiles so their sexual urges are expressed in a more “acceptable” manner. While there is some limited success with “rewiring” young paedophiles, it seems that if paedophilia is  maintained into adulthood, it is very unlikely to change, and even drastic measures like chemical or actual castration are of limited effect.

Logically then, surely the question must be “If we accept that homosexuals should be allowed to express their sexuality as they choose, why not paedophiles?” The usual response from people who haven’t thought about it very much is “Oh, that’s quite different; having sex with children is against the law.” The response to that  is of course that 40 years ago it was also illegal for men to have sex with men, and terms of imprisonment with hard labour for doing so – even with consent – were common perhaps as recently as the 1940’s.

The response of those not caught at the first logical hurdle, as it were, is that paedophilia is different because children cannot give consent. The problem with that is that there is no universal agreement on how old a “child” needs to be to give informed consent. We know that Mohammed had at least one bride who was nine years old. While the age of consent in all US states is now between 16 and 18, in the late  19^th century the age of consent was between 10 and 12;  in 1880 the age of consent in Delaware  was seven –  two years younger than Muhammed found acceptable, but which most reading this would find disgusting. In Louisiana, as recently as the early 70’s, the age of consent was 13.

So to return to my original question: how much further acceptance of sexual deviance is or should be acceptable? What should society’s answer be  to groups like AMBLA, the Aotearoa Man/Boy Love Association – derived from a similar group in the US with the same acronym – who say children under 10 can give consent to sexual activity? Put bluntly, my answer is “You can all fuck off”.

For me, we have come as far, or almost as far as we should, in accepting as normal and acceptable what quite recently was not. I can live with the age of consent being 16 for any and all sexual activity, although as with any other arbitrary age limit, some “young” 16 year olds clearly are not ready to decide whether they should allow someone else intimate access to their bodies.

But while the above view may well be that of most people in 2020, has change in this regard gone as far as it should be allowed to go? I fear that it has not, and just as the alphabet soup of sexuality and gender increased to the point where it was getting ridiculous, the question of whether paedophiles should be allowed to “express themselves” like everyone else who fall somewhere within that alphabet soup is far from determined. But for me at least, sex with children will always be taboo, and  Hell will freeze over before I list my pronouns when introducing myself or expect others to do the same.

Labour promised in 2017 that by late 2020 they would be building over 850 Kiwibuild houses a month.

In October they built seven.

NPR reports:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling the high court would not go along with President Trump’s unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive defeat in the popular vote and Electoral College.

The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.

This is no surprise. I would have been amazed if even a single Justice had found a skerrick of merit in the lawsuit.

Of all the lawsuits Trump and his allies have pushed, this is one of the most outraegous.

The lawsuit is from a state legislator Mark Kelly. His argument is that the law allowing universal mail-in voting in Pennsylvania is unconstitutional and hence the remedy is to throw out the entire election results for President (but not any other race).

Now to understand how bad faith this is, you need to understand that the 2019 law was not passed by Democrats, but by Republicans. The GOP has a majority in both the lower and upper state houses, and it was supported by their state leadership.

So the GOP is arguing a law change they championed and voted for in 2019 is in fact unconstitutional and its passage should invalidate the election. Incredible.

Also of course Kelly never took the issue to court before the presidential election, despite having 18 months to do so. It is only after Trump lost they he decided it was unconstitutional.

So Trump and his team has lost again. Last Friday they lost six cases in six states all within three hours. They are the bestest at losing ever.

Mind you it has been a great money maker for Trump. He has conned $200 million out of supporters to fund these lawsuits and spent only $10 million on them. So he pockets $190 million.

Having lost in 40 different courts, and having had all the states certify the results, he has been trying to get state legislatures to overturn the votes and appoint their own electors. None have been suicidal enough to agree to date, so there is no doubt the Electoral College will vote for Biden.

His last gasp is to try and get Congress the overturn the Electoral College votes when they count them. Already some lapdogs have petitioned for the results from some states to be disputed. But again this has no chance of success, if you know how the Electoral Count Act of 1887 works.

• An objection is only valid if both a member of the House and a Senator object in writing. Finding a House member willing to sell his self respect is easy enough, but Senators are more cautious. Without a Senator objecting, there is no vote
• If there is an objection, both the the House and Senate meet separately to consider the objection. And both the House and Senate by simple majority must uphold the objection. This would require Democratic House members to vote for it, and in the Senate would require 50 of the potentially 52 GOP Senators. Neither will occur.
• Even if say the Senate votes for one slate of electors and the House for another, the slate certified by the Governor is declared valid. So Trump can’t steal the election just with the Senate.

So Trump will continue with his money making scam as long as possible, but it will not change the reality that Joe Biden will be President of the United States after midday on the 20th of January.

Barry Soper writes:

This was a story that could potentially have brought down Parliament’s Speaker.

Trevor Mallard was being sued for defamation after a parliamentary staff member was sent packing after being accused by Mallard of rape.

The accusation came after the Debbie Francis report into bullying and sexual harassment at Parliament was made public in May last year. Mallard was commenting on serious sexual assaults identified in the report. He said what the staff member was claimed to have done to a colleague was tantamount to rape.

“We’re talking about serious sexual assault. Well that, for me, that’s rape,” Mallard said at the time.

But in fact, as far as I know, the complaints were about unwanted hugs. That doesn’t mean it isn’t still inappropriate workplace behaviour, but it certainly is well removed from rape.

On the day the Royal Commission on the mosque shootings was being made public, and on the eve of the Whakaari White Island eruption’s first anniversary, Mallard put out a statement which reads:

“On 22 May 2019, shortly after the publication and dissemination of the Francis Review into bullying and harassment in the New Zealand parliamentary workforce, the Speaker of the House the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard made a number of comments to the media about the findings of that report and in particular as they related to an individual working at Parliament.

“Some of Trevor Mallard’s comments gave the impression that allegations made against that individual in the context of the Francis Review amounted to rape.

“Trevor Mallard accepts that his understanding of the definition of rape at that time was incorrect and that the alleged conduct did not amount to rape (as that term is defined in the Crimes Act 1961) and that it was incorrect of him to suggest otherwise.

“Trevor Mallard apologises for the distress and humiliation his statements caused to the individual and his family.

“Trevor Mallard has provided a personal apology to the individual. Both parties consider the matter is now closed and no further comment will be made.”

Of course it won’t. There’s clearly been a settlement with the man who was maligned. I expect his legal expenses will no doubt be taken care of just as Trevor Mallard’s will be – by the taxpayer.

An apology and settlement is appropriate. But we should know how much the settlement was for, as we paid for it.

New Green MP Ricardo Menendez March said in his maiden speech:

I remember in 2011 watching the election results at the back of the cinema counter while the last film of the night was playing. I clearly remember seeing clips that night of the Winston Peters and Bob Jones of the world scapegoating immigrants for the housing crisis, for unemployment, and for inequality in general. While we were being blamed for buying up all the houses, we were also being blamed for bringing low-skilled, low-wage labour that didn’t contribute to the economy—or so they claimed.

Now it is certainly true Winston Peters has scapegoated immigrants. Not that this stopped the Greens from serving in a Government with him as Deputy PM.

But Bob Jones?

In 2012, Sir Bob wrote:

There’s an old boxing aphorism which speaks for itself, namely a hungry fighter is a good fighter. Make no mistake, those thousands of Asians – mainly Indians and Chinese, but also large numbers of Thais, Koreans, Malays and Filipinos – pouring into New Zealand are very hungry fighters indeed. The evidence confronts us daily.

Whether it’s the amazing 15-year-old Korean-born Lydia Ko or the annual secondary schools top scholars’ photographs published in newspapers which are dominated by Asian kids, or the corner shops with their Indian families keeping them open 19 hours a day, seven days a week, or so many of the new CBD retail business start-ups being Chinese, the energy of these migrants amounts to a huge boost for New Zealand.

So in fact the exact opposite of what the Green MP alleged.

Never before in history has there been as much mass migration as today. If, in many cases, they’re fleeing war-torn countries, the evidence is clear that host nations are ultimately enhanced by the contribution of different cultures, despite occasional teething problems. But most are economic migrants and we should welcome them to our welfare-sated nation. They bring with them an independent mentality and self-respect, sadly non-existent with a large section of our population.

The American expression of the melting pot is undoubtedly an important factor in that nation’s success. We should copy it and woo migrants from non-traditional sources. Aside from the very welcome Asians, we’re now getting heaps of Argentinians and Middle Easterners. 

Sir Bob probably even supports migration from Mexico!

In 2013 he also wrote:

But what of our country? To date, our geographic isolation has provided immunity from the boat people. That won’t last, as the world abounds in cheap old ships and inevitably one laden with illegal migrants will turn up here, more so as that same isolation gives us an Elysian Fields imagery in the eyes of people enduring hardship in distant lands. It will be easy to send ashore in simple barges hundreds of migrants along, say, Ninety Mile Beach. By the time they’re discovered, the ship will be 500 miles away, off to pick up a fresh load.

As with Australia, the navy will be helpless dealing with this. Hobson’s choice will invariably see us accept them, resulting in ever more arriving. There’s no answer to this problem other than not viewing it as a problem and, instead, accepting a multi-race future; a miniature melting pot as lies at the heart of America’s greatness. The grandchildren of today’s 20-year-olds will all be part Asian, Arab and God knows what else, and be better for this infusion.

And here Sir Bob actually advocates for allowing in illegal immigrants and welcoming them. So in total Bob advocates for immigration with no restrictions due to the economic and cultural benefits to NZ for doing so. This is the polar opposite of what Menendez March claimed about Sir Bob.

I think Sir Bob is owed an apology by the Marxist MP for maligning him as someone who scapegoats immigrants. But he has already refused to do so on Twitter, with some nonsense about Sir Bob only sees immigrants as economic units.

More stuff he just invents. Sir Bob specifically cites the cultural benefits from immigration. So a sad start for an MP to use his maiden speech to smear someone just because he could.

Also worth noting Sir Bob provide scholarships to refugee daughters, so they can study at university.

The report is here. Overall it looks like a sober and sensible analysis of the terrorist attack. The conclusion is this particular attack was probably not stoppable, but that there are many areas where agencies could have done better.

I was particularly pleased with their section on hate speech laws where they stated:

Section 131 of the Human Rights Act 1993, which criminalises certain types of hate speech, is not fit for purpose. The section as written unacceptably impinges on the right of freedom of expression. The words “excite hostility against or bring into contempt” set a low liability threshold. Accordingly it has invited rewriting by the courts, but in a way that has resulted in considerable uncertainty. More generally it does not provide a credible foundation for prosecution.

I agree the current threshold is too low and is an unacceptable infringement of the right of freedom of expression.

We recommend that the Government:

Repeal section 131 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and insert a provision in the Crimes Act 1961 for an offence of inciting racial or religious disharmony, based on an intent to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred, through threatening, abusive or insulting communication with protected characteristics that include religious affiliation.

A threshold of inciting hatred is better than the current threshold of exciting hostility. Also a key aspect of the proposed new law is that there must be an intent to incite hatred, which should mean that prosecutions under such a law would be very hard to bring.

The devil will be in the detail, but what the Royal Commission is proposing seems far better than what the Government was proposing.

I’ll post later in the week on the other recommendations.

Newshub reports:

A legal bid is underway to get the results of the cannabis referendum thrown out.

A group of more than 350 people is asking the High Court to void the vote on the Cannabis and Control Bill, claiming poor and inaccurate information generated confusion among voters.

It also claims the Electoral Commission reinforced that misinformation.

The yes groupies are starting to remind me of the remoaners on the Brexit result in the UK – they just couldn’t accept they lost, so they blame everyone else.

Drug reform advocate Blair Anderson is one of the people taking the case. He told Checkpoint New Zealanders heard far too much from the “no” vote during the campaign and said there was a failure to correct misinformation.

Good God. They’re saying the referendum should be void because people with an opposing view to them got airtime.

The first post-election public poll is out, and pretty much as expected:

• Labour 53%
• National 25%
• Greens 8%
• ACT 8%
• Maori Party 2%

While it might be expected, it does show the huge challenge ahead of National, With Greens and ACT polling the same, National needs to poll higher than Labour to be able to form a Government.

Now the next election is three years away but in three years they need to eliminate a 28% gap. So every six months they need to close the gap by 5%.

Newshub reports:

It’s been nine years since we set a goal of being smokefree by 2025 but Newshub can reveal the Government is yet to actually make a plan for achieving that goal.

Two-and-a-half years ago, Labour said it was creating a plan but documents show there isn’t even a finalised draft.

Anti-smoking organisations are furious saying the former Minister, Jenny Salesa, has failed. …

In May 2018, Labour’s Associate Health Minister at the time Jenny Salesa said she was developing a plan.

Ten months later she told Cabinet it would be finished by October 2019. But more than a year after that, there’s still no plan – not even a draft.

Is anyone surprised?

The Herald reports:

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) says an investigation into Auckland Mayor Phil Goff’s election expenses is still a work in progress and it’s remaining tight-lipped about exactly what it is investigating. …

Last September, electoral officer Dale Ofsoske passed a complaint about Goff’s 2016 election expenses to police.

It centred around a $366,000 auction declaration which did not specify individual donations or purchases. It included the sale at an auction of a book for $150,000.

It is unconscionable that someone would donate $150,000 to Phil Goff’s campaign and not have their identity disclosed.

Simon Wilson has written on how easy it would be for Auckland to reduce Auckland’s transport emissions by 70% in 10 years.

Cycling costs almost nothing compared to trains and buses, despite the occasional complainant thinking otherwise, but Auckland still doesn’t have much cycling infrastructure and progress is painfully slow.

Could cycling become as popular here as it is in Copenhagen? They have 1.3 million people and a third of trips in the city area on a bike. Being like the Danish capital would save 375 kt CO2-e of emissions.

Now I’m all in favour of cities being cycling friendly, but it is facile to say oh Auckland should or could have as many people cycling as Copenhagen.

Copenhagen’s area is 293 square kms. Auckland’s is 4,894 square kms.

Need more be said.

Newshub reports:

Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government, has revealed she plans to appoint a Commission in response to governance problems at Tauranga City Council.

The deeply divided council has recently been slammed as being made up of “petty politicians” in “desperate need of progressive thinking”, by Tauranga’s outgoing mayor Tenby Powell.

During a fiery resignation speech in November, Powell called on Mahuta to appoint commissioners to replace the councillors.

This is an extreme action, but one that appears warranted. What has gone on there is not acceptable or professional.

Stuff reports:

The waitlist for a state or social home grew by more than a thousand in September, to 21,415 households.

This new record high for the end of September continues years of surging growth on the waitlist – the figure is up about 7000 households on a year ago, and is about four times higher than it was when the Labour-led Government was elected in 2017.

The waiting list has increased by 266%, so indeed almost four fold.

In Labour’s first year it grew by 63%. In their second year by 47% and last year by 53%. In raw terms it increased by 15,571.

In National’s last term the waiting list grew by 1,655 (around 10% of the growth under Labour) or in percentage terms by 39% compared to 266% under Labour.

A guest post by Alwyn Poole:

I was once sitting in the staff room of a NZ boys school at the beginning of an academic year and they were discussing the previous year’s external exam results. The Head of Math stood and detailed how the student average in his subject was above the national level. The Head of Sciences did the same. The Head of English then stood and stated: “The English results are 5% below National average but keep in mind we are working with boys.” She spoke as if this was written in the stars and no one contradicted her. I guess if the likes of C. S. Lewis, Tolstoy or Tolkien, etc., were in the room then they at least would have guffawed.

In 2019 female school leavers in NZ were more likely to obtain UE than their male counterparts at 45.9% compared to 32.9%. Astounding and another indictment on our “world class” education system.

Throughout my adult life and through some of my formal qualifications – a Masters in the Education of High Ability students and a Post Grad Diploma in Sports Management – I have studied how people become good in education, sports, the arts, and professions. I have also had the privilege of seeing many great athletes in the flesh and to be astounded by their qualities. These are some of the males that I have seen (in no particular order).

All Blacks, NZ Cricket, B&I Lions, Nick Farr-Jones, John Eales, Australian Rugby Team (1990s version), M. D. Crowe, Frankie Fredericks, Donovan Bailey, Stuart O’Grady, Nick Willis, UCI World Champs 2015, Peter Sagan, Tom Boonen, Vincenzo Nibali, Greg Henderson, Cameron Brown, Hamish Carter, Bevan Docherty, Jan Frodeno, Javier Gomez

Alistair Brownlee, Craig Alexander, David Beckham, Julian Dean, France Rugby, Michael Jones, Jonah Lomu,  Aaron Gate, Sam Webster, Dennis Lillie, Jeff Thompson, Greg Chappell

Richard Hadlee, John Walker, Rod Dixon, Dick Quax, Roger Federer, Leyton Hewitt, Mark Phillpousis, Michael Schumacher, Kimi Rikkonnen, Dale Earnhardt Jnr, Cleveland Cavaliers

LeBron James, Chicago Bulls, Kyrie Irving, Tampa Bay Bucaneers, Arizona Cardinals

Larry Fitzgerald, Tampa Bay Rays, Evan Longoria, New England Patriots, Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, Julian Edelman, Andre Greipal, Michal Kwiatwoski, Rui Costa, Alejandro Valverde, Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning, Peter Snell, Wynton Rufer, Auston Matthews, Bruins, Maple Leafs, Philemon Rono, Virat Kohli, Ross Taylor, Trent Boult, Kane Williamson, Jasprit Pumbra, Graeme Hick, Tim Southee, SA Cricket, Indian Cricket, Australian Cricket.

I also had the privilege of spending time with the great Arthur Lydiard and many, many hours with NZ Olympic athletics and triathlon coach Jack Ralston. I have read many books on the topic of people becoming good at something including the remarkable Bounce by Matthew Syed and a whole stack of biographies. No one could say it more clearly than Lydiard but all other sources confirm it. Achievement and excellence in sport has very little to do with talent. It is always and everywhere hours and hours of well-directed purposeful practice and opportunities to perform and be challenged (especially to gain experience).

Academics is just the same and many of our boys have been sold a lie that school work is about inherent ability and that, stereotypically, they cannot achieve in many areas – especially those involving significant amounts of reading and/or writing. Teachers use that excuse far to often. To do well in any field young people have to be challenged and need to work hard. The expectations need to be high and effort/progress well rewarded.

For those of you with school age children the formula for their success is not rocket science but done well they could become rocket scientists. Next guest post I will give you the recipe.

The report of the Auditor-General into Auckland University buying a $5 million house for their VC is here. Key aspects:

In my view, the University has not been able to show a justifiable business purpose for purchasing the house.

It is hard to accept that purchasing a house to provide
accommodation for the incoming Vice-Chancellor, and to host an anticipated 14 events in two years, justifies the $5 million expenditure.

Nor does that level of hosting, in my view, justify an almost 50% reduction in the property’s rent.

So in summary the AG is saying the university should not have purchased the house, should not have paid $45 million for it and should not be providing it to the VC at half price.

The Vice-Chancellor’s salary, as publicly disclosed, is in the highest echelon of public sector salaries. Whether or not the salary is high by international standards, or the University considers that to be case, the amount is high enough that the University does not need to offer discounted accommodation for the Vice-Chancellor.

The VC is the 5th highest paid public official in NZ. They indeed don’t need taxpayers giving them a 50% rent discount.