General Debate 26 October 2020

Victoria stays locked down

News.com.au reports:

Victorians have lashed out at the Premier Daniel Andrews after he announced today Melbourne would see no easing of restrictions despite reaching its virus target.

Victorians took to Twitter to call the Premier’s decision to withhold the announcements a “huge kick in the guts” and “beyond a joke”.

Metropolitan Melbourne had been hopeful of further easing of restrictions on hospitality and retail, after the city’s rolling 14-day average number of virus cases fell to below five today.

But today the Premier dashed those hopes of easing restrictions, saying the government would delay any announcements, pending more test results related to an outbreak in the northern suburbs.

He said further rollbacks will not be announced until Tuesday at the earliest.

“No changes to metro restrictions. This is a huge kick in the guts after constant talk of significant announcements on Sunday. This bloody never-ending year,” 10 News reporter Emma O’Sullivan said on Twitter.

“This is beyond a joke,” 7 News journalist Joel Crean wrote on Twitter.

“On Sunday we were told 2 Nov. Wednesday we were told that would be brought forward, announced Sunday. Today the carrot is dangled again. WE ARE DONE @DanielAndrewsMP … ENOUGH!”

Fewer than five cases yet the lockdown continues.

A great sceptic dies

Stuff reports:

James Randi, the internationally acclaimed magician and escape artist, both praised and cursed for devoting much of his career to debunking all things paranormal – from spoon bending and water dowsing to spirit channelling and faith healing – has died. He was 92.

His educational foundation announced the death but did not provide additional details. In recent years, he had been treated for cancer and heart ailments.

An inveterate sceptic and bristly contrarian in his profession, Randi insisted that magic is based solely on earthly sleight of hand and visual trickery.

He scorned fellow magicians who allowed or encouraged audiences to believe their work was rooted in extrasensory or paranormal powers.

Those who prey on the gullible should be scorned. It annoys me no end TVNZ actually pars fraudsters to appear on TV to try and con people they are psychics.

Another Trump peace deal

News.com.au reports:

US President Donald Trump has announced that Sudan will normalise relations with Israel – the third such deal his administration has brokered in recent months.

Mr Trump invited reporters inside the Oval Office today as he officially sealed the agreement on a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok.

“The state of Israel and the Republic of Sudan have agreed to make peace,” Mr Trump said.

Sudan’s commitment to normalise relations follows similar agreements involving Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, both of which were also reached with help from the US.

But this one is arguably more significant. Unlike those nations, Sudan was technically still at war with Israel, making this a genuine peace deal.

Another excellent peace deal.

General Debate 25 October 2020

The art auctions returned

The Herald reports:

Donations disclosed in the last weeks of the campaign reveals Labour went ahead with its usual art auction fundraiser, despite questions about how it was disclosing the donations.

They also reveal that New Zealand First leader Winston Peters appears to have loaned his own party $60,000.

In early October, Labour declared donations of artwork from artists Karl Maughan and John Reynolds totalling $35,760 and $32,000 respectively.

Those “donations” represent how much a number of separate pieces of art sold for at auctions – that money is counted as a donation by Labour.

But Electoral Commission records don’t show who bought the artwork.

Labour has a long tradition of holding art auction fundraisers and has always treated them as donations from the artists, rather than disclosing the people who purchase the artworks.

It’s a loophole to hide donors.

Those paying $35,000 for an artwork are doing it to help Labour. They’re not doing it to buy a piece of art.

Otago University electoral law specialist Andrew Geddis said this is an area where the law should be tightened up to require disclosure of those who purchase the artworks, sometimes for much more than their value.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is investigating a matter relating to donations to the Labour Party in 2017 but has not revealed any details of what it is investigating.

Speaking to the Herald, Geddis said this could be one of the areas that the SFO was looking into.

He said the issue with Labour’s practise of raising money through selling art is the buyer could be deliberately be paying more than a piece is worth as they know it’s raising money for a political party they support.

The market value of a painting is highly subjective. It is not like a car. Of course people are paying more than they normally would, as a way to donate.

Labour’s supposed mandate

In the weeks leading up to the election, we heard from Jacinda Ardern time and time again that she was seeking a strong mandate from voters. But a mandate for what exactly? And just what is a mandate anyway?

Labour has secured the right to govern alone. The implementation of its policy agenda does not rely on the Greens and the handbrake in the form of New Zealand First no longer exists. This means Labour can enact the policies they campaigned on without having to make concessions to another party.

This brings us to Labour’s campaign platform. It’s difficult to identify exactly what key policies on which the party stood for re-election this year. This was not the case in 2017 where free tertiary education, KiwiBuild, light rail to Auckland Airport, reducing child poverty and homelessness, and cleaning our waterways all featured.

This year, Labour broadly campaigned on stable government and a plan for the economy post-Covid. There was also a promise to tweak the tax rate for the highest income earners and for RMA reform. Beyond that, it’s fair to say there was nothing radical or transformational in Labour’s 2020 election platform.

In fact, we heard more about what they weren’t going to do (and that’s implement a wealth tax).

With that in mind, what is Labour’s mandate?

The political concept of a “mandate” is contested. There is limited agreement as to how a mandate is defined or the extent to which it has binding moral force.

For the party who has won power, however, saying it has a mandate gives democratic legitimacy to its program. It has gone to the country, put X, Y and Z before the voters, been given their vote and, as a result, has a mandate from the people to do those things. Most people agree that this falls squarely within the meaning of a mandate.

In Labour’s case, the question is whether, in this sense of the word, it has the moral authority to implement an agenda it didn’t campaign on. And if not, then what?

Jacinda Ardern’s claims her party has won a “mandate to accelerate.” If the Prime Minister is referring to policies such as light rail, which failed to progress in the previous term, a legitimate argument could be made for the existence of a mandate to accelerate it. It has always remained Labour Party policy, and it won’t be hindered by the handbrake this term.

Beyond that, does the newly elected Government have a mandate to implement radical and transformation change? Or has the electorate actually voted in favour of the status quo? My guess is that it probably doesn’t matter.

Some will want Labour to use its mandate to shift hard to the left. But Ardern, like John Key before her, probably knows that it is in her interests to hold the centre – in particular, those National voters who have jumped ship. So, regardless of the extent to which Labour has a legitimate mandate to effect significant change, it’s difficult to see her risking the political capital she has won to use it. However disappointing that may be.

New guest poster

Peeni Henare says he wants to be Health Minister

Stuff reports:

Labour’s Peeni Henare is not keeping his interest in being the next health minister a secret.

It’s a bold departure from the usual ‘wait and see’ approach adopted from other MPs lined up for the new Government.

Sharing a photo of himself at the gym on Instagram this week, Henare wrote: “I have been asked by plenty of the new MPs for advice about working in Parliament and the advice to all of them is the same. Look after your well-being! For me, I like to go to the gym. It allows me to clear my head while also the added benefits of exercise.”

During his 15 months as an associate health minister, he “truly appreciated the challenge for our whānau and also the opportunities to fix them”, he said.

“That is why I put my hand up for the top job. We can turn many statistics around with positive change, system reform and investment. 

This is an excellent idea. Labour should absolutely replace Chris Hipkins with Peeni Henare as Health Minister.

In the lead up to the election, he told media he’d like to be health minister, and reform the system to better suit Māori.

In a post-election interview with Māori Television, Labour Hauraki-Waikato MP Nanaia Mahuta said she backed Henare for the ministerial position. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern needed to be bold and appoint a Māori MP to be health minister, she said.

So if Ardern says no to Henare she will be stamping on the mana of the Maori caucus.

General Debate 24 October 2020

One Scaramucci to go

The final debate occurred. Trump was much better than in the first debate, but no knock out blows. So how do things look:

  • Polling Average: 538 Biden +9.9% RCP +7.9%
  • Probability Forecast: 538 Trump 12%
  • Trump approval: 538: -11.3% RCP: -9.4%
  • Electoral College: 538: Biden 347 Trump 191 RCP: Biden 357 Trump 181
  • Favourability: RCP: Biden +6.2%, Trump -11.5%
  • Country DIrection: RCP: -30%
  • Betting Markets: RCP: Biden 65.6% Trump 35%

Black Hands

Stuff reports:

It was a crime that gripped the nation and more than 25 years later, the circumstances of what really happened at the Bain family home on Dunedin’s Every Street remains a mystery.

On June 20, 1994, parents Margaret and Robin Bain, along with three of their children – Arawa, Laniet and Stephen – were fatally shot. Eldest son David Bain was found guilty of the murders at a trial in 1995, but was later acquitted at a new trial in 2009.

Inspired by the Stuff podcast Black Hands, a new TVNZ 1 drama turns the focus on the Bain family.

But Joel Tobeck (The Luminaries, The Doctor Blake Mysteries, One Lane Bridge), who stars as patriarch Robin Bain, says this ireading s not a ‘whodunit’. Instead, Black Hands tells the story of the family in the 16 months preceding the murders.

I don’t think we will ever know who killed them. David Bain has been found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. An independent review has said on the balance of probabilities it was more likely David than Robin. We will never know.

Hence I am glad the drama is not trying to claim who killed the Bains, but bring the victims alive. Whether they were killed by their father or brother, they deserved so much better.

How does Parliament compare to the adult population

I thought it would be interesting to compare the demographics of Parliament to the overall adult population, as so many in the media focus on this. The data for the NZ adult population comes from the 2018 census for gender, ethnicity and age and from the 2018 General Social Survey.

This Parliament is the most diverse one in history, and it is a good thing when Parliament looks like the people it represents.

So in terms of gender women are slightly under-represented. They are 48% of Parliament and 51% of the adult population. But 48% is a higher proportion than any other country in the OECD. Sweden is at 47%. We were at 41%.

In terms of ethnicity, Asians are most under-represented with 5% of MPs for 15% of the adult population. Next are Europeans who are 65% of MPs and 67% of adults. Most over-represented are Pasifika who have 10% of MPs for 6% of adult pop and Maori who have 20% of MPs for 12% of adult population.

By sexual orientation, bisexuals are most under-represented with 0.8% of Parliament for 1.9% of population. Straights are next most under-represented with 89% of MPs for 96.5% of adult pop. Gay and Lesbians both massively over-represented with 5.0% each for under 1% of the population. Overall 11% of Parliament are “rainbow” for 3.5% of the adult population. It should be noted though the GSS may undercount rainbow population as it is a face to face survey. However NZ Health Survey has similar numbers.

In terms of age under 30s are least represented with 3% of Parliament for 24% of adult population followed by over 60s who have only 8% of Parliament for 22% of adult population. Most over-represented are those in their 40% who have 38% of MPs for 18% of adult population.

Of course I don’t think anyone expects the age of MPs to exactly mirror the adult population, otherwise we would have lots of MPs in their 80s or even 90s!

People often assume that minority groups are automatically under-represented in Parliament. But in fact in New Zealand it is often the other way around.

A terrible idea

Politik reports:

Meanwhile, Parliament’s Speaker, Trevor Mallard, will consider a proposal from the Prime Minister that peters be allowed a special valedictory. That would require a unanimous vote from all MPs if it were to go ahead. Whether ACT and National would support such a motion could be an obstacle.

That’s a terrible idea. If you want a valedictory you retire or resign. They are not for people who failed to get re-elected.

And just before the House rose, Peters used parliamentary privilege to smear and defame me and several others in a weird conspiracy theory about how his superannuation details got leaked.

Why would you reward that behaviour with a special valedictory?

Useful new site

General Debate 23 October 2020

Why the Greens are better not to go into coalition

No Right Turn blogs:

With an absolute majority, Labour can govern in its own right, and doesn’t need partners. But while unnecessary, they’re a nice-to-have, both as backup and for PR reasons. Ardern has talked about “consensus”, and there are obvious benefits for her of having government policy endorsed by as many parties as possible. At the same time, that’s not hugely valuable, and nowhere near as valuable as votes to get something over the line, so the price Labour would be willing to pay is probably rather low. So should the Greens be rushing to sign up?

I’m doubtful, for two reasons. Firstly, as we saw last term, being in government has a cost. Being a good team player means not criticising your political partners, and in particular, not spending the next three years reminding Labour’s supporters and voters generally of what the government could or should be doing. Which is fine, if you’re actually getting real policy out of it. But its not something you give away for nothing, or next-to-nothing (which is what the Greens arguably got last term). Secondly, as noted above, I think the price Labour is willing to pay will be low. They don’t need the Greens, and while they could be used as rhetorical cover for increasing the ambition of their lowballed centrist policy promises, the numbers simply make such excuses laughable. So the net result of the Greens in government would be Green Ministers implementing and overseeing Labour policy. And as someone who thinks that status quo Labour policy is the problem, I don’t think that’s worth shit, and certainly not worth surrendering the rhetorical power of opposition for. I’m not interested in a Green Party which gags itself for other people’s benefit. So I’d favour a loose arrangement of (un-needed) confidence and supply in exchange for consultation on key issues and a few select-committee chairs, at best – friends, not partners.

I agree with this argument. If the Greens have their top MPs as Ministers, they will spend most of their time implementing Labour policy and administering their departments. They will have near zero policy leverage.

If they really want to shift Labour to the left, they would be better to remain outside Government so they can criticise the Government for its woeful lack of progress on reducing child poverty and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. National attacking Labour on child poverty and climate change doesn’t make Labour particularly uncomfortable. But having the Greens constantly pointing out their total lack of progress would cut through to the media, Labour activists and the caucus.

Hmmmmn

Overly restrictive?

A reader writes in:

I thought you might be interested in this one… an NZ secondary school was looking at Hairspray for their theater production.  Turns out, to licence this play you have to agree that cast members in the show must accurately reflect the character descriptions as written in the script.  

Apparently Maori and Pacifika kids won’t do… they were told that the relevant characters must  be African American.  

See for yourself:  https://www.mtishows.com.au/hairspray  

Who next?  Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice performed only by Italians and a Jew?  Or should it only be Venetians?

Crazy.

It’s an interesting issue. My thoughts are:

  • The creators of the production of course have the rights to set conditions for use
  • I can absolutely understand not allowing blackface
  • I can also understand requiring productions in the US requiring actual African-Americans to play African-American parts
  • It does seem over the top to have the same requirement for productions in other countries like New Zealand
  • Such a restriction actually means fewer people get to see its core message against racism

Guest Post: Light Rail to Auckland airport – dodging a bullet!

This was submitted before the election. Am publishing now as Labour says the light rail is back on.

A guest post by Lynne Mitchell:

The current halt of the projected Auckland airport rail link project is cause for tax payer celebration. Rail links to airports have proven a risky for ballooning project costs, years of building disruption and lack of early profitability.

For Auckland, the billions to have been spent on an airport rail link would be better utilised  improving journeys for Auckland area commuters.  By volume of total commuter traveling around cities, airports are not huge destinations.  Aside from tourists, airport workers and business passengers, most Aucklanders would only travel to the airport 3 or 4 times a year.   

Airport rail travel must be convenient and cost competitive or travellers will use alternative transport options.  Buses have advantages of a wider passenger coverage area and ride-sharing services such as Uber are growing. Sydney Airport now has dedicated ride share zones at domestic terminals costing $4 entry. Oakland and San Francisco International airports attribute declines in public transport rider numbers to the growth of ride-sharing companies.

Existing airport rail link projects provide useful insights. In Toronto, the Pearson Airport UP Express light rail link opened in 2015 with the Canadian $456 million cost  possible using some existing rail track and diesel engines. Despite Toronto’s population of 2.8 million, (compared to Auckland’s 1.5 million), the rail link struggled to attract passengers and initially the Provincial Government subsidy was Can.$52.26 each passenger ride! By slashing fares passenger numbers tripled and currently the Government subsidy is Can.$11 per ride. Between April 2016 and March 2017, the UP Express airport rail service cost the Province $68 million to operate. Critics of the Toronto airport rail link say that it is used mainly by tourists and business passengers and has diverted funds away from needed city transport projects.

Sydney airport’s rail link initially failed to meet passenger targets, despite efforts such as cancelling the Airport Express bus service, creating taxi surcharges and more expensive airport parking. In 2000 it went into receivership and after purchase in a receiver’s sale, Government assistance was used to boost passenger numbers by subsidising fares.

The Brisbane Airtrain also failed in early days to meet passenger targets but now returns a small profit. The privately owned Airtrain has monopoly access to provide public transport to Brisbane’s domestic and international terminals until 2036. In 2017, Sydney’s Airport Link and Brisbane Airtrain  carried approximately 17 per cent of the 50 million passengers that passed through both  airports.

The Melbourne airport rail link is set for completion in 2031 with a cost range of 8 to 13 billion. This despite a 2013 study by Public Transport Victoria finding that the prohibitive costs of a Melbourne airport rail link outweighed the benefits. Critics of the service have questioned the cost of moving mainly tourists from the existing 24-hour express Skybus on to rail.

The proposed Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (EARL) project was cancelled on cost grounds following a change of Government.  However in 2007, it was agreed to retain the project as a light rail line between the airport and Edinburgh city centre and the Edinburgh Trams service was launched in May 2014 as a single light rail route from central Edinburgh to the airport.  The trams were originally designed to run for 15 miles from Edinburgh Airport to Leith by 2011 at a cost of £375m but a truncated 9 mile service, stopping in the city centre, opened in 2014 at a cost of £776m with the final bill expected to be bill to about £1bn.  The service has the capacity to carry 21 million people a year but in 2015 the Edinburgh Tram (light rail) carried 5.3 million passengers, running at an average of 25 per cent capacity. It currently costs more and takes longer than the existing airport bus services

A public inquiry has been set up to investigate the huge problems dogging the Edinburgh airport light rail project, which as well as massively over budget, was completed five years later than planned, and caused major disruption for residents and visitors through years of works.

According to The Scotsman, 2017, “Passengers are complaining the airport tram continues to be slower than the bus, and some Edinburgh residents are so furious with the inconvenience it caused they refuse to get on it”. A new scheme in Scotland to build a multi-million-pound link to Glasgow Airport has hit the buffers after experts warned it would do more economic harm than good.

Globally, a well-connected airport rail link is expected to achieve up to 20% of passenger share where the population are already well used to using public transport.  In the United States just 6 of the 50 busiest airports are served by transit options that can save time in typical traffic and many airport rail links do not exceed 7%  of  traffic share

Successful airport rail links share some clear attributes.

  • The airport rail link is part of an integrated city transport system with good connectivity to other transport services
  • The airport rail link does not terminate at the airport and serves passengers and commuters going on to destinations via the airport stop.  
  • The airport rail link connects passengers easily from dispersed suburban locations as well as from the central city.
  • Total travel passenger time is efficient in terms of number of stops and the train timetable
  • The rail link serves both air travellers and airport employees with operating times suitable for their needs.
  • Ease of access for pedestrians at the airport and rail stations i.e. no steps, stairs or long walk distances
  • Comfortable seats and room for luggage.
  • Easier beginnings. The Heathrow Express was created after a less expensive airport rail service had first been established via the London Underground
  • Attractive ride cost. With the average cab fare from Brisbane city to the airport at $47 and the Airtrain fare at $15 a seat, 58 per cent of travellers in groups choose to go by other means than Airtrain.
  • The success of an airport rail link is related to the city having a sufficiently large population base.
  • High public transport usage is indicative for a successful  airport rail link service with high car ownership a detrimental factor.

Expensive city transport projects need to be well future proofed. A new book, “The Driverless Car Revolution” makes the bold statement, “ Driverless cars are coming and they will change our lives. Pre-screened ridesharing options with driverless cars, door to door will be a new reality Most people will not choose to own these electric vehicles and traffic congestion will plummet”. Airport rail links around the world have been described as being built mainly for nakedly political reasons, was this any different ?

Why is the NZ Medical Council endorsing a US activist group?

The latest NZ Medical Journal has this article from Chair of the NZ Medical Council:

I tē whā a Te Mahuru, kua tukua te whakaputanga hauora oritetanga ō tēnei hautaka rongonui. I tēnei wiki, kua tae mai te wiki ō Te Reo, nōrerira kua tae hoki he aheinga anō ki te whakanui i tēnei kaupapapa whakahirahira.

Health equity is the new black—and Black Lives Matter.

Renowned civil rights leader, Rev. Dr Martin Luther King Jr said: “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane”.

Health equity matters: it is the right thing to do and the rights thing to do. It is of significance that all main political parties during election campaigning have indicated the importance of health equity as a necessary measure of success of our health system. Along with the recent Heather Simpson Health & Disability System Review,1 there now appears to be a societal consensus that equitable healthcare is a must.

Given we Kiwis like to think of ourselves as fair-minded, and equity is—at its heart – about fairness, this is perhaps not surprising. Although this is an encouraging place to find ourselves, saying something is important and then actually achieving it are quite different end-points. We must all do what we can within our personal and professional spheres of influence to ensure equity becomes reality.

Late last year the Medical Council of New Zealand (Council), in partnership with Te Ohu Rata O Aotearoa (Te ORA), released its Statement on Cultural Safety and He Ara Hauora Māori: A Pathway to Māori Health Equity.

These statements set Council’s expectations of doctors and healthcare organisations in the delivery of culturally safe practice. In Aotearoa New Zealand, cultural safety is key to achieving equitable health outcomes for Māori—a right under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The move away from only the ‘cultural competence’ of the doctor, towards achieving ‘cultural safety’ for patients is deliberate and indicates a shift in thinking away from acquiring knowledge about the ‘other’, towards a focus on how patients receive their care.

Research shows that simply learning about another’s culture does not result in positive change or improved health outcomes.

Doctors (and other health professionals, and indeed the health system at large) have moral and professional obligations to strive for health equity in our practice. In order to do so, we need to understand the contributing factors to health inequity and our role in it.

The New Zealand Medical Council has just released an independent report on the state of cultural safety and health equity relating to doctors practicing in Aotearoa New Zealand and patients receiving care. The Report places Māori patients’ experiences front and centre; however, many of the challenges and solutions are applicable to other communities and populations who experience inequitable healthcare.

Findings from the Report show there is a strong need to acknowledge the systemic racism and privilege that prevails in the health sector. Doctors must reflect on their own cultural views and biases as a first step, then work to influence and support the places they work in and those they interact with, to improve how patients receive their care. Examples of racist beliefs and practices that proliferate in the health system were discussed in the last NZMJ editorial,7 and show there is considerable work to be done.

Significant structural barriers are also shown to impact patient care and cultural safety. These include short appointment times and a focus on only the immediate presenting needs, which limits the ability to build relationships and partner with patients and whānau.

Many patients and whānau feel disempowered, that their knowledge is underestimated, and that they are not involved in decision-making. This can lead to whānau feeling distanced from both the doctor and healthcare team, and from their own health. One of the intended outcomes of the Ministry of Health’s Whakamaua: Maori Health Action Plan 2020-2025 8 is that iwi, hapū, whānau and Māori communities can exercise their authority to improve their health and wellbeing. This is an important focus for collective action.

The Health and Disability System Review found that “Improving equity and wellbeing for Māori requires immediate improvements in the way the system delivers for Māori, a growth in the range and distribution of kaupapa Māori services, enhancements to rangatiratanga and mana motuhake”, and our findings support this. We need a diverse, culturally safe health workforce which reflects the communities we serve. This begins through selection into medical school, and continues through the training continuum to vocational specialisation.

Māori doctors often experience additional cultural demands on top of their day-to-day work. There is little evidence that such cultural activities and training of others is acknowledged and recognised in job descriptions or as a key element of professional development. Council is working with our partners to better support the Māori health and disability workforce and increase Māori leadership and participation in governance and decision making. Where representation is low, it requires being bold and courageous when highlighting issues for Māori.

There is overwhelming evidence of inequities in health outcomes for Māori—you need look no further than the previous issue of NZMJ or the Wai 2575 Māori Health Trends Report.

COVID-19 also presents a concern for the likely disproportionate impact on Māori.

Council encourages all doctors, employers, training and professional organisations to consider the findings in the cultural safety Report, draw on the data, and use this as a basis for achieving long-term, positive change for the benefit of all patients and whānau.

While the Report offers an insight into current practice, it is only the first step on a long journey. It sets a baseline for ourselves and our stakeholders to use when developing programmes, strategies and policies that support us to drive change.

We are already seeing excellent work from the Medical Schools in selecting for medical workforce diversity, and the next generation of physicians in training will be “equity natives”. The specialist medical colleges, here and in Australia have Indigenous health and health equity embedded in their training and recertification programmes. Cultural safety training is increasingly (but far from universally) available, as is education on Te Tiriti within workplaces such as district health boards.

In exerting ourselves to success, we are reminded of the words of Tā Mason Durie, Māori doctor and academic,who writes “The potential within the Māori population has never been greater … the potential to face the future with both the freshness of youth and the wisdom of age”. We should also be encouraged by the well-known whakatauki or tauparapara of Tā James Henare “Kua tāwhiti kē to haerenga mai, kia kore e haere tonu. He nui rawa o mahi, kia kore e mahi tonu”.

A group of doctors have sent in this response which the NZMJ has refused to publish:

Dr Curtis Walker calls for better health access equity (Editorial, NZMJ Vol 133 No 1522: 25 September 2020), but in our view he oversteps the mark by aligning himself with Black Lives Matter (his capitalisation).

We agree with the concept that black lives (in fact all lives) matter, but the organisation Black Lives Matter (BLM) is something the medical profession must avoid any association with.

BLM is a radical neo Marxist organisation, as they clearly state themselves.  They make calls to “Disrupt the Western-Prescribed Nuclear Family.”  They wish to “Dismantle Cisgender Privilege” and “Defund the Police”.

Where do these quotes come from?  From the BLM statement “What We Believe.”  Interestingly, that statement has now been taken down from the internet.

The other issue we have with Dr Curtis’s call is this.  Equity of access is not, and will never be, a guarantee of equality of outcome.  To assume so, as Dr Curtis appears to do, is intellectually dishonest.

As Chair of the New Zealand Medical Council, Dr Walker holds one of the most important roles in our profession.  We question whether the majority of New Zealand Doctors would support the aims of BLM were they aware of them.  We therefore call on Dr Walker to dissociate himself from BLM.  Further, we question why the New Zealand Medical Association would wish to associate the New Zealand Medical Association with BLM, as it does by having such an editorial in its journal.

It is important to distinguish between the statement “black lives matter” and the activist group “Black Lives Matter”.

General Debate 22 October 2020

More kids dependent on benefits

Lindsay Mitchell has been filing OIA requests and has found that the number of children living in households dependent on benefits has increased from around 190,000 to 217,000 in Labour’s 1st term.

This matters because we have a tonne of data that negative outcomes later in life are correlated to being in a household where welfare, not work, is the only source of income.

A media bias data site

From the author of a new media bias data site:

I am a self-employed Computer Scientist with a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Auckland and have been working in the field of robotics, machine learning and data science for the last several years.

I thought you might be interested in a project that I’ve been working on for the past four months; a service that automatically measures political bias in the New Zealand media, using a machine learning model that evaluates the sentiment of sentences (from news articles) which mention MPs and political parties.

The website is available here: mediabias.co.nz

Whilst the results are preliminary, as far as I’m aware, it is the largest automated analysis of political bias in the New Zealand media to date. The analysis currently covers ~380,000 sentences from ~65,000 political news articles that were published over the past year in 15 media sources and popular New Zealand political blogs (including Kiwiblog). I have included political blogs in the analysis to get a rough idea if the system is working. Although not perfect, the current results do appear to show that the New Zealand media are heavily skewed to the left in terms of political sentiment. There are limitations with the analysis (these are described in more detail on the website), the main one being that the analysis was performed on articles published when the Labour Party was in power, the results may change somewhat if performed on articles published when the National Party was in power.

If you go to the website, you can click on individual media sources in the table to view more details, including a chart with a breakdown of how biased the media source is to each political party and a time-series chart of the sentiment for each party plotted over the course of a year. The results look best if you view it on a desktop or laptop as I haven’t had enough time to optimise it for mobiles yet.

The site describes the methodology:

Ingest news articles: collect articles from New Zealand media sources.

Filter news articles: automatically select articles that discuss New Zealand politics.

Entity & Sentiment Analysis: extract references to members of parliament (MPs) and political parties from article text and analyse the sentiment of each sentence.

Party Bias Calculation: party bias is measured by taking the mean bias error (MBE) between the given party and all other parties, for a particular media source.

Media Bias Calculation: for a particular media source, the mean of the absolute MBE score for each party is taken.

Coverage Calculation: the sum of all times that an MP of a particular party or the party itself are mentioned in articles published by a particular media source.

Political Leaning Calculation: MBE between all left-wing parties and all right-wing parties.

The site finds Politik to be the least biased site and excluding blogs, Newshub and Scoop to be the most.

Guest Post: The House of Representatives.

A guest post by former MP Owen Jennings:

Some 264 years ago on the 3rd of November Edmund Burke addressed the good people in his electorate.  He had this to say on the matter of representation.

“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.

In short, you are Parliament’s man not a prisoner of your voters.

For Burke, one of the greatest thinkers and contributors to the ideal of democracy, the House of Representatives was not meant to be “representative” of the community, replete with an exact mix of every shade of differing backgrounds, race, religion, philosophy and opinion but a gathering of the best the community can afford in ability and wisdom who then act in the best interests of the whole country.

The debate in New Zealand over recent years has focused on something different.  We have political parties stretching credibility by struggling to bring together a mirror image of the diversity of the voting public. We have focused on Parliament being a place where the variety of cultures and colours in the community is reflected in the members elected.

It is easy to argue the value of that and it fits the notions of fairness and equality that pervade our current thinking.  But it is a pendulum that has swung too far.  We are now sacrificing merit and ability in our parliamentarians for the pursuit of representativeness of every gradation of thinking that we believe may be offended if not overtly present in the ranks of the party and Parliament.

Burke went on… “parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament”.

How many of our elected MP’s will commit to such a reasoned position?   They most certainly would be quick to claim such view as their own but when you have been knowingly selected by your party because of your particular distinctiveness isn’t the reality that you will make sure that particular interest group will receive your attention at the expense, even, of the good of the nation.  We have certainly seen indications of that in recent parliaments.

Apparently it was a French lawyer, Joseph de Maistre, who first coined the phrase, “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite” – “you get the parliament you deserve”.  Maybe if we were more focused on a Burke style of representativeness and democracy our ‘just desserts’ would be a much improved administration.