Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[dean]

Look at where your initial reply jumped straight too - without any actual facts being in the public domain.
It's such a predictable dogwhistle response to a mere suggestion of having very basic Te Reo as part of the curriculum.

Any ideas what the 17 non compliance issues actually were or the 7 the kindy has failed to comply with to find itself in this situation?
Why does this particular centre find it so hard?

Let's be honest David Seymour is maori only when it suits him.
His own Hapu disown him & he is totally embarrassing himself in the treaty discussion.
What Maori would say they're "sick of having indigenous rights forced down their throat?"

Okay then, keep calling anyone that questions anything Maori a racist. Let's be honest, it is the usual go to.

 

[dean]

Some of the most racist people against Maori are Maori, and I know quite a few, so what's your point about Seymour, are you saying because he's a Maori he can't be racist????? That's some Maori party MP way of thinking there.

I know Maori critical of Maori but they are not racist. I said Seymour is Maori, I didn't accuse him of racism

 

[dean]

I think in 30-40 years time, NZ will have a hybrid language with a combination of Māori and English.

I hope not.
They are two languages with their own application. Being proficient in one or both would be a good thing.

 

[Damo]

I know Maori critical of Maori but they are not racist. I said Seymour is Maori, I didn't accuse him of racism

Maori can be critical of Maori but Seymour is quite obviously anti-Maori, and not constructively so.

Just because he is Maori does not mean he cannot be criticised for his anti-Maori sentiment.

 

[Worried2Death]

Maori can be critical of Maori but Seymour is quite obviously anti-Maori, and not constructively so.

Just because he is Maori does not mean he cannot be criticised for his anti-Maori sentiment.

Remember when he was Canadian? Guy's a bloody chameleon, he's whoever Atlas Network tells him to be.

 

[kos]

Remember when he was Canadian? Guy's a bloody chameleon, he's whoever Atlas Network tells him to be.

Sounds like a potential employee for the Nrl bunker

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

On this specific centre, I have no knowledge if it’s good or bad, deserves to be closed or not. But here’s my experience:

There is a group in education that is anti private childcare provision. This is the same group that shut down charter schools and if they had their way would shut down private childcare. They are philosophically opposed to it and no matter what, believe it’s inferior. Not all ministry or ERO staff but an obvious portion. Most are professional but some believe private centres will fail their inspections before they even walk in the door.

Look at the Ministry funding. Significantly less for private vs public resulting in lower teacher pay despite identical teacher qualifications. I’ve watched for decades as good experienced private teachers leave due to low pay to public or other industries, hollowing out the private centres then the same ministry that underfunds the sector targets them as lower quality.

Look at the ERO that openly views public centres and private centre as different risks.

Now my main issue is, many regulations are not black and white. A regulation might be something like ‘teaching must acknowledge children’s cultural background’. But the interpretation of what this looks like is very open to personal interpretation and any centre could fail if the Ministry person so chooses.

I have been told this directly: “All centres fail my licensing inspections” and upon checking the stats, this person fails basically every centre they visit. This is on the basis that the Ministry only visits centres when they open or if there are complaints and it’s this persons view it’s their job to make the most of each visit and reform the whole industry. Regardless if you meet standards or not…

I’ve seen one Ministry person pass a whole lot of policies and documentation on an initial licensing visit and on the final sign off a seperate Ministry person fails the exact same documents. Personal interpretation. The exact same documents pass or fail depending on who reads it… that’s how great the regulations are!

I have had an ERO pass documentation, curriculum, etc and the Ministry comes in months later and fails the exact same program and documentation. Personal interpretation.

I’ve seen a Ministry person say it’s there interpretation despite written guidance from the Ministry contradicting their opinion.

In regards to Te Reo - another grey regulation. One Ministry person accepts some Te Reo sprinkled in conversations. The next says they expect that whole sentences must be in Te Reo. I’ve been told by a Ministry person they frequently fail Kohonga Reo’s for not meeting the Cultural regulations . I’ve watched a 20+ year Maori teacher argue with a white Ministry person that the Maori teacher wasn’t meeting the Maori standards because they couldn’t identify what extras they do for each and every Maori child. The teacher believes ALL children that needed extra help should be identified and given it and Maori that didn’t need extra support shouldn’t be labelled. Personal interpretation.

My issue isn’t with the Maori component of the regulations (but it has risen significantly in prominence over the last 6 years). Many of the regulations are too subjective. I would ask do you know where your own child sits against any educational standards? The regulations are as vague as your children’s progress!

I could go on….

So in my opinion the regulations are way to open to personal interpretation combined with a lot of activist people that philosophically want to charter school private ECE centres. These people corrupt the processes.

And when some people can corrupt the process so easily, all integrity in the process is gone and I don’t believe anything they say without seeing both sides of the story…

 

[Bay39er]

On this specific centre, I have no knowledge if it’s good or bad, deserves to be closed or not. But here’s my experience:

There is a group in education that is anti private childcare provision. This is the same group that shut down charter schools and if they had their way would shut down private childcare. They are philosophically opposed to it and no matter what, believe it’s inferior. Not all ministry or ERO staff but an obvious portion. Most are professional but some believe private centres will fail their inspections before they even walk in the door.

Look at the Ministry funding. Significantly less for private vs public resulting in lower teacher pay despite identical teacher qualifications. I’ve watched for decades as good experienced private teachers leave due to low pay to public or other industries, hollowing out the private centres then the same ministry that underfunds the sector targets them as lower quality.

Look at the ERO that openly views public centres and private centre as different risks.

Now my main issue is, many regulations are not black and white. A regulation might be something like ‘teaching must acknowledge children’s cultural background’. But the interpretation of what this looks like is very open to personal interpretation and any centre could fail if the Ministry person so chooses.

I have been told this directly: “All centres fail my licensing inspections” and upon checking the stats, this person fails basically every centre they visit. This is on the basis that the Ministry only visits centres when they open or if there are complaints and it’s this persons view it’s their job to make the most of each visit and reform the whole industry. Regardless if you meet standards or not…

I’ve seen one Ministry person pass a whole lot of policies and documentation on an initial licensing visit and on the final sign off a seperate Ministry person fails the exact same documents. Personal interpretation. The exact same documents pass or fail depending on who reads it… that’s how great the regulations are!

I have had an ERO pass documentation, curriculum, etc and the Ministry comes in months later and fails the exact same program and documentation. Personal interpretation.

I’ve seen a Ministry person say it’s there interpretation despite written guidance from the Ministry contradicting their opinion.

In regards to Te Reo - another grey regulation. One Ministry person accepts some Te Reo sprinkled in conversations. The next says they expect that whole sentences must be in Te Reo. I’ve been told by a Ministry person they frequently fail Kohonga Reo’s for not meeting the Cultural regulations . I’ve watched a 20+ year Maori teacher argue with a white Ministry person that the Maori teacher wasn’t meeting the Maori standards because they couldn’t identify what extras they do for each and every Maori child. The teacher believes ALL children that needed extra help should be identified and given it and Maori that didn’t need extra support shouldn’t be labelled. Personal interpretation.

My issue isn’t with the Maori component of the regulations (but it has risen significantly in prominence over the last 6 years). Many of the regulations are too subjective. I would ask do you know where your own child sits against any educational standards? The regulations are as vague as your children’s progress!

I could go on….

So in my opinion the regulations are way to open to personal interpretation combined with a lot of activist people that philosophically want to charter school private ECE centres. These people corrupt the processes.

And when some people can corrupt the process so easily, all integrity in the process is gone and I don’t believe anything they say without seeing both sides of the story…

Seymour will sort it out!

 

[MaybeTop8]

The Greens candidates are a reflection of their membership and supporters just like all the others.

Meanwhile in actual batshit crazy mp action

 

[MaybeTop8]

Te Huia doing great

 

[miket12]

Te Huia doing great

View attachment 8230

More wrong information. If they were meeting double the current target, that means every seat would filled and people standing on every service. Why? Because the current funding target is set at 51%.

To make matters worse, to try and meet their funding requirements, NZTA reduced the target from over 75% to 51%.

But never let the facts get in the way of an idealogy.

NZTA board to determine Te Huia's fate

A petition to save the service has gained more than 4000 signatures in less than four days.

www.rnz.co.nz

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Te Huia doing great

View attachment 8230

So about 300 passengers a day.

Serious question - would 6 buses per day have been more economical than $50m subsidy per year to provide all the seperate and specialised train infrastructure?

Lower cost, faster, more direct, easily adapted to demand, lower climate emissions.

 

[MaybeTop8]

More wrong information. If they were meeting double the current target, that means every seat would filled and people standing on every service. Why? Because the current funding target is set at 51%.

To make matters worse, to try and meet their funding requirements, NZTA reduced the target from over 75% to 51%.

But never let the facts get in the way of an idealogy.

NZTA board to determine Te Huia's fate

A petition to save the service has gained more than 4000 signatures in less than four days.

www.rnz.co.nz

The right on here certainly don't let facts get in the way of an ideology.

Which Ideology are you referring to Mike? I'm referring the love in echo chamber on here that is neoliberalism

 

[MaybeTop8]

More wrong information. If they were meeting double the current target, that means every seat would filled and people standing on every service. Why? Because the current funding target is set at 51%.

To make matters worse, to try and meet their funding requirements, NZTA reduced the target from over 75% to 51%.

But never let the facts get in the way of an idealogy.

NZTA board to determine Te Huia's fate

A petition to save the service has gained more than 4000 signatures in less than four days.

www.rnz.co.nz

Te Huia – by the numbers

With Te Huia back in the news we researched up-to-date data from the Minister of Transport during Parliamentary question time on July 3

www.waikatochamber.co.nz

 

[miket12]

The right on here certainly don't let facts get in the way of an ideology.

Which Ideology are you referring to Mike? I'm referring the love in echo chamber on here that is neoliberalism

Tim Welch says that the train patronage is “almost double the target”.

Four train trips per day with 147 passengers is just over 17,600 trips per month (@ 30 days per month). The NZTA has reduced their target from 75% patronage to 51% meaning they are targeting just under 9,000 trips per month…. something they’ve achieved twice in over 28 months of operation.

Yet, to achieve nearly double the target, as suggested by Welch, the patronage in the highest month would needed to have been at least over 15,000…. not the 9,400 Welch showed in his chart.

The fact is, for that highest figure to be almost double the target, the target would need to be down at around 20%…. not the 51%.

Welch was happy to manufacture a conclusion about the Te Huia service “smashing it” based on an ideology for a mass transport over the facts. Where there is the population to support a service, public transport is great…. unfortunately, a service which moves only 1 person per 85 people on the Waikato Expressway isn’t.

Think off it this way, when each passenger is being subsidized by an average of over $80 per trip, that’s not “smashing it”.

 

[Rick O’Shay]

Bottom line is, does the train pay it's own way?

If not, it's surplus to requirements. End of story. (in a sort of neo liberal, market driven way)

 

[defensivebomb]

“Smashing it”, where “it” is the taxpayer

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Four train trips per day with 147 passengers is just over 17,600 trips per month over $80 per trip,

Those people would fit on 4 buses!

Lumped with a $50 million loss when buses would probably cover their cost with fares.

Communism aye

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

I'm referring the love in echo chamber on here that is neoliberalism

Capitalism isn’t about money, it’s actually about the efficient use of labour and resources via monetising it to distribute it where best used. Capitalism ensure we get the best use of precious and scarce human labour.

It’s easy to decry capitalism and say just borrow for investment… operate social services at a loss… etc.

But the reality is those loss making, inefficient enterprises draw in valuable labour meaning those people can’t work doing other more productive jobs.

We’ve seen this with massive borrow and spend ($100m in borrowing); dumb investment decisions (excessively expensive ferries); rapid growth in public service workers; etc. The real issue is these soak up human labour meaning they can’t do the other jobs we need.

It leads to inflation as the economy fights for labour and labour shortages everywhere (sound familiar) as people are soaked up doing inefficient stuff.

To be successful (get lots of value from our scarce labour) we need to focus on productivity and ensure we get benefits from investments (eg the rail) so the utilisation of every person is maximising their contribution to the economy to make us all have a higher standard of living.

Another issue: You can’t borrow and spend up on infrastructure to fill an infrastructure deficit. You can only allocate as much labour as you have available.

Inefficient spending (growing the public service, expensive ferries, dud trains, etc) is nothing to do with neoliberalism - it’s about the best use of our precious and scarce human labour.

 

[MaybeTop8]

Capitalism isn’t about money, it’s actually about the efficient use of labour and resources via monetising it to distribute it where best used. Capitalism ensure we get the best use of precious and scarce human labour.

The first sentence manages to be pure satire and pure fiction all at once. It doesn't bode well for the rest of the comment.