|
roarshark posted:It's rated equally with Australia, Denmark and New Zealand by the UN Human Development Index. I realise that this index doesn't solely measure education standards. I'm interested to know what makes their education system leave everyone else "in the dust"? While I won't comment on the Australian or Danish system, the fact that New Zealand rates so high is not an endorsement of the system and the current government's policies towards education, but rather, an achievement in spite of them. The Finnish educational system actually understand the need for cognitive development that starts at day one and incorporates sound educational theory like the incorporation of Vygotsky's zone of proximal development into their educational practice - something which the experts, so-called, heading the ministry seem to be unable or unwilling to do. Class sizes are generally kept below 20 and there is an understanding that children learn and develop at different speeds and there is an effort to provide nutritionally sound free lunches for students, as well as providing free educational materials such as books and stationery. What can New Zealand learn from the Finnish education system? A whole hell of a lot, I'd say.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 07:37 |
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 03:53 |
|
dusty posted:What a hopeless bloody solution - the Green's have done a nice piece of analysis on the direct costs of the increased gambling.. Er, the SkyCity deal is a horrible piece of dealmaking, but it's pretty dishonest to point to the cost of problem gambling without reference to the problem gambling levy, which recoups a fairly hefty chunk of that cost. If we must have more gambling at SkyCity, I don't see why the extra 500 machines shouldn't be taken from other Class 4 operators in the city. SkyCity is the shining city on the hill compared to the average "charitable gaming organization". Of course, the horrible Gordian knot at the centre of New Zealand's gambling policy is that banning pokies would effectively bankrupt every racing club and community organization in the country - class 4 distributions are a horrible cocaine to these organisations, and now they're hooked we're sort of stuck with it.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 07:38 |
|
roarshark posted:The government should ban cigarettes, too. Those cost us more as a country than the revenue they produce. Also, booze. There would be no black market downsides for pokie machines if they were banned and it would probably have broad public support as well. Ratios and Tendency fucked around with this message at Mar 27, 2012 around 08:41 |
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 08:14 |
|
roarshark posted:The government should ban cigarettes, too. Those cost us more as a country than the revenue they produce. Also, booze. Have you any sources for this?
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 08:57 |
|
Stefu posted:Just out of interest: Has New Zealand paid attention to this? Because here in Finland it's been national news for days (of course, this being Finland, the biggest reactions have been "Oh my god, someone in a foreign country mentioned Finland!" and "He's right, we're poo poo I was genuinely surprised someone would even pay attention about something someone from New Zealand said, stupid as it may be, but given how everyone in New Zealand freaks out whenever another country makes a comment about is, good or bad, it's not surprising. I.e: when everyone went apeshit about Stephen Fry's broadband comments which was as much 'Stephen Fry cares about little ol' NZ' as much as agreeing with his very valid points. Finland and NZ already have so much much in common!
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 10:18 |
|
Trouble Man posted:Of course, the horrible Gordian knot at the centre of New Zealand's gambling policy is that banning pokies would effectively bankrupt every racing club and community organization in the country - class 4 distributions are a horrible cocaine to these organisations, and now they're hooked we're sort of stuck with it. Add it to the list of things propping up the racing industry. It's got to be one of the slush-funded sectors of the economy out there, thanks in no small part to Winston.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 10:20 |
|
With regard to pokies, propping up community organisations etc, is there any high level argument for a alcohol sale local by-law where all alcohol outlets are owned by a Trust, with the profits funnelled back into the community programmes and projects? Would this combat some of the reliance of pokie money in certain areas, helping to justify there being fewer of them? I don't know if Waitakere still has that model, I know it used to have a similar one. I guess it got swallowed up in the Super City. I think there's a couple of cities in New Zealand that have this system too. Pokie still exist there, but they're by no means the lifeline of community funding in the same way. miss_chaos fucked around with this message at Mar 27, 2012 around 10:30 |
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 10:27 |
|
klen dool posted:Have you any sources for this? None whatsoever. I'm just trying to guess what Labour's next awesome idea will be. An awesome idea, mind you, emanating from their group of stellar blue sky thinkers which will win the electorate over and return them to the power which was stolen from them in part by an evil American bag man backed conspiracy. I really don't think the average punter or traditional Labour voter gives two tosses about pokies in comparison to other things like the rising cost of living and National's stubborn unwillingness to do anything about it, but perhaps I'm wrong.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 10:41 |
|
miss_chaos posted:With regard to pokies, propping up community organisations etc, is there any high level argument for a alcohol sale local by-law where all alcohol outlets are owned by a Trust, with the profits funnelled back into the community programmes and projects? Would this combat some of the reliance of pokie money in certain areas, helping to justify there being fewer of them? There's the Southland liquir licensing trust, but I don't know how or if they get involved with pokies.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 10:42 |
|
ClubmanGT posted:Add it to the list of things propping up the racing industry. It's got to be one of the slush-funded sectors of the economy out there, thanks in no small part to Winston. Winnie got them a $9million dollar direct prize subsidy. Led to such efficacious use of tax payer funds as helping fund the prize pool of big headline race events. My favourite - the $250,000 Platinum Paws dog race. $9million was used to maximum exposure. At best you'd call it a Winstone Peters vanity project - which if you believe the hype of the NZRB helped drive our economy forward or something. At worst you'd call it pork barrel politics, or more directly petty corruption. Maybe Winston just wanted a $9million mirror... At least at $9million it was cheap, at least compared to a more recent bail out of a South Island finance company. I reckon the tax rate is a grottier deal.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 11:28 |
|
Also if your Labor Party's head thinks that Esko Aho's horrible right-wing austerity government is some sort of a role model then I don't even know what to say
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 14:57 |
|
Trouble Man posted:Er, the SkyCity deal is a horrible piece of dealmaking, but it's pretty dishonest to point to the cost of problem gambling without reference to the problem gambling levy, which recoups a fairly hefty chunk of that cost. I think it is pretty dishonest to point at the problem gambling levy which is 1.5% of the money lost in the machines and then try and claim that it recoups anywhere near the cost of problem gambling in the community. Trouble Man posted:Of course, the horrible Gordian knot at the centre of New Zealand's gambling policy is that banning pokies would effectively bankrupt every racing club and community organization in the country - class 4 distributions are a horrible cocaine to these organisations, and now they're hooked we're sort of stuck with it. I don't know, perhaps we could increase taxes and actually fund these organisations in a more sensible way, instead of having what is basically a horribly regressive tax on the poor do it.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 19:59 |
|
The ACC scandal is not going away any time soon and it looks like now Judith Collins is in the line of fire as the obvious suspect in the case of who leaked Bronwyn Pullar's details to the press in the first place.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 20:22 |
|
Good I hope she loving hangs.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 22:32 |
|
hairypanis posted:Good I hope she loving hangs. This, except every single MP.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 22:37 |
|
Vagabundo posted:The ACC scandal is not going away any time soon and it looks like now Judith Collins is in the line of fire as the obvious suspect in the case of who leaked Bronwyn Pullar's details to the press in the first place. By accident or what? Or some sort of internal backstabbing? I don't quite follow. Talk about ACC, this article from the herald is utter tory trash Id expect from the daily mail: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...jectid=10794987 Basically: 2 or 3 anecdotes. Comments from Kiwi parents being "miffed" about said anecdotes including outright ignorance of how ACC works i.e. : "We sort of laughed about because insect bites hardly rate as an accident ..." Suggestions and poll that the entire ACC system is an over the top bureaucracy and that 'its too easy to get ACC' on some massive structural level. Lemonus fucked around with this message at Mar 27, 2012 around 23:59 |
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 23:51 |
|
Lemonus posted:By accident or what? Or some sort of internal backstabbing? Someone leaked an email from Michelle Boag that was sent to Judith Collins regarding Pullar and ACC, which led to Pullar's name ending up in the public arena, along with the contents of the email and led to Nick Smith's resignation. Collins has announced it possibly could not have come from anyone in her office and that the only people who have seen the email besides her is ACC chairman John Judge and chief executive Ralph Stewart, whom she forwarded the email on to. So as based on what has been revealed so far, the email went from Boag to Collins' office, then to Judge and Stewart but at some point, the email was leaked to the press with the intention of discrediting Pullar and ended up backfiring spectacularly. And from the looks of it so far, Smith may just be collateral damage. The National Party has prior form in leaking information to discredit vocal critics (the investigation into Paula Bennett for doing just a while ago is currently on-going, for example) and there's a very short list of possible suspects, basically. Vagabundo fucked around with this message at Mar 28, 2012 around 00:27 |
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 00:19 |
|
Lemonus posted:Talk about ACC, this article from the herald is utter tory trash Id expect from the daily mail: That article is pretty bad and is obviously written to make a point about wasteful bureaucracy being wasteful. For example: quote:ACC has assigned case managers to a 4-year-old who went to the doctor to have a splinter removed from an infected finger The fact that these forms need to be filed for every injury points to how hard it is to get ACC cover as you can be denied if all the paper work is not in order should you make a claim later on. It is the anti-fraud work which actually creates most of the red-tape when dealing with an organisation like ACC. It is this red-tape that people look to as waste to be cut while bitching about people ripping off the system. Varkk fucked around with this message at Mar 28, 2012 around 01:55 |
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 01:18 |
|
Lemonus posted:
These are my favourite types of news stories. I really wonder how the editor lets them get away with this poo poo. I would be ashamed to admit I'm the editor of the Herald.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 02:46 |
|
Two Finger posted:These are my favourite types of news stories. The Herald once published an opinion piece by Garth George where he wrote climate change is a hoax because it says so in the bible. I think shame is a foreign concept to them.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 02:48 |
|
The Herald is awful? Well I never! It's almost as if there isn't a single actual journalist in the entire country!
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 02:51 |
|
Vagabundo posted:The Herald once published an opinion piece by Garth George where he wrote climate change is a hoax because it says so in the bible. I think shame is a foreign concept to them. I will see if I can find the articles they wrote about when John Key blasted them for publishing a front page photo of Apiata? I think? It was the most bizarre thing I've ever read, they were reporting on it like it was a third party Key was having a go at. Found it: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...jectid=10621473 quote:"I'm very disappointed at the New Zealand Herald's decision to publish the photograph on the New Zealand SAS soldiers without blacking out the face of the particular soldiers. Amazing. They run a direct quote from the prime minister of their own country calling them out.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 03:35 |
|
Vagabundo posted:
John Judge and Ralph Stewart also probably both have exec assistants managing most of their email for them, which is pretty common for high-level CEs. So that adds another two suspects. Michelle Boag is pretty dumb for thinking it would be confidential given a) every ministerial email is available under the information act to anyone who requests it and b) every journo and blogger worth their salt will be requesting that info. Looks like the rabbit hole goes pretty deep.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 14:29 |
|
Two Finger posted:I will see if I can find the articles they wrote about when John Key blasted them for publishing a front page photo of Apiata? I think? It was the most bizarre thing I've ever read, they were reporting on it like it was a third party Key was having a go at. I remember that. It was followed by a week of columns and letters to the editor from people giving military advice to our most highly decorated serving member of our most elite military unit. In fact I think even Garth George had some advice for him about snipers or some poo poo. It was fantastic.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 19:53 |
|
miss_chaos posted:Michelle Boag is pretty dumb for thinking it would be confidential given a) every ministerial email is available under the information act to anyone who requests it and b) every journo and blogger worth their salt will be requesting that info. Old idiots don't understand how technology works, basically.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 20:01 |
|
An interesting article from Friedman in the NYTimes reflecting about NZ/AUS political situation and some comments on climate change: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/o...under.html?_r=3 quote:Or as Paul Quinn, a parliamentarian from New Zealand’s conservative National Party, once told a group of visiting American Fulbright scholars: “I will explain to you how our system works compared to yours: You have Democrats and Republicans. My Labor opponents would be Democrats. I am a member of the National Party, and we would be ... Democrats” as well. AFAIK the only climate change denialist in Parliament is Richard Prosser from NZFirst whom I and others have had fun trolling on facebook about. Lemonus fucked around with this message at Mar 28, 2012 around 20:43 |
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 20:37 |
|
Lemonus posted:
I also read somewhere that Nick Smith was the only cabinet member who took climate change seriously so who knows about the rest of the National party. As for John Key I seem to remember there was an interview with the BBC where he said something along the lines of there being no scientific consensus on mankind's industrial activities being a driving factor. I can't find a link to it right now but it seems he had originally made statements sceptical of climate change. but has toned them down to not scare off middle NZ voters. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00487.htm I also think Act had climate denial as an official position but that was back in the days of Rodney Hide so who knows about now that they are the John Banks party.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 21:42 |
|
"The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem." - John Key, in Parliament debating against the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill in 2005.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 21:50 |
|
Well this just got interesting - Judith Collins is suing for defamation. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...famation-action
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 22:40 |
|
I can't believe she hasn't sought a a legal remedy about that butcher of a surgeon who froze her loving face.
dusty fucked around with this message at Mar 28, 2012 around 22:52 |
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 22:48 |
|
dusty posted:I can't believe she hasn't sought a a legal remedy about that butcher of a surgeon who froze her loving face. ![]()
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 22:57 |
|
You guys make a good point really- There is an enormous amount of feigned skepticism around climate change in parliament and particularly in the National Party. I mean its just blindingly obvious that its because of money interests- if there was a cancer or fungus or anything else science related with this level of consensus they would take it immediately on board. AFAIK though Richard Prosser is the only one currently upfront denying there is any evidence for climate change and that there is no scientific consensus on the issue (citing some libertarian thinktank funded petition from 2008 or something) and general facepalm crap like that. I think ACT party policy is still official denial of climate change. SATURNS SON EATER posted:Tough on crime. Lemonus fucked around with this message at Mar 28, 2012 around 23:12 |
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 23:03 |
|
Lemonus posted:Tough on crime. Holy poo poo hahahaha.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 23:05 |
|
![]() Beautiful.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 23:18 |
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:Removed Please don't post that thing here untagged... Sheesh man.
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 23:20 |
|
![]() John Key giving the glad eye to a young student on a new macbook. - ODT
|
| # ? Mar 28, 2012 23:24 |
|
"Who is this creepy man, and why is he leering at me?" About Collins and defamation, has she actually started proceedings, or just talking bluster in the media? If she has started proceedings does she get to use that to avoid answering questions in the house related to the ongoing ACC scandal? e.g "Questions for oral answer posted:ANDREW LITTLE to the Minister for ACC: When was the email she received between 12 March 2012 and 18 March 2012 from Michelle Boag concerning Bronwyn Pullar and the involvement of both in a meeting over a mass privacy breach first printed by her or a staff member in her office?
|
| # ? Mar 29, 2012 00:44 |
|
This is interesting. Interesting but pretty obvious really. Also note that the GST graph was done when GST was at 12.5% meaning we may have the highest GST rates of any country in the OECD. Dim post linked to this and goes on to say that single income people on the lower end of the scale are hit the hardest by this as they don't qualify for working for families. And we wonder why all grads leave for Australia?
|
| # ? Mar 29, 2012 00:52 |
|
Varkk posted:Can she refuse to answer citing ongoing litigation? Interesting question. Im not sure what standing orders say on refusing to answer questions. Im kind of intrigued because its like a reverse parliamentary privilege situation- whatever said in Parliament can't be used in proceedings for defamation i.e. Judith couldn't use it for her case. But what she says can't be used against her or harm her own legal case? I mean... hypothetically she could say information that would provide some modicum of truth or a defence to defamation proceedings but they could not be used due to parliamentary privilege? Ungh, late afternoon and little sleep. Will research this some soon when I have time/maybe another law peep ITT can answer. I think I am confusing myself. Edit: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/R...esentatives.htm ^ Standing Orders Chapter 7: Non legislative procedures P116 383 Content of replies (1) An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest. (2) The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked, and not contain— (a) statements of facts and the names of any persons unless they are strictly necessary to answer the question, or (b) arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets or ironical expressions, or (c) discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression. (3) Replies shall not refer to proceedings in committee at meetings closed to the public that have not yet been reported to the House or (subject to Standing Order 112) to a case pending adjudication by a court. But not yet pending adjudication? Lemonus fucked around with this message at Mar 29, 2012 around 01:15 |
| # ? Mar 29, 2012 00:57 |
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 03:53 |
|
Collins has just tried to avoid answering any questions related to the ACC case by saying it's before the privacy commissioner - therefore not in the public interest. Collins is now under attack via an opposition triple team from Little, Parker, Norman, Peters and now Cosgrove. Lockwood Smith is trying to defend her. Vagabundo fucked around with this message at Mar 29, 2012 around 01:18 |
| # ? Mar 29, 2012 01:13 |









")











