Dear Sirs.
In the latest edition of eLocal Ms. Lucy Mullinger writes an article about the in her opinion quite deplorable state of the education and well-being of children in New Zealand. She uses the phrase "in comparison to other Western countries, however based on statistics" and later on refers in that context to the OECD. In her article she then first compares the NZ household income with Sweden and states that Swedish families earn similar amounts to NZ ones. It gives rises to wonderment where she got that statistic from; a quick Google shows that Sweden is nr 3 in the list of gross non-adjusted household income and NZ is nr. 11, with resp $50,514 for Sweden and $35,562 for NZ, translated into US$, with Sweden therefore 45% higher than NZ. The OECD's "Net adjusted income" for working individuals in Sweden is US$30,553 and in NZ US$24,336, a difference of 20% to the detriment of NZ. The national per capita (that includes the total number of inhabitants) values are for 2016 resp. 18,632 (S) and 12,147 (NZ), NZ being 30% lower. We are talking here about very, very considerable differences that do not allow at all for Ms. Mullinger's statement of equality. Ms. Mullinger then pulls a.o. Finland into the equation as an example. If we look at the by her mentioned OECD statistics for comparison of that country to NZ, the "Better life index" of 2017 is stated to be $29,374 for Finland and $24,366 for NZ, net adjusted disposable income for households, again expressed in US$. New Zealand again is 20% lower than Finland, which makes any comparison basically illusionary. In spite of this, the United Nations put NZ on place 23 of their Education Index, while Finland is on place 21. A big difference in HH income does obviously not lead to a disastrous difference in education level, such as Ms. Mullinger tries to tell us, which can be seen by how level NZ is in the educational aspect to Finland. It is interesting to know that Finland has 62,000 teachers for 3,500 schools, an average of almost 20 per school, however small especially the numerous rural ones may be. Ms. Mullinger then proceeds to implicate that several unproven beliefs are positive for the children, like e.g. cosleeping and tying the babies to the mother's body. That this latter habit is born out of the necessity of the mothers to do their chores and the absence of child daycare centres, and not out of educational considerations is less convenient and falls argumentatively under the table. That by the majority of the medical world co-sleeping is negatively advised about also seems to escape her attention. In the end she comes to the suggestion that our local high child abuse and health issues may be bought off by increased spending. Again, as the argumentation before, this is nothing but an irrealistic line of thought. Anywhere where abuse and mistreatment of children is high, it is shown that it is undeniably related to the culture of the specific population, and that spending more and more money does not change that fact or present a solution. Next time, Ms. Mullinger could do with a more factual approach and presentation.
— Ed Damwelt
Dear Lucy,
I don't know where you got your statistics from, but if it's the same OECD chart I looked at, it's got to be rubbish! You also stick with the European countries, ignoring Japan (pop.127 million and 385 per sq.km) which is second to Norway (pop. 5.3 million and 15 per sq.km) in infant survival. You'd think that Japan would produce many more viruses and bacterial illnesses, living on top of each other, but maybe it's because they only provide 22 of the toxic-laden vaccines (as opposed to 35 in NZ and 48 in the U.S. which is around 35th, yet the mandate we follow...!). Australia is also significantly higher than us on all counts, yet we know that the Aboriginees in general live desperately poor and self-abusive lives and in deplorable conditions because of former government policies and a much more racist/race separation attitude between this amazing indigenous people and the Newcomers. All the ancient knowledge that allowed them to survive (and help the Newcomers survive) the harsh land of Oz has been crammed into tin shacks and government handouts for processed foods. Worse, their spirit as a people has been broken. Because of the vastness and size of Oz (population included), the revived (reviving?) Aboriginal culture has not had the same impact on that land as the Maori song and dance has had here. I wonder what percentage of those with just a bit of Aboriginal blood (skin light enough to be 'accepted'), succeed in today's world. Note – they are the true indigenous people of Australia, having been there for 50,000 years. The people who call themselves Maori (and I've never met one with more than one-third Maori blood and most with significantly less) are IN NO WAY indigenous to this land, having arrived only 550 years before the first wave of Europeans – migrants like us. It has been now proven beyond doubt that Chinese explorers arrived here before the Polynesians; it is written in their annals – something that the Maoris couldn't do, not having written language. That we accept them as the "Tangata Whenua" of this land is flabbergasting – and of extreme irritation to me. Theirs is not a precious heritage, especially when we know that the Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians and Jews (at least) have had written languages and sophisiticated tools for 5,000+ years. My friend, who lives on Raiatea, French Polynesia, says their folklore states that the beaten tribes, forced off the island, are the ones who went South and became Maoris – hmmm, are our Maoris just a bunch of losers?
Because Polynesians are more "attractive" to Europeans, interaction was more welcomed – in all forms. Read Hazel Petrie's "Chiefs of Industry" which tells of the very successful Maori traders who, with their own coastal ships and eagerness to learn the new ways, supplied the new arrivals with much of what they needed. What killed their enterprises was their own politics – against individual endeavours and personal success, with interference by their chiefs and elders. Only a very few enlightened chiefs sent their sons to learn from the British. Successive governments have acted 'sorry' for having done to the Maori a bit what they did to their own rival tribes, leaving out the wholesale slaughter, cannibalism and slave-taking. The last government even said sorry and gave compensation to Chatham Island Moriori descendants of those slaughtered by two Taranaki tribes – still in existence today. Why are we taxpayers paying out when the descendants of these two tribes are still living? Goose and gander stuff: Europeans are forced to compensate all Maoris, but they don't have to compensate a group that was in essence wiped out by them. Go figure!
"Maoris" have thus grown up in modern times with a "You Owe Me" attitude – and the 90% other NZ taxpayers – even all the new, hardworking, grateful new arrivals – are forever compensating people with less and less Maori blood but more belligerent, bellicose voices and poorer attitudes, which has killed all enterprise, ambition and a penchant for learning for a hardcore 10% of the 10% who call themselves Maori today. It is this bottom 10% – combined with the laterarriving Polynesians – which is giving us such a poor world standing, and I wish to be removed from the "we" you state, as if the whole country, with its multiethnic diversity, is responsible for these statistics. Just watch out, part-Maori people who are sitting pretty today: in 100 years this country will be owned by the Chinese. There won't be any Sorry or compensation given by them! They will simply take what they want/need.
Unlike the Aboriginees, people with Maori blood have had access to EVERYTHING that the government provides for the people of NZ. Having Maori blood makes some of them behave as if they are intellectually inferior to all other races and can only survive with government support. However, when you take away incentive and create a Handout Mentality, all will to succeed fades away. Taxpayers have paid for multiple Trusts, only to have the auditors move in a year later to try and track down where the money's gone. Girls with Maori blood have created a new profession – that of leaving school and having multiple children because the government supports this! Islanders migrate here, and continue having large families – because the government supports this – even though the weather obliges them to live indoors more (not enough room, dangerous moulds from steam and breath) and the streets are poor compensation for beaches, warm temperatures and a playground for their children. The father – king of his family and domain back home – quickly loses his status as his children outstrip his English and his understanding of modern technology. This leads to violence and eviction (of the children). 'Maoris' have no excuse whatsoever; it is attitude, attitude, attitude. As long as they have children, the DPB payments roll in. The poorer/less educated, the bigger the family. I look at their food carts in the supermarkets... hardly anything that can be constituted as food for growing bodies and minds; just processed junk and dangerous/toxic additives, and their large (expensive) people carriers and V8 Commodores are waiting for them outside while they're checking their iPhones.
Polynesian/Maori children are also more affected by the terrible adjuvants in the vaccines – and the fact that they are pumped into them from the age of 6 weeks ... how utterly ridiculous to overload a baby's undeveloped immune system with toxins. You should note that ADD, ADHD, AUTISM and Diabetes have become epidemic since the MMR vaccine – loaded with mercury/ thimerosal at first, but lately with the equally-brain and gut-damaging aluminium; plus formaldehyde (!!!), live animal viruses and a whole host of other toxic material (they have found an alarming amount of aluminium in Ausitic and Dementia patients' brains). Alzheimer's was virtually unknown 40 years ago; since the advent of the Flu and Chickenpox vaccines (mostly) pushed on elderly people, it has become the 4th-5th leading cause of death for them. How does the government (allopathic medical junket) deal with these two groups? By pumping more hallucinatory drugs into their systems which wrecks their brains and makes them useless for society. Another modern-day affliction is glyphosate – the 70% ingredient in the ubiquitous Round Up – used with impunity on non-organic farms and in suburbian backyards where children and animals run about – one of the few chemicals that can transgress the blood-brain barrier from the gut. Just Google its toxic effects and be very afraid. It's no wonder that the largest group of males who commit suicide here are farmers! Although you won't find one organic farmer in that statistic. It is also interesting to note that 96% of people/children who commit suicide are on doctor's medication! The toxic, mind-bending drugs literally drive them mad. Nearly all of the mass killers are found to be on prescription drugs.
Your observations are good – but they only work if you've got a "whole" child to work with in the first place. Children damaged by medication and medical toxins, and parental violence/indifference cannot behave normally or develop naturally. As with all other observers/opinion writers, you're standing by the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.... staring at the open stable door. Here's a radical thought..... start by urging the government to stop paying out for unlimited babies to couples/single mums who cannot afford a house to put them all in, have no work experience/ethic and are not interested in educating their children up out of their own morass. Payment for two (I'd prefer one) babies and then the handouts stop. They don't spend that money on the children anyway – it's all on their own well-advertised excesses. The kids see the handouts and decide to take for themselves (violent robberies/breakins etc.)
Only you – and every other social commentator – won't do that, will you. It's not P.C. It doesn't matter that it's an outrage that the government takes money out of wage-earners' pay packets to prop up these wasters... somehow the morality (or immorality) of that escapes them. It's called shutting the stable door with the horse inside, or putting a fence up at the top of the cliff. What a radical thought! Make them responsible for their own lives – as the rest of us have to – and for living within their means: keeping some of the benefit aside specifically for children's needs. 'We' enable these people, and as generations before have shown... and a "generation" only has 15 years or so between the last... it's not going to change unless they are forced into it. Do you have the courage to get specific about who is dragging my beloved little country down into shame? I wonder.
— Heidi Dobbie