ACT’s State of the Nation is never boring, because David Seymour tells it like it is. Tickets for this Sunday’s event in Christchurch are 80 per cent sold. We’re told that’s on track for a sellout, so if you’re in Canterbury and looking for something to do on the 15th, please buy your tickets here.
Nothing is either good or bad…
David Seymour made some comments that should be obvious but sent the left and media into a lather. He said colonisation had been neither all good nor all bad, but more good than bad. You can watch the full media exchange here.
Those who deny colonisation has been net positive for Māori are really saying either: 1) They don’t think New Zealand is one of the most successful societies on earth, or 2) Māori would have somehow built an even more successful one without British arrival.
The second answer is troublesome. Presumably they are saying Māori would have established contact and imported a political and legal system at least as good as the British one, got everyone to follow it, and made the country more successful than it is today. It’s difficult to reconcile that with pre-European history, but let’s imagine it’s possible: What that’s really saying is they want all the good things Europeans brought but not the Europeans.
The first answer is more likely the left’s thinking. They either don’t think New Zealand is much of a success, or that it is, but not for Māori. As Seymour said at the weekend, being poor in New Zealand is still to live like kings and queens of old. Queen Victoria reigned over a great empire for sixty years without access to antibiotics. How many people today would take that chance?
In some ways, this is a silly debate. Who cares, when the economy is in a fragile recovery and world peace feels even more fragile? On the other hand, how can we make progress on any problem when we can’t say that 1) New Zealand is a success we should be proud of, when it overwhelmingly is, or 2) few things are entirely good or bad, but it’s worth thinking about how to improve?
If you did not see Seymour’s full speech, you may like to watch it here.
from Centrist
‘Better for Māori than Labour’: Duncan Garner praises coalition government record

In a wide-ranging podcast discussing Waitangi week, Duncan Garner argues for the coalition government’s record on Māori-related issues.
“The record says they are better for Māori than Labour,” he remarks, “but nobody wants to talk about it.”
Garner says that, despite heated rhetoric, the government “haven’t removed one co-governance set-up.” Nor, he adds, have Treaty principles been stripped from legislation.
On Treaty settlements, Garner says, “[National’s] done the most settlements and they’ve done the biggest settlements, and they continue to do them.”
Garner contrasts that explosion in iwi balance sheets with the reality for many Māori families. “Iwi wealth has exploded,” he says, while average Māori households see little direct benefit.
He singles out ACT’s David Seymour for direct involvement in reopening and funding Māori boys’ schools, including Tipene/St Stephens.
“There’s another northern school… going to Parnell to another charter school for Māori that will be funded by David Seymour,” Garner says. “They wouldn’t exist without him.”
Yet he adds that this work is barely acknowledged. “The media hasn’t told the story of Seymour and the Māori schools,” he says, arguing that results-driven Māori education reform is sidelined because it clashes with the preferred political storyline, labelling the government as racist.
Garner says refocusing on literacy and numeracy has delivered the biggest gains for Māori students. “Because Māori had fallen so far behind, they gained the most,” he says, calling it “the best way to honour the Treaty.”
He also points to ongoing Māori cultural funding, including around $20 million for Te Matatini, which undermines claims that the government is anti-Māori.

Charter schools will do no better than state schools unless they rid themselves of the progressive educational nonsense that has caused our standards academically to plummet
This would mean returning to explicit , systematic , accumulative learning and strict discip;ine as we used to have earlier last century .
Just providing free uniforms , devices , lunches will make very little improvement .
Unfortunately one of the one of leaders of Charter schools is not sympathetic to structured learning which for me is a big problem.