The story beneath the heading quotes receivers of the company as saying a poor capital structure has “killed” MediaWorks New Zealand’s business.

The Auckland-based broadcaster, which owns TV3, Four, RadioLIVE, the Rock and MoreFM, was put into receivership today after a planned recapitalisation failed to win over its lenders.

MediaWorks has been looking at ways to reduce its debt burden after Australian private equity firm Ironbridge Capital bought 70% of the company in 2007 for some $741 million.

And so on.

Radio NZ had the news on its home page (here) under the heading TV3′s owners in receivership.

On the NZ Herald home page at time of writing (here), the news was headed Mediaworks: It’s business as usual.

On Stuff’s home page, it was down the list a bit (here) under the heading MediaWorks to dispute tax payment.

But 10 minutes later it had been displaced by other stuff.

And how did TV3 rate the news?

Not good enough for its home page.

But they did not ignore it.

They gave it a place on the Business news page (here).

But that was around 1pm today.

By the time you get around to reading this post, the news on each of the pages cited here may well have been changed.

Alf’s mate and former Parliamentary colleague, Simon Power, said as much in a ministerial statement on 20 April 2010.

It was a ministerial statement he made as Minister of Justice on the matter of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and it explained why our wonderful government supported it.

Among other things, Simon Power said:

New Zealand’s support for the Declaration represents an opportunity to acknowledge and restate the special cultural and historical position of Māori as the original inhabitants—the tangata whenua—of New Zealand.

When you give people a special position, of course, you make them special.

And when they know the Government regards them as special, they go on to do wonderfully special things.

The Maori King, because of his lofty monarchical position, is even more special than his special people.

This became evident to all in a news item posted on the Herald website two days ago:

King Tuheitia will tonight host 150 dinner guests to mark the beginning of Matariki, and start a new tradition.

In the not-so-special circles in which Alf mingles, this is a remarkable thing the king has done, because normally something does not become a tradition until it has actually happened on several occasions.

It has become a tradition – for example – for Her Majesty the Queen to deliver a speech to all her people throughout the British Commonwealth on Christmas Day.

And it is a tradition in the Grumble household for all of us to stand proudly to attention, each of us clutching a Union Jack, while the speech is delivered.

Let’s check out the meaning of “tradition” as dished up by the Oxford dictionary people:

noun

1 [mass noun] the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way:members of different castes have by tradition been associated with specific occupations
[count noun] a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on from one generation to another:Japan’s unique cultural traditions

The celebration of Matariki year after year since anybody can remember can be described as a tradition.

But the mob of minions who surround the Maori King seem to be doing something very special by declaring the celebratory tuck-in on Friday an annual tradition.

Tonight will be the first time King Tuheitia will host a formal Matariki dinner at the Waikato-Tainui College for Research and Development, but it will become an annual tradition, said his spokesman Rahui Papa.

This Papa feller said the event was intended to be be “very special and very unique” in its celebration of Kingitanga and the new year, topics important to the King.

“The beginning of the new Maori year is a huge part of it and it commemorates his official royal crest,” he said.

“The Matariki constellation is in the King’s crest, so there has been discussion around aligning with his crest and the six stars of Matariki ahead of the launch of his coronation commemorations in August.

“Given the calibre of those attending [tonight's] Matariki dinner, this is such a fitting occasion to finalise and ‘seal’ the proclamation.

“The King’s Matariki dinner will become an annual event on the formal calendar of Te Kingitanga.”

Guests included representatives from every iwi, school leaders and keynote speakers Emeritus Professor Ranginui Walker and the South African High Commissioner, Ntombizodwa Msuthukazi Lallie.

Professor Walker – the way Alf hears it – discussed 155 years of the King Movement and its evolution, and Ms Lallie spoke about the achievements of Nelson Mandela.

Dunno if the achievements of Nelson Mandela sat comfortably with the Maori king and his minions, because they are apt to make a big thing of being special and see big advantages in drawing an ethnic distinction between Maori and the rest of us, whereas Mr Mandela was big on reconciliation between his own people and the whites who had oppressed them during the apartheid era.

Mr Mandela, moreover, is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

King Tuheitia looks an unlikely winner of a Nobel prize of any sort, although we can not discount Maori getting together to come up with plans for a Maori Nobel Prize, just as they like to have a Maori sportsman of the year, and a Maori singer of the year, and a Maori farmer of the year, and so on.

Frankly, Alf is bothered by this separatism, and is inclined to view at as akin to the apartheid which Mr Mandela denounced.

But he is willing to put his reservations aside to salute the very special people who can create a tradition, just by saying it will be one.

A bit of leadership, please.

The fact is, Prime Minster John Key is being a tad precious when he describes anti-fluoride arguments as “overstated”.

He is reported to have told the media at the National Fieldays he supports fluoridation of water supplies.

But then he said it is a matter for local councils to decide.

“In my view, the evidence strongly supports that fluoride actually stops tooth decay, overall the health benefits of it are significant, and actually those that worry about the negative effects overstate those matters,” he said.

He would not be drawn on the Hamilton City Council’s decision to remove fluoride from the city’s water supply, which is a bloody shame, because he has had no hesitation in allowing his government to step in elsewhere when local authorities behave like prats.

He did say he thought “there were no significant negative health side-effects” from fluoridation.

And that’s what most health authorities (with some exemptions) say too.

Hamilton city councillor and Waikato District Health Board member Ewan Wilson has had the gumption to press for a referendum in an effort to reverse the council’s high-handed decision.

Asked if he would support Wilson’s call for a binding referendum, Key said: “That’s a matter for the local community to decide, but one thing that is really important is that people are well informed.

“Because the argument that people can get fluoride through another form – a supplement outside of the water supply – is true, but the question you have to ask yourself is, will those who are most at risk get fluoride in another form? And I think the evidence shows they’re not.”

It is pleasing to see the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, has pitched in behind the supporters of fluoridation.

He has written a blog post exploring the science of fluoridation and how it can be used – and misused – in the current debate.

Most important, Sir Peter says –

The science of fluoride in water is effectively settled. It has been one of the most thoroughly worked questions in public health science over some decades. There is a voluminous scientific and lay literature that needs to be considered.

The Boss should show he supports Sir Peter by making this a national health issue, not something to be determined by local body mandarins.

Stuff tells us today (here) that Geoffrey John Buckley, 35, has been cleared of two charges of recklessly discharging a firearm and a charge of recklessly firing an airgun in front of his partner and her children between February 2007 and August 2008.

According to the report, the boy first made the allegations to Child Youth and Family in 2010. He repeated the allegations in a police interview last year.

This tells us there was no great haste in getting any judicial deliberations on these alleged offences

And a jury took less than two hours to deliver a not guilty verdict to the Napier District Court today.

Alf reported earlier on the matter here.

Since then, further evidence has been given and Stuff tells us:

Buckley, of central Hawke’s Bay, said his ex-partner made the allegations so she could get custody of her youngest son. Buckley is the father of the 6-year-old boy.

Buckley was also charged with shooting the mother in the leg with an airgun, permanently scarring her. It was also alleged a bullet narrowly missed her head, on a separate occasion, when Buckley shot a rifle in their bedroom. He was found not guilty on both these charges.

Buckley told the court he never fired at his partner, aimed a gun at her son, or shot the computer.

He insisted his ex-partner made it up and got her son to back up the story. However he agreed under cross-examination the woman struggled to control her son who would become violent when he did not get his own way.

The Crown prosecutor, of course, had a different story:

Lucas suggested Buckley was sick and tired that his partner couldn’t control her son’s violent outbursts so he got a shot gun from the cabinet, loaded it and shot the computer.

Lucas said firing a gun once may be an accident but firing it three times was intended to keep his partner and her children in line.

“He fired those guns in a misguided power play in an effort to scare and intimidate.”

Lucas said the woman could have made up anything if she wanted to gain custody of her youngest son, not a “weird and unusual” story about a man shooting a computer.

But defence lawyer Roger Philip said Buckley never brought firearms inside the house and the events did not happen.

Philip said there was no evidence of damage to the house, no tradesmen were called to repair the alleged damage and no complaints were made at the time of the incidents. Police never recovered a damaged computer.

Philip questioned the reliability of the witnesses because of inconsistencies in their evidence.

“When two witnesses are at odds about events that’s when doubt arises. There’s insufficient evidence for you to be sure.”

That’s good advice.

And Buckley afterwards said he was “stoked”. He had faith the jury would find in his favour.

Only a bit of sympathy, mind you.

Firing the bloody gun (as was alleged) would have gone too far.

But it has taken several years to have him dragged before the court, which is a clear case of denying the old adage about justice delayed being justice denied.

The bloke in question is one Geoffrey John Buckley, 35.

The story of his alleged offence is told by Stuff here.

The Central Hawke’s Bay man faces three charges of recklessly discharging a firearm in front of his partner and her children between February 2007 and August 2008.

Buckley is on trial in the Napier District Court today.

So what has brought him into court?

A brat, by the sounds of it.

The sort of brat we fathers are no longer allowed to beat when they become troublesome, thanks to namby-pamby laws that get in the way of good discipline.

The eight-year-old son of Buckley’s partner was misbehaving and ignoring requests to get off the computer, Crown prosecutor Josh Lucas told the court.

Get it?

The little bugger wouldn’t do what he was asked to do.

And it is illegal to give him a clip around the ears, which was a very effective form of discipline in the good old days.

What to do?

Here’s what the court was told:

Buckley left the room, went into his gun cabinet and returned with a shotgun.

Lucas said Buckley pointed the gun at the boy and told him to get off the computer or he would shoot him.

The boy did as he was told and backed away immediately.

Great!

It worked, if that’s what happened.

It did what words could not do and it got the child off the computer.

So far, so good (although pointing a gun at a boy would risk giving the boy the idea that this is acceptable behaviour and hence may cause some misgivings in some child-rearing circles).

What allegedly happened next is not so laudable.

Buckley still shot the gun in front of the boy, his mother and younger brother.

The bullet smashed the computer monitor and broke a nearby window.

Buckley is alleged to have said he thought the gun was not loaded, which (if true) would be extremely lax of him, and would amount to strong evidence he should not be allowed to go anywhere near guns.

This view is reinforced by the allegations there has been extreme negligence on previous occasions.

A bullet narrowly missed his partner’s head in a separate incident, when Buckley shot a rifle while the pair were in their bedroom. The bullet flew past her face and lodged into a wall, Lucas said.

Buckley shot the woman in the leg with an airgun in front of the children, on a third occasion. The woman was permanently scarred from the shot. Both times, Buckley thought the gun was not loaded.

Obviously this would mean Buckley is a slow learner, if things transpired as described.

But if events transpired as set out here, he can teach us how to get a brat off the computer without clipping him around the ears, and this is an admirable talent.

UPDATE: Let the record show Buckley has been found not guilty of pointing a loaded gun at an eight-year-old and shooting the computer he refused to get off.

He has been cleared of two charges of recklessly discharging a firearm and a charge of recklessly firing an airgun in front of his partner and her children between February 2007 and August 2008.

We all know what that’s about.

It was about United Future leader Peter Dunne’s 30-year political career being in ruins after he refused to co-operate fully with an inquiry into who leaked a report on spy agency the GCSB (see here).

Thus a bloke who once led a parliamentary team of eight MPs on the strength of his portraying it as the common-sense party had shown he is capable of being uncommonly senseless.

He is adamant he did not leak the Kitteridge report into dubious goings-on at the Government Communications Security Bureau.

But he won’t cough up the emails which he insists would clear his name.

This is not the reason why he considers himself unwise and even stupid.

You will find his reasoning for so describing himself in umpteen accounts of what has gone on in his office including a veritable tsunami of emails that flowed between him and a female journalist.

As it turns out, he is not the only bloke to have been unwise and even stupid in recent times.

The top item on the Herald home page (here) is about one Adam Te Rata Charles Morehu, aged 33, who – alas – will not be around to celebrate his 34th or any other birthday.

As this Herald report explains, he was shot by police in New Plymouth early this morning after – it would seem – breaking into the New Plymouth Golf Club.

Breaking into the golf club or any other premises attests to a strong anti-social streak and an inclination to felony.

But according to the police version of what happened, he also told the cops he would kill them and began shooting at them.

This attests to a much higher degree of anti-social behaviour than a break-in and furthermore suggests an urge to kill cops.

Taking a pop at the cops was far from clever.

They were apt to take a pop back – and one of them did.

As a consequence, according to the Herald’s report (here), three separate investigations have been launched.

Multiple security alarms went off at the premises about 4am and police responded.

Officers saw that windows had been smashed and set up a cordon around the area.

One of the officers found two offenders on a motorbike leaving the scene.

Acting District Commander Inspector Mark Harrison said he was not prepared to go into much greater detail at this stage.

But he did confirm that that the offenders have crashed their bike on the golf course as they tried to leave and a police dog has been deployed and detained one of the offenders.

“An officer went to assist the dog with the first offender and during this time the second offender yelled threats and shot at the officers which led to police discharging a firearm.”

Another account has been given by Assistant Commissioner Grant Nicholls.

He told a press conference at the New Plymouth Civil Defence Emergency Centre that two police officers attended and saw the golf club had been broken into.

“Two male offenders on a motorbike crashed down a bank and at this stage a police dog has been deployed.

“An unarmed police officer went to assist the dog apprehend the offender into custody. A second offender who remained with the motor bike showed aggressive behaviour and told the officers he was going to kill them. He fired a shot at police. While the offender was going through his back pack an officer has removed a Glock from the police vehicle. He heard the offender reloading his firearm and he was shot by police.”

The officers administered first aid. He was still conscious when ambulance arrived but he died a short time later.

One of the three inquiries will focus on the incident and the actions of the deceased; a second will independently look at the actions of police; a third investigation will focus on general police policies and procedures.

It remains to be seen whether the inquiries will verify these accounts of what happened.

The cops are not always squeaky clean when it comes to describing what actually happened in incidents like this.

But if it transpires Adam Te Rata Charles Morehu threatened to kill the cops, then opened fire…

Well, in that case we may suppose his common sense deserted him and (if he had the opportunity to be questioned on the matter) he would admit to having been unwise and even stupid.

Let there be no misunderstanding here. It’s not a matter of having much regard for Dunne. For starters, anyone who prefers to sport a bow tie rather than a proper tie (preferably with a Windsor knot) is apt to earn a place in Alf’s bad books for sartorial bad-taste reasons.

But the resignation of this fellow opens the one ministerial spot that is best given a wide berth. Revenue. Ugh!

Have you had a hard look at the sorts of things that come into the bailiwick of, and therefore must be absorbed by, the Minister of Revenue? It’s sheer tedium. Dunne was just the sort of bloke who could smile and say it’s a fun job.

Now he has no job and he has no party – at least, not a registered party – although the Herald described him (here) as United Future leader Peter Dunne when it reported he had resigned as a Minister after he was found to have withheld information from an inquiry into a leak of a GCSB report.

Prime Minister John Key has just released the report and said it showed that Mr Dunne had not met all the requests for information from the inquiry.

“I have met with Mr Dunne to discuss the matter. He has advised me that he remains unable to fully meet the inquiry’s requests and accordingly, he offered and I have accepted, his resignation as a Minister.”

The report from David Henry was into the leaking of the Kitteridge report on the GCSB, which – it might be recalled – became the stuff of headlines in the Fairfax press and a major distraction while The Boss was trying to show what a splendid job he was making of forging important economic ties between NZ and China.

The Henry report says Dunne had withheld information from the inquiry into the leak.

Dunno if Dunne indeed was the leak – he continues to deny it and has challenged Fairfax Media to confirm that.

But he is a drip, because he admits being unwise and lacking judgement:

“While I did not leak the report and challenge Fairfax to confirm that some of my actions after I received an advance copy of the report were extremely unwise and lacked the judgement reasonably expected of a minister in such circumstances”.

And…

“I have acted extraordinarily unwisely, even stupidly, and I am now resigned to paying the price for that.”

He said he had no credible explanation for why he acted in that way.

He exposes himself as a bigger drip by denying there was anything inappropriate about the emails and maintaining if he did release them, they would show he had not leaked the report.

But – ha! – he is not willing to do that.

“Once we start saying private correspondence is public property we go down a very slippery slope.”

Alf and his mates accordingly have much to talk about in the Eketahuna Club tonight.

We will be musing on Henry’s report saying Dunne had left his office in Parliament for about an hour on the day of the leak, and on Dunne’s explanation he had left his office to meet a female journalist at lunchtime but was waylaid and did not make the appointment.

So why would he want to meet this journalist?

He said it was simply for a “catchup” after an overseas holiday and he had not intended to leak the report at the meeting.

If he has catchup lunches with every Press Gallery journalist, he will eventually get around to catching up with Barry Soper and they can talk about bow ties.

Trouble is, The Boss is disappointed with Dunne because he expected all his ministers to cooperate with the inquiry.

Cooperation would call for a full disclosure of the contents of 12 emails exchanged between the female journalist and Dunne on April 8 – the day before her article revealing the report’s findings appeared in the Dominion-Post.

It would further call for disclosure of 86 emails exchanged between the pair between March 27 and April 9, which is a fascinatingly large amount of email exchanging.

Mr Henry said he advised Mr Dunne he considered it necessary to to have access to the text of those messages for the purpose of his inquiry.

“Mr Dunne has declined to allow me to read those 86 emails.”

Dunne did shown him an edited version of 44 of those emails.

“That text shows that GCSB issues, including the Kitteridge report, were prominent in the email exchanges. Mr Dunne was to meet the reporter on the morning of Monday April 8 [the day the leak was believed to take place] but states he did not do so.”

But without Dunne’s permission, Henry was unable to investigate further because he had no powers of compulsion.

The Boss said he’d met with Dunne on Wednesday night after he’d seen Henry’s report and told him to to cough up the emails or resign.

He chose resignation.

Now Alf awaits a call from The Boss and an invitation to consider becoming Minister of Revenue.

He is going to say “Sorry, boss, but tax isn’t my thing”.

Hopefully one of the other Ministers will then be offered the revenue job, opening up a vacancy somewhere else in the ministerial team for the Member of Eketahuna North.

Something like Racing would be good.

She went soft on a felon, taking into account his problem with booze and – ha – his claim to be remorseful, even though he refused to be involved in a restorative justice process.

The plonker in this case stole the life savings of a slightly built 82-year-old, leaving her with broken bones in the attack on her.

He is Darren Murphy Fidow, who was 18 years old when he and a mate targeted the pensioner at an Auckland shopping mall.

Presumably they targeted her because anyone younger and bigger might have been apt to fight back.

According to a report at Stuff (here) the victim had just left a hair salon and was crossing the car park with $600 – which she said was her life’s savings – in her handbag.

Fidow pushed her to the ground, grabbing at her handbag. The plucky pensioner held on to the bag but Fidow ripped it away and ran off.

She suffered a broken hip that required surgery, a broken wrist, bleeding on the side of her nose and bruising to her face. She was in hospital for approximately one month, requiring re-constructive surgery on her wrist and hip.

In a victim impact statement the pensioner described the attack as having “substantial and permanent” effects – she has lost her independence and is unable to undertake tasks with the energy she had before.

Fidow gives every sign of having a serious disregard for law and order.

At the time of the robbery Fidow was on bail for burglary and was bailed again. He then committed another burglary.

But Judge Philippa Cunningham sentenced him to 11 months’ home detention.

She gave him discounts for pleading guilty, his youth and his treatment for addiction.

He had been bailed again, this time to Odyssey House, and was undergoing a residential course of treatment there.

The Solicitor-General regarded the sentence as “manifestly inadequate” and appealed.

And today the Court of Appeal quashed the home detention, sending Fidow to jail for almost two years.

The Appeal court agreed Fidow’s age and remorse should be taken into account, but said jail was still appropriate.

“The final outcome on re-sentencing is therefore that the terms of home detention imposed by the sentencing Judge are quashed and instead cumulative sentences totalling two years and four months’ imprisonment are imposed on the relevant convictions.”

Alf is not so sure this isn’t still on the soft side, but it’s one helluva stiffer sentence than the one dished out by Judge Cunningham.

No matter how hard one tries, it is hard to find.

The Maori Party is banging on about it and demanding remedies, regardless.

It says it is concerned by the low numbers of Maori taking up the opportunity to switch from the General roll to the Maori roll and it is urging Maori voters to stand up for Maori representation and their Maori seats.

The notion that Maori voters might be perfectly content being on the General roll and – in Alf’s neck of the woods, anyway – able to vote for splendid Nats like him appears to have escaped them.

This demonstrates what an ethnocentric bunch they are.

Their patronising urge to tell Maori voters what’s best for them is reflected in a media statement from the party today.

Each of the party’s three MPs has a bleat in this statement.

Dr Pita Sharples, Maori Party Co-Leader said

“…the first month results for the Maori electoral option are showing that more Maori are switching onto the general roll, than are switching on to the Maori roll.”

Oh dear. What a shame.

But only for a race-based and race-focused party dependent on support from voters in race-based seats.

So what’s wrong with Maori signing up on the general roll?

Ah.

“That points to a very dangerous possibility that instead of increasing the numbers of Maori seats, we may indeed lose one, and that would be a step backwards for Maori representation.”

So this is all about the self-interest of a gaggle of Maori MPs who owe their political careers – and pay packets – to the nonsense of special seats where only Maori may cast votes.

Mind you, Sharples tries to make it sound like he has the voters’ interests at heart.

“We need our people to know that the Maori seats are about our right as tangata whenua to have a voice in parliament. They are about our right to express our issues in our own voice, and they are a cornerstone of Maori representation.”

“This is not about the Maori Party, this is about Maori representation in parliament – and should be a concern for every single Maori MP in this House.”

Not about the Maori Party?

Yeah. And the National Party is stacked with card-carrying Communists.

Let’s hear now from Tariana Turia. She said:

“When we first entered into a relationship with the National Party in 2008, the first thing we did was negotiate to keep the Maori seats in place. At that time it was a huge deal because National had campaigned on getting rid of the Maori seats. We cannot be complacent, we know that our seats remain vulnerable, and if we don’t use them we risk losing them.”

Yep. They negotiated to keep the Maori seats in place because they were only too aware that without them they would have no jobs as MPs.

We Nats needed their support and agreed to their demands.

So what else does Turia say?

“Maori voter participation is absolutely crucial to any system of political representation. And yet, for at least the last decade, there has been ample evidence demonstrating that the electoral system is not effectively engaging with Maori. Much more work must be done on all fronts, to encourage Maori uptake on their democratic right, to get on the electoral roll”.

Is Maori voter participation any more crucial to our system of political representation than than the participation of any other voters?

Not unless Maori are regarded as special (which, come to think of it, they do think).

But it should be noted that Turia is calling for special efforts to get Maori on the electoral roll. Not the general roll or the Maori roll, but (presumably) any roll.

Their democratic right to ignore signing up is being seriously overlooked.

But the Nanny-State approach of the Maori Party will put things right. Hurrah.

“We will each be raising this issue as a priority with our constituents, and we are urging our whanau to do the same. We have written to the Minister of Justice to look and invest into, as a matter of urgency, non-partisan ways of lifting Maori engagement in politics, particularly focusing on our rangatahi.”

Now its Te Ururoa Flavell’s turn to yelp. He said:

“We have also raised this issue with the Chair of the Maori Affairs Select Committee, to look at how we can work together across parliament to protect Maori representation.”

“We know that our communities have fought a long fight to have our voice heard in this place. If our tupuna were looking down on us now what would they say if we let this opportunity slip away.”

But whoa.

What’s this about a long fight?

We have had these special seats for…

Let’s see.

Oh yes, since Maori electorates were introduced in 1867 under the Maori Representation Act.

The first Maori elections were held in the following year during the term of the 4th New Zealand Parliament.

The fight has not been to establish and maintain the travesty of these race-based seats, but to get rid of them, because they were intended as a temporary measure.

Several attempts have been made to disestablish the Maori electorates.

To no avail.

There used to be just four of them.

Now there are seven.

And the Maori Party wants more.

Flavell goes on to insist:

“This is a priority issue for tangata whenua, and we are urging groups to come forward and promote the Maori electoral option, and in particular promote the need to get on the Maori roll.”

But if it happened to be a priority matter for Maori …

Well, it’s simple. They would be enrolling, wouldn’t they?

Alf is damned glad he doesn’t belong to a party which serves up vegan food at its conferences and declares them to be a fragrance-free affair.

This, it seems, means party members are expected to eschew deodorants and perfumes, and so on, which in turn means those who turn up are exposed to the pong of the raw body odours of delegates who are apt to be sparing with the use of soap.

Because Alf would avoid such occasions, the Greens have been denied his advice on how to improve their education policy.

That policy was announced today, as you can find here.

The Greens want to install nurses in every low decile primary and intermediate school to tackle poverty-related illness.

Great. But it doesn’t go far enough.

A doctor should be part of the package.

And a dentist.

That would raise the cost, of course, but the Greens aren’t all that fussed about expense when taxpayers will be doing the paying.

Co-leader Metiria Turei reckons the $30 million-a-year proposal will give around 112,000 children access to basic health care services.

It’s a nice little job-creator, too.

Almost 300 new nurses would be required to staff around 656 schools – with one nurse to every 400 students.

Stuff explains:

The anti-poverty plan follows the breakfast-in-schools policy the government announced last week to feed hungry pupils.

Poorer children are less likely to have access to care because of the costs of getting to a surgery and seeing a doctor, especially when they turn six, Turei said.

Turei was banging on about a “major major gap” in the provision of health services to primary school age children. Those in deprived areas are three times as likely to be admitted to hospital for preventable illnesses.

And it seems the New Zealand Nurses Organisation recommended the policy in its submission to the Government’s Green Paper on Vulnerable Children.

The NZEI and anti poverty groups are also backing the move, a party spokesman said.

“We know that poverty, ill health and educational underachievement go hand in hand,” Turei said.

“Kids in the lowest decile schools are the least likely to get the medical attention that they need to stay well and do their best at school.”

We are told the nurses would not be funded out of schools’ operating budgets. They would work in every decile 1-3 school.

There would be enough for one nurse per large urban school. Smaller schools – oh what a pity – would have to share a nurse.

This discriminates against smallness, obviously.

Funding would be allocated to district health boards. It would
cost $17m to pay the nurses an average salary of $60,000 a year.

The party says 20 per cent of new graduate nurses are unable to find work, so there is capacity in the system.

Another $10m of the funding would cover the approximately $90 in medical costs per child and $3m would take care of admin.

Dunno if the Green have paid much attention, but kids in lower-decile schools happen to be poorly dressed, too.

This is bound to result in them being colder than other kids, which can’t be good for their health.

More obviously, it can’t be good for their schooling.

A smart kid looks smart – and vice versa.

So why not a bespoke tailor in the schools where the nurses are going?

Then there’s an inclination for these kids to be poorly shod.

A damned good cobbler is required.

Come to think of it, that sums up the Green Party policy rather neatly.

Its a load of cobblers.