spinofflive
This image has not been altered in any way
This image has not been altered in any way

PoliticsApril 18, 2024

How to tell if your child is well enough to go to school or is in fact sick

This image has not been altered in any way
This image has not been altered in any way

David Seymour announced new guidelines this week for sending your kids to school with symptoms. Emily Writes sums them up.

Parents knee deep in snotty tissues and buckets of vomit were granted a much-welcome reprieve by associate education minister David Seymour on Wednesday with the announcement that he will advise them on when to send their child to school.

Seymour announced new guidelines that will help parents decide whether a child is too sick to attend or not. 

You might think that creating your child, birthing them or being at their birth, loving them, feeding them, comforting them, bathing them, cleaning them, clothing them, knowing the difference between a cry that means “I’m wet” and a cry that means “I’m hurt”, helping them walk, talk, grow and thrive over a minimum of five years means you’re pretty well-placed to determine whether or not your child should leave the house – but you’d be wrong.

According to Seymour, an increase in justified absences from school due to sickness is simply due to an imbalance between health decisions and education decisions. And after four years of New Zealanders finally taking their health symptoms seriously, it’s time to get back into the classroom, cough be damned.

“An education crisis today will turn into a crime crisis, a vulnerable children crisis, an economic crisis and an inequality crisis tomorrow. We’re addressing this by creating a culture where children know if they want to get anywhere in life, they need to get to school first,” said Seymour. So how can parents finally stop creating these crises?

A quick guide (full guidelines here)

If your child has a headache, then you need to rate the pain on a scale of one to ten. One = “As a parent with no sick leave, I love having to take an unpaid day off work.” 10 = “My boss rang me and said, I know your child isn’t sick but take a day off anyway! Why not?” If the headache is so bad your child looks like a ghost, you can keep them home. If your child is sobbing but can’t prove they have a severe headache? Throw them out of the house, they’ve got things to learn.

If your child has constipation, they should go to school, according to the new guidelines. But if they have diarrhoea, you must take a photo of it with your phone and send it to the associate minister. Diarrhoea is when more than three loose, watery stools pass within one day, you must count them. 

If your child has a fever, remember the rhyme: If it be hay, then nay they must be at school, if it be meningococcal, that’s not cool (so stay home I guess).

Act’s David Seymour (Image: Getty Images, additional design Tina Tiller)

If your child just has a cough, send them to school. Unless it’s a cough from a virus, or a flu, or it’s whooping, or a nasty cold. If your child is Māori or Pasifika and has a sore throat, actually that’s concerning because Māori and Pasifika are at far greater risk of developing serious complications from strep throat, you should see a doctor. Don’t know a foolproof method of distinguishing between “just a cough” and “strep throat that could be serious”? Don’t ask us, we don’t support nanny state overreach.

If your child has a festering rash, even if it only covers less than 9% of your child’s body, you should still keep them home. It’s surprising just how much damage 9% can cause.

Correction: If your child has eczema and it’s a rash or they have an itchy face, send them to school. If it could be measles or another infectious rash, keep them at home. If you can’t tell the difference, that’s on you. Don’t ask us, ask a doctor, but not during school time.

Breaking news: If your child is vomiting uncontrollably, keep them at home. If you’ve ever sent your kid to school even though they were vomiting because you care that much about education, send an email to Seymour’s office – surely he’ll give you a medal or something.

If your child has a chronic illness, then their number of attendance days is likely low, which means sadly, you are the parent of a ram-raiding criminal who will never be educated and is simply creating a future of crises. Sorry to break it to you, but now you know.

If your child has a disability, run. Who knows what minister for disability issues Penny Simmonds will do next.

If your child has a snotty nose, Seymour would like you to share it with your child’s underpaid and overworked teachers. Because if everyone has a snotty nose, then that’s basically the same as no one having a snotty nose. If any teachers cannot work because they have pneumonia combined with the runs, they can be replaced by the hundreds of public servants who will soon be unemployed.

If you are one of the 300,000 New Zealand families living in unacceptable housing conditions in Aotearoa, and are suffering from congestion or fluid or scarring on your lungs from black mould – too bad. Send your kids to school. Your landlord having any reason to evict you should help with any ongoing issues your child is having with their health.

If your child has the flu, congratulations. Pharmac recently announced it will no longer be free for children under 12 and Māori and Pacific people aged between 55 and 64 to receive the flu vaccine. Children are a major pathway for the spread of influenza so chances are you’ll soon be sick too and then that will mean you have to take a sick day off from work, but not too many because that’s expensive for businesses. Stay tuned for the upcoming guidelines on knowing if you’re well enough to go to work (spoiler: just don’t get sick). 

Treaty-Settlement.png

OPINIONĀteaApril 18, 2024

We’re asking the wrong questions about treaty settlements

Treaty-Settlement.png

When the Crown is the self-appointed ultimate authority over a process to deal with Crown misconduct, we run into big issues, writes Tina Ngata.

“What’s it going to take for Ngā Puhi to settle” was the headliner statement on Q&A last weekend, as Ngā Puhi chair Mana Tahere was interviewed about the country’s largest iwi’s ongoing negotiations with the Crown. Negotiations between the two started in 2009, and in 2014, the Tūhoronuku Mandate board was established to represent the iwi. After 15 years, the process is ongoing, with Tahere predicting there’d be a settlement within the next five years.

The question itself, however, unfairly pointed the finger at Ngā Puhi for the delay. Māori are not the problem in “settlement” culture. Crown arrogance, interference and over-reach is.  Sadly, misunderstandings about the “settlement” process are all too common in Aotearoa. The common colonial view is that settlements are a cash-grab, a part of the “special privileges” Māori apparently get. Rarely is there an appreciation for the demoralising, harmful and ultimately unjust process that settlement entails. 

The Crown government has repeatedly positioned the tribunal and settlement process as a means of “settling the grievances of its Indigenous people”. This very positioning points to the problem, that the Crown assumes itself as the paternal authority and Māori as aggrieved subjects, rather than treaty partners. The Crown’s continued practice of painting redress as a tacit acknowledgement of Crown sovereignty, has necessitated a number of iwi to explicitly address this in their settlement text.

The settlement process normally plays out through direct negotiations with what was once the Office of Treaty Settlements and is now Te Arawhiti (Office of Crown-Māori Relations), who reports to the minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, currently Paul Goldsmith. If there are issues that cannot be resolved (like the matter of mandate), the Waitangi Tribunal may also be involved. The tribunal is appointed by the Crown (specifically, by the governor-general, on the recommendation of the minister of Māori affairs, in consultation with the minister for justice).

The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 to hear claims on Crown breaches of the Treaty, with historical claims being heard since 1985, and direct settlement negotiations being favoured since the 1990s. By this point, the Crown policy and legislation had been enforcing poverty upon Māori for over 150 years, some seven generations. Of course, over successive generations, the harm grows new forms, like a liana vine. Housing poverty turns into intergenerational ill health, which in turn affects education and employment. Crown abuse turns into institutional resentment, which in combination with desperation leads to crime. The victim-to-perpetrator cycle revolves numerous times, and with each generation, the consequences of the initial harm become increasingly complex. All the while, contemporary Treaty violations continue to be layered over us, creating new liana vines. None of this excuses personal responsibility, but it should be kept in mind when people are asked to quantify the cost of multiple generations of economic, socio-cultural and political dispossession.

When the Crown is the self-appointed ultimate authority over a process to deal with Crown misconduct, we run into big issues. For example let’s look at the Large Natural Grouping Policy: Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed with hapū, not iwi. However, the Crown found it inconvenient to negotiate at the hapū level, figured it would cost too much, and take too long, and so decided it will only enter into negotiations with those who meet the Crown criteria for a “large natural grouping” – effectively erasing its treaty partner and replacing it with a more convenient grouping. 

Photo: Leonie Hayden

These Crown-defined processes of who counts and who doesn’t, played out over decades, has come to shape Māori identities and relationships in profound ways. You can imagine the tensions this creates between kin-groups both as hapū and iwi, as well as those classed as hapū, who see themselves as iwi, and between neighbouring iwi who may have overlapping interests. The settlement process is an atom bomb upon kinship relations. It creates rifts between whānau, hapū and iwi that can take generations to recover from. As they say, first the earthquake, then the disaster. In this case it’s first the colonialism earthquake, then the settlement disaster. 

The obsessive focus on money diverts the discussion away from the factor of power. Power to make ultimate decisions for your people, lands and waters. Even settlements that include the return or co-management of taonga, the Crown still holds the power to de-legislate, re-define, or to restrict funding that gives effect to the aspirations of the people for that taonga. We are seeing this play out right now, in the Fast-Track Approvals Bill, which reviews the level of protection for taonga designated as waahi tapu (sacred sites) or areas with recognised “special interest” for iwi in prior settlements.

It’s a quagmire of harm, with the Waitangi Tribunal being the primary site of recourse – and of course that, too, is limited (by the Crown) in scope and enforceability. Although the tribunal is a judicial arm of government, it is not a court of law, and the recommendations are not binding. While the government has honoured many recommendations, it has also ignored many – the Flora, Fauna, Cultural and Intellectual Property, Foreshore and Seabed, and the Paparahi o te Raki findings and recommendations being prime examples.

Reflect on that for a moment: The Crown assumes its right to govern from the Treaty. The Treaty apparently matters enough to form a government on, but not enough to make the treaty enforceable in any other way. 

So rather than asking “what will it take” for any iwi to settle – perhaps we should instead be asking what it will take for the Crown to stop creating shitty processes, every single day, that compound their enduring history of shitty processes. Perhaps we should be asking of ourselves, why we are still allowing processes that not only ignore tikanga Māori, but also fail the most basic standards of Western international treaty and contractual law, and what will it take for us to demand better from our government?

The answer was offered multiple times by Moana Jackson: Treaties aren’t meant to be settled – they’re meant to be honoured. The most important way in which Te Tiriti o Waitangi remains to be honoured, is through a formal constitution that recognises Māori political authority over Māori destinies. Until then, the only appropriate thing we should be directing to groups undergoing “settlement” processes is aroha, time, grace and sympathy.