Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
Daily review 11/04/2023
7 comments on “Daily review 11/04/2023”
Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.
Comments are closed.
Just a couple of questions about the proposal to import dozens of foreign health workers. Are their quals going to be thoroughly checked? Where are they going to live?
Q1. Yes. Their credentials will be checked. Is it an absolute guarantee against fraud? Of course not. It hasn't been up to now (cases of fraud detected long after someone is working in NZ), and can't be in the future.
Q2. Just like the rest of us – wherever they can find accommodation. However, quite a bit is being freed up by 20-somethings heading off for their OE – certainly in Auckland.
Are you asking the same question about refugees? They also need accommodation….
Interestingly Australia is having trouble accomodating their health workers too, and presumably the ones they have lured across the Tasman as well.
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/australia/rental-crisis-hitting-australias-essential-workers
Name that RWNJ.
answer here
Bomber over at TDB calls them “academic gatekeepers”, which he does not intend as a pejorative, of course (unless he uses his all-time favourite adjective).
It appears that Bomber and that RWNJ have a few like-minded ‘friends’ here too.
nice comment format.
I find this absolutely outrageous. This is a legal submission that OT have made in a family court case.
The mother says it is littered with inaccuracies – and even OT acknowledge this
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300841091/oranga-tamariki-apologises-for-legal-doc-containing-erroneous-info-but-wont-fix-the-problem
This is a sworn legal document presented in a court case. The judge has the right to expect that the information in it is accurate. The social worker who wrote it should be in serious trouble with the court – let alone with their employer.
OT apparently think apologising for any 'distress' caused, is sufficient. And see no need to correct their badly flawed document, and re-submit it to the court.
Where are the effective penalties applied to individual social workers, for what is either incompetence or bias?
Pardon my lack of legal knowledge – but surely this is perjury? (knowingly giving false information to the court).