Operationally inadequate? Call Centres unacceptable wait times.

Operationally inadequate? AIRNZ, Southern Cross, Vodafone, the major banks, power and communication companies?

Contrary to the mantra that competition is always good, the now constant practice of cutting corners in tendering for contracts has led in many cases to substandard results – and poor outcomes for the public.  At least as equal a deterioration in service to the public at large has been the push by major corporations to maximise profits by under-resourcing their customer service centres. New Zealanders are all now well and truly exposed to the tedium and time-wasting procedures involved in trying to call our corporate giants.

We are familiar with the outcome…that those wishing to call these corporations have to jump through the hoops, instructed to follow through a sequence of numbers, selecting those which take the caller to another sequence where further choices are delineated – and so on – possibly without encountering even one with any relation at all to the query which prompted the call.

The wait to hear back from an operator to gather the required information too often becomes not only unacceptably long – but basically insulting to customers. So is the repetitive sales pitch, relentlessly forced upon those waiting. The conclusion to which many New Zealanders have now come is that the waste of their valuable time – and the repetitive procedures they are required to undertake while holding a phone, waiting to get needed information –  are not only irritating: it has all become completely unacceptable.

Add on the unwanted, third-rate musical trash forced upon customers unable to choose to avoid this – song after song played on – a form of virtual mental torture to those who would never choose to voluntarily listen to these maddening impositions – and the time to challenge these substandard practices is now overdue.

What we are faced with is sheer incompetence on the part of these corporations in that they are not meeting the needs of their customers. It is either is an operational failure on their part to not take this into account – or a deliberate avoidance of their responsibility to answer to the public – and to provide a quality service.

Southern Cross,  for example, have a nerve suggesting customers contact them by phone, when one can wait for 20 minutes or longer before hanging up, as not only is time precious, but one is unable, during this time, to take or make other calls. When this process is repeated again throughout the day, with even longer wait times experienced  across the whole spectrum of telecommunication companies, it not only becomes a source of irritation, but one  of increasing stress  – which can be argued to have become a public health issue.

And when, as with other corporate excuses with which we are over-familiar, we hear the usual “due to unexpected caller demand… or “due to higher than usual call ratios…” we are not impressed. What it is all essentially due to is that same cost-cutting – cutting corners – the underemployment of needed staff to swiftly and efficiently answer calls.

Government departments, too, are equally culpable.

The problem, the same as in many areas and in other organisations in this country  lies with those in charge – with management – management in many cases substantially overvalued and substantially overpaid and –  not infrequently –  arguably incompetent.

This whole culture  needs to be increasingly challenged,  what equates to gross mismanagement – the  failure to employ and allocate more staff leading to the failure to provide an efficient service… epitomising a basic lack of respect for the public.

When individuals say they are no longer prepared to tolerate these substandard practices, things will change. The solution lies, as always, in our own hands – in not merely grumbling – but in challenging these substandard practices.

Combined efforts achieve great changes…

 

© Amy Brooke

Why is Jacinda Ardern promoting further racial separatism?

Why is Jacinda Ardern promoting further racial separatism? 

Can Ardern really be ignorant of the fact that there is absolutely no doubt that New Zealanders as a whole – whatever their ethnic background – are now fed up with the increasing polarisation of society along the lines of a deliberately promoted Maori superiority? 

Is she ignorant, naïve –  or does she have a more concerning aim in mind? 

According to the usual part-Maori activists, Maori names must now appear first. In city streets, throughout national and local government agencies, signs are being rewritten at considerable expense to the whole country so that Maori – in many cases, of course, predominantly reinvented Maori – is to take precedence. Any English must appear in much smaller lettering underneath. 

 This is not only insulting to the majority of New Zealanders: it appears to be  an extraordinarily insensitive promotion of resentment, of a kickback against the massive, never-ending payouts of now hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed “compensation” by a generation today which had absolutely nothing to do with any wrongs committed nearly 200 hundred years ago. Moreover, a one-sided emphasis on these has been allowed to hold sway for too long. 

Add on the nonsensical assertion that what is now an overwhelmingly fake language should be compulsorily inflicted upon the country…with attempts to pass it off as “the language of the land”, and the inevitable backlash is gathering momentum. 

Someone needs to tell the present Race Relations Conciliator this claim of hers is sheer gobbledygook. The land has no language.  The land cannot speak. Faced with an inexorable logic, even if one were deluded enough to literally put one ear to the ground, one would have to admit a failure in any attempt to listen to the land speaking… 

Moreover, if the land today had a language it would be English – the international language overwhelmingly necessary for communication both within and outside this country…the language which new immigrants must learn to assimilate…the language which by far the majority of those of Maori descent also prefer to speak. And any attempt by the politically correct to try to gain more mileage for a language stretched well past its original authenticity will be resisted by New Zealanders who have far more important things to do – and who resent the ongoing virtual squandering of scores of millions of dollars each year on a now inauthentic, largely made-up language which has no relevance to them.  But it provides lucrative jobs for the boys and girls pushing it… 

In fact, it can be argued that it is not only farcical to claim that a genuine Maori language has the words for, say Inland Revenue Department, Ministry of  Social Welfare, economy return flight tickets to Afghanistan… Accident and Emergency Department… but that it is a basic con to claim that this largely reinvented language is authentic.  

So why is this happening? 

We are also well overdue to ask – who is Maori?  

It’s past time for a scientifically based definition of Maori. We should now be insisting upon this from this government, because the lack of any definition allows today’s opportunists, those with their eye to the main chance, to claim to be Maori for any economic or preferential advantage going. 

There are no longer any genuinely full-blooded Maoris in this country. And the most prominent iwi opportunists are those who are predominantly certainly not Maori – but to whom the constant rejection of the largest proportion of their genetic inheritance pays great dividends – given today’s corruption of our vote-seeking political parties.

Remember Donna Awatare? A convicted fraudster, together with her husband, she was found guilty in 2005 and sentenced to 2 years nine months in jail. They were convicted of stealing $80,000 from a trust fund she had formed to improve literacy among underperforming Maori children.  Since being released from jail, she has held several roles including deputy chair administration for the New Zealand Māori Council.

In 2014 she represented the council in presenting the Māori claim for water to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.  She has now been appointed Maori Climate Commissioner.

How many will have been incredulous at this news? It is not surprising, but it is ominous, that our major newspaper syndicates, obligingly changing their mastheads  to switch to Maori-derived names, have now severely cut back, or completely dispensed with, the ability to comment on the major socio-political articles of the day. 

Why do you think this might be? Could it possibly be related to the fact that most commentators have voiced their concern, even their anger, at the views of the majority of New Zealanders now being completely discarded.  

One correspondent‘s view, that the Treaty of Waitangi has become a stranglehold on the rest of the country, is now reflected the length and breadth of the country.  Another expat’s comments represent the thinking of many. Having left New Zealand because of the increasingly toxic atmosphere caused by our political parties sell-out of democracy along racist lines, he writes, “It seems the will of the people in a democratic vote is not respected if the minority don’t like it. This I find very worrying,  as voting is the basis of democracy.” Individuals who feel powerless in the face of this increasingly racist reorientation of New Zealand do have a remedy. And it’s a very easy one.  Each of us can indeed stand up to be counted. You don’t have to despise yourself for doing nothing  (an essentially cowardly choice which diminishes us as human beings, as Jordan Peterson points out ) –  or for feeling powerless in the face of this virtual steam-rolling over the majority of New Zealanders. 

When did you last put a quick call through to Parliament to the appropriate office – that of your local MP? – or the office of the leader of a political party. They claim they really want to hear from you  – then why don’t you make sure they do?  

A correspondent has contacted me to say she has done just that. She rang Jacinda Arden’s office to politely state that she completely disagrees – as do majority of New Zealanders – with the racist lines Jacinda Ardern is promoting… She asked her views to be taken into account – to be taken back to the Prime Minister. 

Everything in the end depends upon individuals. Why don’t you do the same? And no – it’s not like knocking on the headmaster’s door! We employ and pay our political servants. We will be genuinely beginning to claim back this country when we act upon this actual fact.  

Parliament’s number is 04 817 9999. Ring and ask to be put through to the appropriate office. Every call counts – as does doing nothing… We do have a choice.

 

©  Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

Maori “great conservationists”? Why this unscientific nonsense?

Maori “great conservationists”?  Why is this distorting nonsense being peddled? Maori, after all, blithely burnt whole forests and wiped out numbers of species. Who profits from this constantly trumpeted,  quite wrong claim?

For example: “Within a couple of hundred years of settling in NZ, Maori had wiped out more than forty native species, including every one of the nine species of moa.

<a href=”https://teara.govt.nz/en/human-effects-on-the-environment“>https://teara.govt.nz/en/human-effects-on-the-environment</a>

Isolated for millions of years, New Zealand’s plants and animals were very vulnerable to the impact of humans. When the ancestors of Māori arrived around 1250–1300 AD, bringing rats and dogs, they started a wave of extinctions that continues today.

<a href=”https://envirohistorynz.com/2009/12/15/impacts-of-the-maori-on-the-environment/“>https://envirohistorynz.com/2009/12/15/impacts-of-the-maori-on-the-environment/</a>

Maori also had a significant impact on the archipelago’s fauna: nearly forty species of birds, a bat, three to five species of frogs and numerous lizard taxa became extinct during the pre-European Maori era. Factors leading to the extinction of these species were direct hunting, predation by or competition with introduced dogs and rats, human disturbance of nesting sites, and habitat destruction (mainly through burning).

<a href=”https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/1866.pdf“>https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/1866.pdf</a>

Summary: Polynesian settlement of New Zealand (c. 1000 yr B.P.) led directly to the extinction or reduction of much of the vertebrate fauna, destruction of half of the lowland and montane forests, and widespread soil erosion.

<a href=”http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/why-did-new-zealands-moas-go-extinct“>http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/why-did-new-zealands-moas-go-extinct</a>

For millions of years, nine species of large, flightless birds known as moas (Dinornithiformes) thrived in New Zealand. Then, about 600 years ago, they abruptly went extinct. Their die-off coincided with the arrival of the first humans on the islands in the late 13th century….he is not surprised that the Polynesian settlers killed off the moas; any other group of humans would have done the same, he suspects. “We like to think of indigenous people as living in harmony with nature,” he says. “But this is rarely the case. ”

All the PR about New Zealand being an attractive destination for scientists needs closer scrutiny. So does the now highly questionable priority being laid upon todays’ scientists by only too compliant management both in private and in government institutions intrusively over-seeing research areas to ensure that the interests of now wealthy iwi come first.

It is not a feather in our cap that scientists now cannot today be left to do what they are most fitted for, undertaking pure research, thoroughly and methodically, without  a continuing, unrealistic pressure to at the same time swiftly find business or iwi funding to enable them to continue.

The politicisation of all our institutions  these recent decades has meant that New Zealand scientists are now hamstrung by the ideology of what was basically the New Zealand Business Roundtable’s 1990s  theorising that both the science and arts should be regarded as commodities – together with the efforts of this well-funded organisation to remove tenure from university staff.

Because of this, as the University of Canterbury’s School of Physical & Chemical scientists’ highly respected Dr Andy Pratt has pointed out, economic outcomes, and the pressure to swiftly achieve politicised results has ensured that “quality issues go down the tubes”. In an important,  previously published article, Dr Pratt points out that “an obsession with the cost of everything and the value of nothing vandalises society and undermines its values… Governments want to know what science’s discovery of the week will be, while in order to get funding, scientists must claim that they are going to cure cancer, or build a supercomputer.”

Added to this attack on pure science comes the virtual blackmailing now of our institutions where research funding depends upon local wealthy Maori corporations’ approval of such research – even when these neo-tribal organisations have absolutely no expertise in the areas into which they have intruded.

Would overseas scientists willingly come here, if they knew the political and economic hoops they today have to jump through in this country – to have a chance of retaining their jobs? There’s increasing doubt about this.

Charles Eason, the chief executive of Nelson’s Cawthron Institute, touted as  the country’s largest independent science organization, quite openly states that “The Cawthron aims to support the country’s economy through science while preserving the natural environment — in which New Zealand’s powerful indigenous Maori traditions  are deeply rooted. “Our Maori culture plays through our psyche,” Eason says. “Maori culture is very strong in terms of environmental protection.”

Assertions here need to be questioned.

  • Why has this highly politicised sea-change of the aim “to support the country’s economy “now become the stated responsibility of science – i.e. in real terms, of scientists?
  • Why is the factually wrong and scientifically unsupported claim that “Maori culture is very strong in terms of environmental protection” being peddled? Is it basically an excuse for the pressure now being placed by opportunistic iwi on what should be strongly independent organisations committed to genuine research? Have they in fact capitulated to priotising iwi interests?

Great scientists, as Andy Pratt reminds us, are kept young by an almost childlike curiosity about the world. What, however, is the inevitable result, when management makes this impossible by insisting on quick results, geared to serve business or moneyed interests?

His faith that the pendulum will have to swing back may be heartening – but not to the growing number of highly qualified scientists carrying the additional  burden of student loans, undertaken to enable them to achieve the highest possible qualifications  – but now having to drive taxis  – as the doors of learning and sharing are closed to them.

*

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

Our mass media – mindless, mischievous, malicious…? Is it actually corrupt?

See below. From Bruce Moon, to  the editor of The Nelson Mail, Sunday, August 5, 2018

Dear Victoria,
A lot of propaganda and very distorted stories about land have been circulating recently in the news media, including the “Nelson Mail”.  What is invariably concealed is the primary fact that the tribes were only too eager to exchange large areas of surplus land for material goods which the Europeans provided.  To provide that “balance” which our public library and the chief executive officer of the City Council have asserted to me as being so essential, I provide herewith therefore an article of mine which is not propaganda but is accurately based on the hard facts of history to which references are given.
 
You may recall, too, that on 2nd March 2016 the “Mail” featured prominently an article by John and Hilary Mitchell which I found to be inaccurate and unbalanced in several respects.  I wrote for you therefore a piece to correct their shortcomings, but you chose to ignore it.  I am pleased to report,  however,  that not long afterwards it did appear in the “Northern Age” whose editor, Peter Jackson, shows the great merit of printing material as freely from one side as the other, thereby allowing his readers to make up their own minds on matters of importance.  It is attached below.
Very recently, too, a correspondent sent me the editorial page of the “Mail” for September 9, 2000 with the bold “Mailbox” headline “Dr Mitchell’s ancestors guilty of genocide too”.  Two letters, by B Tod of Motueka and David Curl of Nelson, describe the brutal pre-1840 practices of Maori tribes including the genocide and wholesale cannibalism inflicted on the innocent people of the Chatham Islands by Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama – from whom John claims descent.  John had apparently written in support of  Tariana Turia who had made the outrageous claim of a “holocaust” in British settlement of New Zealand – a term surely more accurately applied to his own tribe’s behaviour.  Curiously, on the very same page the “Quote of the week” reports then Finance Minister Michael Cullen stating that Ms Turia had accepted the Prime Minister’s edict that “ministers should not use That Term” [sic].  Well, well!
 
I refer also to my talk “A Jaundiced View of the Treaty” for whose title I selected John’s own reported words.  As far as I know and notwithstanding my cordial invitation, nobody from the “Mail” attended its very successful presentation on 7th July at the rooms of the Hearing Association whose acceptance of the importance of free speech evidently outweighed its fear of “a health and safety issue”.  This had, I understand, cowed the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, the Elim Church, the Masonic Temple and Fairfield House into declining to make their premises available.
 

Thus it is attached too for your information.  It was delivered to a very attentive full house – in fact a notice to that effect had to be posted two minutes before its scheduled start.  There was not a single attempt at heckling or any other disturbance; questions and comments were courteous and relevant.  Its success is at least a small contribution to the defence of truth, fairness and democracy which are so much at peril in New Zealand today.  Elsewhere, in consequence of its earlier banning, it has appeared in various social media and assuredly been read by many more people that would ever had done so had it been delivered as intended in the first place.

As one commentator put it, Nelson now appears to be the prime candidate for the distinction of being the first town in New Zealand to indulge in book-burning, though possibly Auckland may vie for that dubious distinction.

 
With my compliments,
 
Bruce M

This very brave man has long been been fighting back. Who is going to help him?

This is a serious question. New Zealand is now in many ways at the crossroads – and it depends on each of us which way it’s going to go… as so much needs to be reclaimed – ( To understand how, see www.100days.co.nz).

What can one conclude, looking at the record of our media giants these years, and the utter bias demonstrated by the now almost inevitable, one-sided presentation of very important issues?

These include the heavy-handed promotion of the politics of racial superiority.

The lack of much-needed scrutinising of the massively costly and divisive Maori supremacy movement – by no means supported by most part-Maori  – but  gaining far too much mileage in being pushed by a relatively  few radicalised extremists – has reached disgraceful levels.

And the biggest challenge to every New Zealander has to be that none of us can walk away and say it doesn’t matter.  It matters very much.

It is individuals, accumulatively, who count. We can ring up the local newspaper – and say we’ve had enough – tell the editors. They won’t like it – but we needn’t grieve over that 🙂 And if you have done your bit…and someone else does the same thing…on it goes. Even if it was only you – you count.

Or what about contacting Talkback – and/or asking your MP, your paid employee, what he/she is doing to represent you and the majority in opposing this damaging movement?

MPs don’t like Talkback. No surprises there. It so very often tells them how so many New Zealanders really feel…

And behind it all, what about the fine individuals you/ we let down, by doing nothing to support them?

We don’t have to be experts in any particular area to realise that there are things very wrong in a number of important areas.

What about saying that we’ve had enough of deliberate bias? And does it raise the question of a basic corruption within these media? 

One brave man, among others, has long been challenging this.

For a copy of Bruce’s attachments, please send a return address. Thank you.

Amy Brooke – Convenor – www.100days.co.nz

The witch-hunt against Allan Titford?

The Witch-hunt against Allan Titford?

COPYRIGHT © KAPITI INDEPENDENT NEWS

July 24, 2018  

Amy Brooke believes that 24 Years, The Trials of Allan Titford by Mike Butler exposes judicial failure in both the district court and the Court of Appeal.

Some justice at last?

At last, thanks to Mike Butler and Tross Publishing, some justice for a man who has basically been framed?

As a socio-political commentator at the time, I recall being increasingly concerned at what looked very like a loaded gun, metaphorically speaking, which had been pointed at Allan Titford.

I was horrified at the charges that had been levelled against him on the flimsiest of evidence – much of it based on accusations which simply should not have carried weight in a genuine court of justice.

Questions about the Waitangi Tribunal

Equally shockingly has been the utterly undemocratic, and indeed arguably corrupt, processes under which The Waitangi Tribunal has  been allowed to operate.

Much of this is detailed in my book –

“The 100 days – Claiming back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.”

Flawed from its inception, the tribunal has been granted far more respect than it deserves, and, biased in its findings, it has basically brought itself into disrepute.

That our political parties have given far too much credence to its findings, and that there is even provision for its findings to be binding on government is completely unacceptable.

So is what has happened to Allan Titford, with an almost unbelievable sentence of 24 years of imprisonment!  More than for committing murder…. utterly incredible!

That this whole saga is an indictment on our justice system is an understatement. It is more than time for these issues to be addressed. And it is time our government fronted up.

Mike Butler explains how corrupt our justice system has become in 24 Years, The Trials of Allan Titford.

Uncovering the truth

In 1987 Allan Titford was being driven off his farm by people who claimed that part of it was Maori land. His story captured the hearts and minds of many New Zealanders.

However, in 2013, when he was jailed for more than 24 years, he was called “a slave driver, a monster and a liar”.

This book tells how a treaty claim took private land against the will of its owners despite evidence that the claim was unjustified.

It also analyses how Allan Titford was jailed for such a long time.

The record jail term is bizarre considering that 12 charges relied on the uncorroborated testimony of a person who admitted to perjury.

Moreover, many of the 53 charges against him were hardly tested in court.

It also shows a hidden parallel story about how the justice system was played for financial gain.

This book exposes judicial failure in both the district court and the Court of Appeal.

It asks whether the process used against Allan Titford is standard practice in the New Zealand justice system and how many more victims have been locked up by using these methods.

See the video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQamj01Paw

Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc, wrote:

I have just finished reading 24 Years and as I have been very involved with Allan and Susan Titford since the “false” claim was place on Allan’s freehold titled property at Maunganui Bluff, I can confirm this is a true and accurate accounts of the events that ended with Allan being jailed for 24 years because of our corrupt justice system. A must read”.

(24 Years, The Trials of Allan Titford by Mike Butler is published by Limestone Bluff. It has 339 pages, is illustrated and is available from www.trosspublishing.co.nz or at a good bookstore near you for $39.50.)Bottom of Form

 

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution?

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution? Apparently so – with her suggestion of involving the police to charge those she fancies have committed “hate speech”.

While in every society  there are undoubtedly individuals whose form of expression is extreme, unfair, or thoroughly objectionable, there is very good reason why we have not in the past moved towards a more totalitarian society –  by removing the right to free speech.

What our Race Relations Conciliator does not seem able to take on board is the fact that  New Zealand can no longer claim to be a free society if she achieves her apparent wish – to have individuals charged with the crime of using speech she and others may find offensive.

This is a horrifically dangerous move for any government to embark upon – a new form of censorship which would have been completely unthinkable to our parents and grandparents. Only in times of war,  when loose tongues could cost lives, has any Western society risked the damage done to one of the most important of human freedoms – people’s very basic rights to speak the truth as they see it.

But there is no doubt now that individuals are under threat today, even vilified, or virulently attacked for speaking the truth as they see this – for pointing out the growing dangers threatening our society.  The form of Muslim extremism, for example, sweeping across Europe, tolerates no opposition, the least form of which is name-calling and disparaging its opponents – those with the courage still to try to warn about what is actually happening to this now troubled continent.

 It has always been recognised that whether individual opinions are considered right or wrong – an open society is the only one compatible with Western freedoms – and the underpinning of democracy. Open debate and free comment are the best remedies to counter extremism. And we should be questioning why, if Devoy has any real knowledge of what happened to those societies in the 20th century (and today) in which the climate of intimidation allowed dictatorships to flourish, she has not taken the lessons on board.

It’s happening again. From one of the best informed website journals, The Gatestone Institute, comes this reminder of what happens when the State begins to censor speech. It contains a reminder by Spiked Online editor, Brendan O’Neill, that “politically correct speech does not need protecting. The United States first Amendment exists precisely to protect the minority from the majority – and to protect unpopular opinions from those who would silence them.”  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12008/france-le-pen-free-speech#.WrNlggLKBas.gmail

There seems little doubt that Susan Devoy, with her aim of having suppressed speech or opinions which she finds unpalatable, thinks these should be silenced.

 This is not only an aim incompatible with democratic freedoms – (regardless of the creeping activism we have seen for some time, in relation to even our court decisions). It flies in the face of that most important reminder from The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 19.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

We have already in this country seen the rise of bullying and name-calling whereby radical activism uses the tactics of badmouthing thoughtful critics by targeting them as racist, or homophobic, for example. As it works by silencing all too many worried about the repercussions ensuing from standing up for their beliefs, we have started on the first step of a very slippery slope.

Ms Devoy arguably needs to think much more deeply of the consequences of her wish to involve the police to target individuals whose utterances she disapproves of. This will undoubtedly take us even further down the road of a virtual Police State that some maintain, with reason, we are already embarked upon.

©  Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.