Like all prejudices, there are some elements of truth in the belief (it is very hard to believe in something demonstrably completely false). There are some countries whose medical training regimes are significantly less robust than New Zealand’s. However, Medical Council place sufficient numbers of hurdles in the way of these doctors being registered, that they either do not register as doctors, or they bring themselves up to New Zealand standards. There are also a number of medical training regimes overseas that have very different emphases than the New Zealand one. For instance, both the US and the Indian systems produce specialists at a relatively early stage in the training process, making it difficult for these doctors to perform as non-specialists while they await registration in their speciality (often a lengthy process requiring rewriting exams). Note that specialists find it very difficult to perform as generalists if they have been specialists for more than 5-10 years, anyway.

Once a doctor is registered to practice here then there is also the question of adaptation to New Zealand ways. This usually extends far beyond language barriers. There is a lack of familiarity with the New Zealand Medical system, that can take a year or so to overcome. There is a lack of familiarity with New Zealand cultural differences which may take much, much longer. For instance, the South African sense of humour tends to be fairly bluff. I have seen a number of New Zealand patients walk away from a consultation mortally offended, simply because the doctor has been overly direct with them ( you eat like a bird? What kind of bird are we talking about? An ostrich?). At the other end of the spectrum, Asian doctors tend to be overly technical and oblique in their explanations to patients because they do not want to give offense. Neither of these tendencies detract from the doctors skills, but they do sometimes produce dissatisfied patients.

Of course, what people sometimes forget is that there are some areas where foreign-trained doctors are actually better than New-Zealand-trained ones. The most obvious example of this is the ability of most South African doctors to handle major trauma. Experience counts in such situation and there is no doubt that South African doctors experience far more major trauma than New Zealand doctors (the same is true for US emergency doctors who have worked in city trauma units). Rural areas love South African doctors, because they can usually do almost any procedure imaginable and are highly autonomous. This, of course, gets SA doctors into trouble with the HDC and, occasionally, medical council, disproportionately often. A cursory glance at these complaints will show that the vast bulk are extremely minor, bearing out that these doctors are “as good as Kiwi ones” but, perhaps, not as cautious.

New Zealand is very reliant on foreign-trained doctors. This is not likely to change any time soon. By the time they have passed through the registration system, there is no doubt that these doctors are every bit as good as their kiwi-trained counterparts. But they are not the same and probably never will be the same. This is only a problem if we let xenophobia dictate our choice of doctor.

Related posts:

1. Bad Doctor (2)
2. How to Shoot Yourself in the Foot
3. Mo’ Doctors

Well apart from the elementary mistake of crediting Banks with keeping rates down, thereby validating the general impression that Banks is more fiscally prudent, Brown makes a ludicrous accusation that simply can’t be possible – a simple look at the figures tells you this:

Number of (ratepaying) dwellings in 2006 = 160,000

Bus Lane Fines YTD June = $6.2 million

Reduction in rates $38.75 per annum.

Note this assumes that all the fines for bus lane infringement are an evil revenue-collection ploy by Banks (i.e. that they have no enforcement value at all) – this is clearly nonsense too.

It seems that Ludicrous Len finds it difficult to make it through a week without some foolish statement or another.

And he can’t do maths for toffee..

PS. I don’t normally blog on the antics of Mr. Brown, but Whale Oil is in court today and I thought I’d help him out. Good luck Whale..

Related posts:

1. Brown Loses Mayoralty
2. The Mac is Back
3. Money Can’t Buy Me Love

She is certainly an articulate young woman. I note that at no time did Ms. Kelly attempt to ask the employer’s viewpoint on this matter. The second video is in a similar vein:

Notice how they are called “unfair dismissal” stories, despite the fact that both dismissals are perfectly legal under the current law. In other words, there is no attempt to actually assess the effect of the law. Each story is simply an emotional ploy rather than a rational argument. The ploy is enhanced by using young women – a male ex-con or a cocky young man would not have had nearly as much of an impact. While I have some sympathy for these young women (which was the intention), the reality is that the world is a tough place where you are going to get plenty of rejection. Your only solution is to try again.

While the discussion over these videos appears to have revolved around the possible political affiliations of these two young women, neither of these videos address the challenge that John Key issued to the CTU. Produce examples of where the 90-day probation law is being abused. There is no evidence here of employers systematically hiring and firing workers within the 90-day limit to circumvent the employments act. There is no evidence of workers being forced to accept unfavorable or dangerous working conditions because of the threat of easy dismissal. There is not even any evidence of employers unreasonably refusing entrance to union officials.

All we have here is two videos of young people being given an employment opportunity and then being dismissed at the end of their trial. This is EXACTLY how the 90-day probation is supposed to work. You can’t even read too much into the fact that they were dismissed near the end of their trials. Any reasonable employer would make sure the the employee was given as long an opportunity as possible to settle in.

If I was John Key, I would ring up Helen Kelly and thank her for providing such good evidence that the 90-day probation period was working well.

Updated:

It turns out that the woman in the second video has had her dismissal overturned. This is because the 90-day probation law was applied incorrectly because it is only for new employees. Again, all this shows is that the current set up is working extremely well and that the 90-day probation law cannot be used as a “get out of jail free” card in order to circumvent the employment act. This is exactly as intended.

I reiterate: Unless Helen Kelly can demonstrate that an employer is systematically hiring and firing new employees under the 90-day probation law in order to circumvent employee’s rights, then she and the CTU should shut up. Citing cases where the law is working as intended or has been misapplied is not supporting her case.

Related posts:

1. The Unlovely Left
2. Big Bullies
3. Yes, Baas

she has not been able to eat properly since the Government tightened access to training subsidies for beneficiaries last year.

Except that the article tells us that her subsidy was $98 a week and her current shortfall is $151 per week. I assume this indicates that this lady has been living beyond her limited means for much longer than last year. I also have grave doubts that this entire weight loss story is due to reduced food consumption. Recall I have been a doctor in Africa – I am very aware of exactly how little food you need to eat in order to maintain your weight .

I’m not going to sift through her budget as depicted in the paper, except to note that she can’t really afford a car and could save at least $90 per week ditching it. A simple move to Waterview or Mount Albert, where rents are fairly similar, would put her within walking distance of  Unitec. Just a thought. It seems that she has made little or no attempt to adjust her lifestyle and simply expects the government to address her budget shortfall.

But the real silliness in this article lies in the proposal that being given $517 a week is somehow starving this woman to death, like an inmate of Auschwitz. This is an absurd contention. Let’s do a little calculation. Labour have been campaigning on raising the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Working 40 hours a week on this minimum wage would bring in $600 per week. Less Tax of $103 per week leaves $497 – or $20 per week less than “Sara” is getting. Thus Labour’s “living wage” is less than this woman’s “starvation” wage.

I am uncomfortably aware, as I write this, that I earn vastly more than this lady. Some may say that this disqualifies me from posting about this, but I disagree. I know a number of people in my church who have little more to live on than $500 a week and they seem to make do. I am humbled by their ingenuity. I also think it an affront to them that their hard earned wages supplement people on benefits, and yet those people insist that they need more.

When will it be enough?

Related posts:

1. Minimal Wage
2. The Bottom Rung
3. But Would You Eat It?

This piece of ecological spam even comes with pictures!

Volcano collapse underlines threat of tsunami

A huge undersea volcano not far from the coast has dramatically reduced in size after partly collapsing more than 100 metres toward the ocean floor.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research scientists found that a volcanic cone on Rumble III, 200km northeast of Auckland, had crumbled. The volcano’s highest point had dropped 90m further below the Pacific Ocean, and in some places the volcano had slipped as much as 120m.

Marine geologist Richard Wysoczanski said the collapse was caused by an eruption some time in the last two years.

So far, so dramatic. Although you can already see that only a small part of the volcano “collapsed” 120m. As the volcano is 1200m tall, it seems unlikely that it has “dramatically” reduced in size. In fact the size reduction was so dramatic it took NIWA 2 years to notice. And they only appeared to notice because they were doing a routine survey. In fact, the landslide (seaslide?) was completely innocuous (except perhaps to a  few fish in the immediate vicinity). Nevertheless, that does not stop the Marine geologist, Richard Wysoczanski, from a good bit of scare-mongering:

“There’s no doubt some of these slips can cause tsunami. This one was quite small, but it sits right on top of a much older, larger structure which would’ve probably sent a tsunami towards New Zealand. It’s pointing [southwest] – right towards us.

How big a tsunami? No one knows.

When might we expect this collapse? No one knows.

Is the older, larger structure unstable? No one knows.

Additional knowledge added to our knowledge of risks of tsunamis? Diddly squat.

And the picture at the top is one of a Tongan sea volcano…

Sigh.

Related posts:

1. Spam Journalism #55
2. Spam Journalism #21
3. Spam Journalism #28