In the red corner we have TV3′s rip off of a PS3 ad from the United States

In the blue corner we have a bunch of Canadians Longboarding down State Highway One at the Bombay Hills

I must admit the longboarding looks pretty cool, and these guys are “professionals”, still State Highway One is a nuts place to do it. With the TV3 ad it is a nice mock/copy but without any homage to the original it makes them look really bad. It is the same as the Telecom ad a few years ago in which everyone around the Telecom office sang, but this was a copy of a viral video from the states. Maybe the same ad agency did both ads?

This morning’s announcement that the National Government will not mine any land in Schedule 4 conservation land is a massive win for the Greens, Greenpeace, and environmentalists in NZ. The end result is even better than a simple back down because the government will now “automatically designate all Schedule 4-equivalent lands, such as national parks and marine reserves, as having equally untouchable status, effectively creating a massive expansion of highly protected conservation lands.”

Deputy Prime Minister, Gerry Brownlee, is arguing that in response to 37,552 submissions on the proposal the back down is listening to the people, however, I think it is more than likely they are listening to the polls. The timing of this announcement makes you wonder if the government is trying to smokescreen and divert attention away from the controversy that is surrounding their announcement of changes to the Employment Relations Act.

Interestingly enough at the end of the announcement, Brownlee, makes the assertion that in areas of non-conservation “New Zealanders have given the minerals sector a clear mandate to go and explore that land, and where appropriate, within the constraints of the resource consent process, utilise its mineral resources for everyone’s benefit”. This is complete rubbish, poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of New Zealanders do not want mining, it is a dirty and old technology and is not the solution to moving the country forward. The future is in education and the information section not in destroying the natural environment for a quick buck.

Yesterday saw the shooting of two police officers as they attempted an unplanned drug raid in Christchurch, very luckily both officers survived and are expected to make a full recovery. Naturally this has renewed calls for the arming of front-line police officers in New Zealand.

This morning I had a brief discussion with some of my colleagues regarding the Australian police force and how they operate. There are some very clear differences: all front-line police officers carry guns, all front line officers carry Tasers, all front-line officers carry pepper spray.

I still remember the controversy around the introduction of pepper spray around a decade ago in NZ and then the more recent introduction of the Taser (something I have been sceptical of). I certainly do not believe that all front-line officers in NZ should be armed at all times, I can only see a sea of controversy erupting as a result of this: crazy nut-cases taunting police into suicide by cop, cops drawing their weapons in inappropriate circumstances (as seen a number of times with the Taser in both NZ and Australia), and the threat criminals feel by an armed police force and subsequently increasing their own “protection” with even more guns and weapons.

However, the latest shooting follows on from the Napier Siege of last year where an officer was killed and the 2008 killing of an officer working undercover. In all three cases there is a common link, unarmed officers confronting criminals with drugs. This is where the NZ police need to get a lot smarter.

Gone is the day where you can send in two unarmed cops to do a drug bust and the respect for authority will just see criminals roll over. If NZ police are going to do any form of drug raid or operate in areas where people are taking drugs there is a very clear need for them to be armed. Going into a gun fight with pepper spray is never going to work out.

In October this year New Zealanders will vote for their representatives on local city councils, regional councils and health boards. But in order to vote you must first be enrolled.

Every vote counts, yours just as much as anyone else’s. It is a shame that voter turnout in local body elections over the last 20 years has dropped from almost 90% to a little over 30%. So make sure your able to have your say this year, click the image below to check that you are enrolled to vote.

It is a great shame that the National Government along with the support of the Act, Maori, and Progressive parties tonight voted down Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill.

The sooner New Zealand becomes an independent nation the better. I do not mind if we become a state of the larger nation of an independent Australia or if we become an independent nation in free association with an independent Australia. But there is one thing I feel strongly about and that is New Zealand should no longer be a colony of Great Britain.

Some may argue that we already have independence through the Statute of Westminster however this is not full or true independence.

What has particularly got my back up tonight though is the arguments of the Maori Party in the debate. Below this post is the full speech given by Rahui Katene in which she argues that any move towards becoming a republic would run foul of the Treaty of Waitangi.

What a missed opportunity this is. The Treaty of Waitangi has been a source of much argument and problems for years, the founding of the Maori party was birthed in a disagreement over the Treaty of Waitangi on matters to do with the foreshore and seabed. There are a number of factions within Maoridom who do not agree with the treaty and some iwi who did not sign it and to this day do not want to!

A move to a republic gives the nation of Aotearoa New Zealand a chance to make things right, a chance to get a second go at creating a nation. However, the very politicians who represent a party that was born out of a disagreement over the interpretation of a badly worded treaty do not even want a discussion on the issue at a select committee.

I want to know if the Maori Party was forced by the National Party to vote against the bill, or if it did so on its own merits. In either case I have lost a lot respect I had for that party as a party of free thinkers. You can’t always fix the past, you certainly cannot hang onto the past, the best way forward is to always do what is best for the future and that is an independent republic of New Zealand.

Submissions on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill closed earlier today. This is the full text of my submission and why I do not support the introduction of Voluntary Students’ Association Membership.

To the Education and Science Committee

Introduction

This submission is from Bradford Heap. I am a PhD student at the School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. From 2005 – 2007 and 2009 I was a student at Massey University’s Albany Campus. During 2006 – 2008 I was on the Executive Committee of the Albany Students’ Association Inc. In 2008 I served as the President of the Association and as the internal students’ association representative on Massey University’s Council.

I do not wish to appear before the committee to speak to my submission.

I can be contacted at:

Summary

I oppose the intent of this bill because:

• Freedom of Association is already secured through section 229A clause 5 – 7 of the current Education Act 1989. There is no need to remove compulsory automatic membership of students’ associations when there is already a working and effective mechanism for students to object to membership.
• This bill will result in the loss of student representation on both a local and national level. Currently at a local level many students’ associations organise and run independent student representation through such mechanisms as class/paper representatives, college boards, university committees and ultimately the Council. On a national level students’ associations work together through the likes of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations Inc., University Sport New Zealand Inc. and Student Job Search Inc. to provide representation and lobbying for students in a unified manner.

If compulsory membership of students’ associations is removed this unified and centralised organisation of representation will be lost. At this point there is no guarantee that the university will have an independent body of students to consult with. In lieu of this there are two outcomes:

1)                        Universities will no longer consult students. The outcomes of this would be very bad for good decision making, or

2)                        Universities will consult focus groups of students. However, there is no guarantee that these students will not be handpicked by the university to represent the views that the university wants to hear.

Most importantly there will be a loss of an independent student voice. If tertiary institutions have to start directly funding student representation groups there will be a perception of collusion over the outcomes of that representation and engagement that is not currently present.

• There will be a loss of advocacy. Not all problems faced by students are representative of all students or need to be dealt with at a university committee level. Many issues faced by students are at relatively small scale and can be resolved through speaking to a particular lecturer or head of department. Unfortunately most students do not know the correct means for raising an issue, or if any issue is raised and there is not a satisfactory response how to take the issue to a higher level. Independent advocacy services provided by students’ associations help to deal with these issues and ensure that issues are resolved as quickly and effectively as possible, student advocates both employed and volunteers are trained in problem resolution and know the processes of the university and who to deal with to resolve problems. If Voluntary Student Membership is introduced the loss of funding from a decrease in student levy income will put these vital services under threat.
• The most important service that students’ associations provide is clubs. Student Clubs are the lifeblood of student life and culture in New Zealand. There are many established clubs within universities that have stretched back many decades. However, these clubs are under threat with the introduction of Voluntary Student Membership. The primary source of funding for the continued running of these clubs is through the allocation of club grants provided by the students’ associations. Without funding many of these clubs would become the realm of the rich who can afford high membership and equipment fees while ordinary students will be locked out of the true university experience.
• Most importantly I oppose this bill because of the direct effects it will have on all students as already seen through the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism in Australia. It is this last point that I would like to address in detail.

The Current Australian Situation

In 2010 I have begun my PhD and have been studying on the University of New South Wales Kensington Campus in Sydney for the previous two months. During this time I have become a member of the students’ union, a number of clubs, and been elected a postgraduate student representative for Computer Science and Engineering.

I should state clearly that the sky has not fallen in through the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism in Australia. However, it is clear that there has been a dramatic loss of representation, advocacy, and services provided by the student union.

The only representation provided by the student union is through the Student Representative Council, effectively the same as the Executive Committee at most New Zealand students’ associations. This committee is democratically elected each year and each member of the committee has a portfolio role – e.g. women’s rights, environmental issues, etc. This committee liaises with the University over issues, but there is no legal or guaranteed framework for any representation or dialog.

Furthermore any representation at a college/faculty level is not organised by the students’ union. Within the School of Computer Science and Engineering, where I am studying, there is a committee of student representatives, this committee while voted for by students, is organised by the university, and operates on an ad hoc basis advocating for students by bringing issues to the attention of the school but there is no framework in place for how issues are dealt with.

On the student services side of the union there are not many services that are provided free to students. The big events held like bands, dance parties, and other student night type stuff are all user pays and run on a competitive basis against other local venues. But more importantly it is the student clubs that have suffered. All clubs charge a membership fee and in the past where a lot of funding has come from students’ associations, instead there are heavy membership fees upfront and additional funding is provided to some clubs by university faculties. Again the biggest problem with university funding of student bodies is that they are at the whim of the university for continuation of this funding from year to year and for the most part there is little in the way of set policy or openness surrounding the allocation of these funds.

Conclusion

At the end of the day the issue of voluntary verses compulsory membership of students’ associations comes down to two components, money and ideology. One ideology says that students’ associations should be entirely voluntary and user pays, the other is those who see the benefits of a compulsory system where the collective greater good is advanced. The largest problem with a user pays argument in students’ associations is what about those who get up against the wall with their finances at university and are not able to pay the bills and face the prospect of being forced out of university or their accommodation, when they go to their students’ association for financial or food help; is it expected that they be asked to pay for that help up front when they can’t afford to pay anything more?

Reading the SMH this morning I saw an ad from New Zealand Tourism advertising Central Park NZ.

Having never heard of Central Park NZ in my life I clicked on the ad thinking it was perhaps advertising backpackers accommodation at National Park. But alas no it is advertising “At the heart of New Zealand’s North Island lies Central Park where Legends are found, Life is rich and the Land is heart-stoppingly beautiful”

Sorry WTF? There is a Central Park in the middle of the North Island? Since when? The only area’s even close to this that I know of is the Central Plateau and Tongariro National Park.

Doing a google search for Central Park NZ doesn’t help either the top link is the New Zealand Tourism webpage and the second link is to the:

Projects – Central Park Restoration Plan – Wellington – New Zealand
Wellington City Council is planning to restore Brooklyn’s Central Park.

The fourth and fifth links are to (as expected) motels, one in Taumarunui which is in the Central North Island and the second is in Christchurch.

The Central Park NZ website further informs me that “Central Park NZ includes 7 diverse regions. Bay of Plenty, Coromandel, Hawke’s Bay, Rotorua, Ruapehu, Lake Taupo and Waitomo.”

Now this is just bizarre. Coromandel is in the Waikato not the Central North Island. I would also hardly call Bay of Plenty or Hawke’s Bay central either, both are east.

So where has all this madness come from? Well this news article seems to spread some light onto the situation:

Central Park NZ – New Zealands Newest Playground

Collectively known as Central Park NZ, seven regional tourism offices have combined forces to promote one of New Zealands most diverse and beautiful regions.

Prompted by Air New Zealand’s addition of affordable flights direct from Sydney to Rotorua, the regions of the central North Island are keen to promote this very special area to the Australian market.

So Air New Zealand is involved in all of this as a marketing ploy?

Quite frankly I am offended. The press release is correct it is a special area. And just as special about the area are the names of the places in the area. “Central Park” could be the name of any park, anywhere in the world. Whereas the traditional and correct names of the places in the area are very distinct and are a part of the identity of the area just as much any other aspect of it. The names have important meaning and background and it is a disgrace that the Tourism Board is ignoring this and attempting to rename the area.

Tongariro National Park is the oldest national park in New Zealand it has been acknowledged by UNESCO as one of the 25 mixed cultural and natural World Heritage Sites. Tongariro is a Maori word is uniquely New Zealand. Why is the Tourism Board not actively promoting this?

What about Ohakune, Whakapapa, Turoa, Turangi, Ngauruhoe, Waikato, Waiouru, Raetihi, Te Kuiti?

Does the Tourism Board not think that Maori words have as important identity to NZ? Or are they so hard for the rest of the world to understand that they must advertise in Simple English?

This is complete bullshit and the entire advertising campaign does more to damage the uniqueness of New Zealand then it does to advertise its diverse culture and history as well as its more modern tourist attractions.

This is so awesome for a Funk covers band from Hamilton to be beating out all those other “big” names in music. New Zealanders must still have some taste!

And people should definately buy the album it is awesome.

Got to love the logic of Auckland politicians sometimes.

Mayor of Auckland City, John Banks today on the release of a report that suggests that Auckland’s Public Transport will not cope with the Rugby World Cup:

“$58 million was being spent on the Eden Park precinct and thousands were expected to walk from the central city well ahead of game kick-offs.” – NZ Herald

Google Maps suggests this is a 3.6km or 47 minute walk (see here). This is quite a long way, not to mention it is up a massive hill to the top of Queen Street, then over a series of major intersections that are not predistrian friendly then down a number of suburban roads. Quite basically the roads are not designed for the foot traffic that Mayor Banks suggests they could handle.

But coming back to the title of this post, walking is not public transport. What is more shocking is that the article where Mayor Banks is quoted also suggests that:

Nearly 2km of roadside parking had to be found around Eden Park for 130 buses and the entire fleet of 38 Auckland trains would be needed on match days.

If all the trains are being pressed into service to get people to Eden Park then how is any going about their daily lives meant to get about. Surely this should have been seen well in advance and more trains be ordered or borrowed or something!

It seems that now a year out from the Cup that there is a sudden realisation that Auckland is not ready for the cup. That either the waterfront stadium should have been built (at least there would be more and easier public transport to it), or North Harbour stadium should have been used. Sure North Harbour does not have train access but it has a dedicated bus way, and plenty of car parking. The closer that you get to the cup the more you realise that what a disaster it will be using Eden Park as the main game venue.

Who wants to start a little wager on how many days into the cup it will be before there is a signal failure at Newmarket or a massive meltdown with the train system that sees many hundreds late for a match?

I don’t normally bother to look at the spam that the AA sends out once a month but for some reason today I opened it.

A little bit down the page is this ad:

This is completely crazy that a government funded education institute is offering discounts to AA members. It just doesn’t seem right. In my opinion everyone should be paying the same for publicly education not given discounts for driving carbon polluting vehicles.

Now before someone screams that I did not check the fine print, here it is:

* ‘Qualifying Courses’ means each course made available to ‘Domestic Students’ for enrolment by the Polytechnic that is Government (EFTS) funded through the Polytechnic. For clarity, this excludes the ‘full fee’ and ‘trades training’ courses as defined by the Polytechnic and other courses that may already be subject to a special promotion as defined by the Polytechnic and at the Polytechnic’s discretion. For more information about qualifying courses call the Open Polytechnic on toll free 0508 650 200. Open Polytechnic’s $50.00 annual administration fee may apply.

I sure hope someone picks up on this. Most stupid thing I have seen in a long time.

BTW AA in NZ stands for Automobile Association (called AAA elsewhere), Not Alcoholics Anonymous