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

From David Farrar at Kiwiblog:

The best system would be that no one pays any tax until they are earning what one regards as the minimum amount needed for a family of their size. Churning money from tax to welfare to inefficient.

And after that make it a one rate flat system.

It would be simple, fair and effective. No more wasted money on tax agents to creatively balance the books to pay the minimum amount.

It is not often that I read The Standard (it is a blog that is constantly negative and often wrong)

However, today they have post that is quite concerning.

Powershop is a subsidiary of Meridian Energy, an SOE. It is the most highly rated power retailer by its customers, with 92% satisfaction. On the Powershop website, there’s a blog. On this blog, the CEO of Powershop, Ari Sargent, wrote a post on the Government’s proposed electricity sector reforms. It’s insightful, adroit, politically neutral, and scathing of ironically titled Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee’s reforms. It is called: Proposed energy sector reforms likely to increase electricity prices.

In response, Brownlee launched into a bizarre public attack on the publicly-owned company saying Powershop should “come out from behind Meridian’s skirts. When Powershop manage to achieve a significant presence in the retail domain, they’ll be able to speak with a great deal more credibility and authority.”

More disturbing is what went on behind the scenes and it explains why when you go to Powershop’s blog now, the contents of the post are gone. Brownlee called Wayne Boyd, Chairman of Meridian Energy, and ranted and raved at him for several minutes about the Powershop blog post before Boyd could even get a word in. Brownlee, stepping miles beyond his power as minister, insisted that the post be removed because it didn’t suit Naitonal’s political purposes for the truth to be told.

It is a pity that the media has not picked up on this yet. Typically NZ is a country that avoids political interference in the running of our SEOs however maybe this has changed. I hope John Key tells Brownlee to pull his head in before this turns into a political shit storm.

This was on the news tonight. The video and audio are a little out of sync but the response is great.

Switzerland runs a system of direct democracy through binding referenda. This is different from New Zealand’s political system of representative democracy. However, as we have seen over the past few weeks there is a call from some extreme right wing factions within New Zealand who want to implement a simpler system in New Zealand. However, this idea is very dangerous. For instance, in Switzerland they have just banned the construction of Minarets and Mosques as a result of a binding referendum. As David Farrar at Kiwiblog puts it “Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and should not be at the whim of referenda.”

In New Zealand it is primarily the extreme Christian Right who want to implement such a system that imposes such ridiculous restrictions on citizens. However, what happens when a binding referendum is passed which runs against the view of these extreme right wingers? Is that the point they stage a violent political uprising or some other form of so called direct democracy? As much as we dislike all politicians the current representative democracy system that we current have is the most fair to all views and opinions.

I have heard Fox News make some silly comments at time. But this is one of the best, in reference to Sarah Palin:

She has 5 kids. Liberals don’t have 5 kids. One of them has Down Syndrome. Liberals certainly don’t allow that to happen. – Bernie Goldberg

The entire clip is below. This is not news, and it is hardly commentary either it is clear bias (no surprises there) and completely misrepents and mispaints an entire political viewpoint.

Gordon Campbell of Scoop calls the cuts: Anne Tolley’s 19th century approach to education

Remember National’s election promise to return New Zealand to the top half of the OECD tables? In government, its moves in education seem motivated more by a desire to return New Zealand to the golden age of Victorianism – when the three “R”s and a stern testing regime were seen to be all that a young lad or girl really needed.

From a New Zealand perspective, one aspect of the reaction to the Cambridge University report in Britain has been particularly interesting. There has been a striking level of support from the Conservative Party for the retention of an expert advisory service across the entire curriculum.The Tories are doing so not instead of a concentration on the teaching of reading and writing – but because they believe the broad-based approach actually makes the task of teaching reading and writing skills much more effective. Here for instance is the shadow Tory education Minister Michael Gove, writing in the British press earlier this week :

“A broad and demanding curriculum – far from undermining reading, writing and arithmetic – reinforces attainment in these core skills. “Perhaps Education Minister Anne Tolley should be talking more to her British counterpart. Or at least explaining why she and her Tory colleague are treating the evidence on teaching outcomes so differently.

Clearly, the decision to narrow the scope of the advisory service available to our teachers makes no educational sense. It is being done in the service of a national testing regime at primary level that also makes little educational sense. This is penny pinching and political rhetoric, at the expense of our children and their future. The money at stake – $10 million – is a fraction of the amount that the government is planning to spend on the Rugby World Cup. Well, the battle of Waterloo may have been won on the playing fields of Eton. But an emphasis on winning at rugby – and a Victorian Age type of education system – will be of little use against the challenges we face from globalization.

And Catherine Delahunty at Frog Blog: The Three Rs”: Reduce, Regiment, and Ruin our public education system

It wasn’t much fun waking up this morning to the news that the Ministry of Education will no longer be providing advice to primary schools on arts, science, technology, or physical education – nothing in fact, except the “three Rs”: reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. This latest assault on the public education system by the National Government is just plain stupid.

It also heralds the undoing of a robust curriculum. There is no educational justification for such a narrow focus, when all the evidence points to the importance of a holistic educational experience at primary school level.

The limitation of Ministry of Education support to literacy and numeracy is clearly to assist with the implementation of the new National Standards (which are due to be announced tomorrow, according to Education Minister Anne Tolley.

Presumably, the Minister thinks literacy and numeracy are not developed in parallel with the core subjects by subjects like art, science, and technology. Perhaps she hasn’t been visiting schools and seeing the interconnections between subjects in action like I have. She certainly hasn’t been listening to her counterpart in the British Tories, Conservative Education Spokesperson Michael Gove, who says

“a broad and demanding curriculum – far from undermining reading, writing and arithmetic – reinforces attainment in these core skills.”

You can drive a truck through her logic but I get the feeling that the Minister’s ideological advisers don’t care. They have a plan which involves selling the idea that the “three Rs” are somehow learned in little boxes taught separately from other topics, and that all children learn in exactly the same way.

Through this same cut, we have now lost all the Sustainability Advisors who survived, just, the cuts to the Enviroschools Budget earlier this year.

Under this Government, it seems that “three Rs” are now Reducing the curriculum, Regimenting the assessment processes, and Ruining opportunities for our children.

Labour MP, Grant Robinson blogs on the continued use of urgency in Parliament (with a nice pun as the blog title) to ram through laws without following due process:

http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/10/21/a-state-of-urgency/

Parliament is now in urgency. That would be the fifth Parliamentary week in a row that we have gone into urgency.Perhaps its time to rename urgency as normalcy if this is the approach National is going to take. In all seriousness, while there is a place for urgency, and (before the right begin to howl) all governments have used it, this is getting beyond a joke.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the complex the hearings on the Emissions Trading Bill are taking place from 9am to 9pm each day, with some submitters given only a few hours notice of needing to submit and then being given a very short time to state their cases. It appears from media reports that National even tried to get the committee to agree to having all 184 people who wanted to submit in public put through in one day.

The excessive use of urgency and the rushed select committee processes should be of concern to all New Zealanders.  Apart from being anti-democratic, they open the door for bad and poorly considered law. There will necessarily be simple drafting errors but more than that Select Committees are either not getting a say or not getting enough time to properly scruitinise the Bills.

Earlier this year National put through the bill creating national standards for literacy and numeracy without a select committee process. In other words without giving parents, teachers, experts in the field the chance to have a say. Inevitably Anne Tolley has now had to delay the whole process to try to deal with issues that have come up since the Bill was passed. These could have been dealt with in a Committee.

This is completely unacceptable for a Government. Urgency has its place. When laws need to be passed urgently. Not as a political tool to stifle debate or the views from the government. I forgot to note in my earlier blog that the Benzodiazepine Ban was also passed under urgency in addition to inserted at the last possible moment. Tea Party time anyone?

To: s.joyce@ministers.govt.nz
Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Subject: Benzodiazepine Ban

Dear Hon Steven Joyce,

I am outraged at the news this morning that the Government last night rushed through a ban on Benzodiazepine while driving without any public consultation.

I have been using Lorazepam for the past two years to control an anxiety/panic disorder which is primary associated with flying. For instance in August I flew to Christchurch to go skiing. I flew out of Auckland at just after 6am and landed in Christchurch around 8am before hiring a car and driving an hour to the ski area. Under this new law I would be unable to drive because I would still be under the influence of the Benzodiazepine.

This is where the law fails and the lack of public consultation shines through. I would suspect very few users of prescription Benzodizepines would be silly enough to take the medicine and then immediately drive. In fact the label on my container of it clearly states that it may cause sleepiness, to limit driving and the operation of heavy machinery, and to limit alcohol. The reality of this medicine, however, is that it takes a long time to wear completely off. While I would never drive within two hours of taking it, any time beyond that I would consider myself safe to drive provided I took the same precautions as when you have taken any other medicine (cold/flu tablets, anti-depressants, pain killers) or any other issue is affecting your ability to think straight (for instance an emotional crises).

It makes me very angry and annoyed that the Government has passed this law without weighing up all the facts. As the Act party as highlighted “an ESR study of deceased drivers from July 1 2004-June 30 2008 showed that only 22 of the 826 drivers deceased during this period had benzodiazepines in their bloodstream, and of those less than one percent had benzodiazepines alone.” What the government has done is turn ordinary New Zealanders who rely on this medication to manage a major but controllable problem in their lives into criminals.

It should be noted that one of the reasons the previous administration was voted out of office was the failure to listen to the public over issues. It became arrogant and instead of listening to the people as a democracy it appeared to be acting more like a dictatorship. I hope that this new government does not head down the same path.

I look forward to your response.

Kind regards,
Bradford Heap

Albany,
Auckland,
New Zealand

So far I have not had much reason to get angry with the new National led government, that was until this morning.

As the herald reports: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604475

In the passing of the Boy Racer Legislation there was a “last-minute inclusion of a ban on driving while affected by benzodiazepine, a prescription sedative and anti-anxiety medication that is often used as a sleeping pill.”

The government has brought this change in as a Supplementary Order Paper with no public consultation. This is outrageous and one of the many issues that people had with the previous administration. It is simply not right to bring in such a law that affects so many people without letting the people have a say on it, doing so turns the Government from a democracy to a dictatorship and removes peoples rights to making their own decisions and having their own free will.

The Act party sums up my feels and response to this in a much more controlled tone than what I am feeling right now:

http://www.act.org.nz/blog/benzodiazepine-ban-short-sighted

This is short-sighted and will place hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders on the wrong side of the law for no good reason. Under this addition to the ‘Boy Racer’ Bill currently before parliament people who are legally taking this prescription medication will be placed in the same category as those who use Class A narcotics – they will have to prove through a blood test and presumably in court that they were taking what they were prescribed.

During Select Committee submissions, the dangers around benzodiazepines were not raised at all, by anyone – but a lobby group raised concerns just before the Bill’s final reading and Mr Joyce has now decided to tack an amendment to the Boy Racer Bill before Parliament.It is irrational to lump law-abiding citizens in with P-crazed drug addicts and defeats the purpose of having prescription medications. Evidence around the effects they have on driving is extremely weak – an ESR study of deceased drivers from July 1 2004-June 30 2008 showed that only 22 of the 826 drivers deceased during this period had benzodiazepines in their bloodstream, and of those less than one percent had benzodiazepines alone.

Benzodiazepines are one of a number of commonly used anti-anxiety agents and sedatives. One thing the Minister hasn’t considered is that sleep deprivation is also a significant factor in road accidents – but he need only read his own road-side signs to get this message.

If Mr Joyce is seriously telling New Zealand that sedatives are significant contributors to our road toll he had better start examining anti-histamines, phenothiazines, tri-cyclic anti-depressants, and a host of other legally prescribed drugs that cause sedation. By eliminating half the population from driving he probably will make a hefty dent in the road toll.

Act really do a good job of putting this into context. The reality is Benzodiazepines does have an effect on you, that is why they are used for anxiety, panic disorders and other related problems, it is one of the modern day medicines that still actually works!

I have used Lorazepam (aka Ativan and Temesta) which is a form of Benzodiazepine on a irregular basis for close to two years to control an anxiety/panic disorder. My primary use of it is to control anxiety before flying.

For instance a few months back I flew to Christchurch and upon arrival hired a car to travel to the ski field. Before the flight I took a Lorazepam to calm myself down. Under the new law I would not be able to drive when I arrived because the Lorazepam would still be in my system and I would still be affected by it.

And this is where the main issue with this law is. I doubt many people would be silly enough to take a Benzodiazepine and then immediately drive, in fact the medicine bottle is clearly labeled may cause sleepiness do not drive or operate heavy machinery, limit alcohol. However like any form of medication it has its primary effect on you and then takes time to drain itself from your bodily system. For myself it normally has a maximum feeling for around 2 hours, mostly gone by 4 hours and on occasion I can still feel a little different after 8 hours. Depending on the interpretation of the word “affected” I could potentially be unable to drive for a day after taking a prescription medication to control a problem that would be as common as asthma or Celiac.

All medicine has its positive and negative elements. All medicine has some form of effect on you. It is how you manage those effects that is important. Simply outlawing a medicine in this manner takes the ability for the individual to make decisions for themselves and gives it to the government.

“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” - V for Vendetta

As fast as I ask will National have the guts to move to a flat tax system they rule it out.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2958390/No-flat-tax-PM

The Government will not introduce a flat tax system despite Treasury advice in support of one, Prime Minister John Key says.

The working group and Treasury were working on similar ides and the Government would consider a wide range of issues, he said.

Cabinet will discuss all those issues but “there’s not going to be a flat tax system”.

So what is the point in getting Treasury to consider all options and issues but ruling out one of the best ideas before cabinet has discussed it? A flat tax system is not some big scary monster, it is a simple system that just makes sense.

“We also need to make sure we put together a system that isn’t regressive and that is fair,” he said.

Finance Minister Bill English said the tax working group and Treasury were looking at “all sorts of models” but the Government was “certainly not considering a flat tax”.

Those looking at the tax system were told to “rule nothing out” and “by the looks of it they’re doing a pretty thorough job”, Mr English said.

So Treasury is not to rule anything out, but National can before even discussing it. And they want a fair system, but the most fair system of them all a flat tax system is rule out. Is National doing some double speak here?

Labour deputy leader Annette King said her party was opposed to a flat tax because it raised questions about what other taxes would have to be raised to cover expenses.

“But I have to ask every time Treasury puts out a suggestion they are working on, it is knocked back either by Mr English or by Mr Key.

“Why are they wasting taxpayers’ money with Treasury officers working away on policies they don’t intend to implement and they rule out every time they are announced?”

Labour have hit the issue on the head here. They may not support it, but at least they have the sense to wait and see what the all the issued considered are. This is a very bad move by National, they are trying to stop debate on a potentially controversial topic, but by doing so they are opening a can of worms and will piss off their more right-wing supporters (and probably Act as well).

Duncan Garner from 3News blogs today on Chris Carter’s travel costs:

http://www.3news.co.nz/Politics/DuncanGarnersBlog/tabid/1135/articleID/124372/cat/934/Default.aspx

Opinion: Chris Carter’s Globetrotting – $131,000!

Title says it all doesn’t it. $131,000. It is not a little bit of Money is a huge amount for one MP to spend.

It seems Chris Carter as a Minister had a total disregard for the public purse.

Yup.

We now know it was more than $131,000 in just six months. And that’s just the international travel!

So let’s look at where Carter went, who he took and what it cost.

In January 2008 he went to the UK between the 7-9 January and Spain from the 15-17 January. He took his partner Peter Kaiser. Airfares cost $7246.00. Other costs, like accommodation and meals came to $9,969.92. Did he have a European holiday in between appointments? What did he do on behalf of the NZ taxpayer? Who paid?In April he went to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and China for 11 days. Again he took his partner Peter Kaiser. He also took his press secretary Michael Gibbs. Airfares cost $28,696.00 Other costs totalled $28,712.22. All up – that’s more than $57,000. I never knew South-East Asia could be so expensive.

To be fair Carter was representing the Prime Minister at the 2008 Asia-Pacific Interfaith Cooperation for Peace and Harmony Conference in Cambodia. He then went to China to join Helen Clark and Phil Goff for the signing of the Free Trade Agreement in Beijing. I was there too. I covered it. Why Carter, Kaiser and Gibbs were there continues to beat me. There were a lot bags to carry though. He and his party then went to Thailand and Vietnam for bi-lateral and portfolio visits.

He went to Australia in April for two days. No big deal right? But how come flights for him and a staff member cost $4526.00? Try and get a flight across the Tasman for that amount? Is he taking the piss? Did he hire the plane out? Who books this stuff?

Then in June Carter, Kaiser and his press secretary went to Chile and Peru for the week for the APEC Education Ministers’ meeting. The three spent more than $38,000 on airfares to get there and just short of $10,000 on expenses. $48,000 all up. But $38,000 on airfares is phenomenal. I do remember covering APEC myself in Peru at the same time – we flew economy class through the US to cut costs. We looked at flying direct, but going through the States was cheaper and we were in the middle of a recession and this was the only cost effective to do it. We actually had to take three flights – a leg through Miami on the way back to cut costs. The return flight cost TV3 just under $3,000.

So Carter’s bill tops $131,000. It is embarrassingly large, no one is questioning that.

Labour is doing only a half-arsed job defending him as well. There’s a lot of disquiet in the Labour caucus about Carter. He hasn’t been labelled the Minister for Overseas Travel for nothing. But I guess this just shows that Carter, and perhaps those who made his bookings, had a total disregard for the public purse. Perhaps it’s systematic within Parliament. If it’s someone else’s money, then who cares – that seems to be the prevailing attitude around here.

Parliament and Ministers and their staff need to get serious.Ordinary taxpayers work bloody hard for their wages. An overseas trip for most Kiwis is a privilege. Carter and all his colleagues across the board need to be reminded of that.

$131,000 in just six months is two and half times the average wage.

So when staff and Ministers are booking their next flights, remember who is paying.

Duncan sounds really pissed off towards the end of the article. And so he should be. He is the political news editor for 3News he sees these politicians much more than any other regular member of the public sees them. And good on him for being outraged. It is our Money that is be wasted on these trips. There are far cheaper ways to travel, sure MPs need to go overseas for events, but wasting thousands of dollars in the process is simply reckless. If an employee of a company did this they wouldn’t be an employee for very long.

Whale Oil is trying to expose the huge sums of money spent on travel by Labour MP Chris Carter: http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2009/10/07/show-us-the-diary-carter-show-us-the-diary/

Watching the 3News clip you just have to wonder how that much money can be spent on travel, it is beyond reckless spending it is just completely milking the system, why does anyone ever need to travel to Aussie in Business Class?

From: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10589738

He believes that if the Government does not lift its cap on student numbers, universities could be forced to turn away school leavers with University Entrance for the first time in living memory.

Again the question must be asked, what happened to the knowledge economy and life long learning?

However, universities have been stripped of doctoral scholarship funding and $37 million in small funding, including cuts to adult community education that have caused widespread outcry.

This will only make the brain drain larger not smaller.

Professor McCormack, who is also deputy chairman of the New Zealand Vice Chancellors Committee, said what was most worrying was the fact universities had not been given any money to cope with students queuing at their gates.

This year, AUT got 14,000 applications from new students – up from 11,000 to 12,000 in each of the previous five years – and rolls had risen to 5.5 per cent above funding levels.

AUT has a roll of about 20,000 this year.

But despite soaring demand, Education Minister Anne Tolley has told the university it will be penalised if its student numbers top 3 per cent of its cap.

Professor McCormack said the university sector was not asking for a lot of money – just tens of millions from a billion-dollar Budget – to help address the high number of students wanting to get in.

Ms Tolley said yesterday that she was watching the situation carefully and working with the Vice Chancellors’ Committee.

Watching the situation will not make things better, action is required to improve it.

The University of Auckland’s vice chancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon, shared Professor McCormack’s concerns, particularly on the loss of doctoral scholarships.

He said his university decided this year not to increase its roll numbers and was now selecting students with “high ability” for all its courses, with the aim of encouraging them through a graduate programme.

The prospect of qualifying school-leavers been turned away from universities has worried student leaders.

Jordan King, a co-president of the New Zealand Union of Students Associations, said he would be “highly concerned at any situation where school-leavers who have the appropriate qualifications at the end of high school are unable to access tertiary education”.

Hat tip to Whale Oil and a number of other sites on both the left and the right for this.

The video is very slick but I have to ask the question of the real power behind it. Showing what Labour delivered in the past is not going to get us into the future. Especially given all the things highlighted National have kept. So your real point is?

(oh and I hope Kiwibank go after them for copyright breach like the electoral enrollment centre did over the orange man.)