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

I have been very busy over the last few weeks and haven’t had much time to blog or do anything much online. But I have been trying to follow the Police Spying Scandal because as the days role on it is getting deeper and much murkier.

Okay for those who haven’t been following the news recently here is a quick update: Last Sunday the Sunday Star Times (Newspaper) revealed that an key political activist was actually a police spy who had infutrated a number of left wing groups. He was reporting to the SIG a group set up after the 9/11 attacks in America to combat terrorism. The Police immediately claimed that the SIG was acting within its boundaries protecting NZ and not spying on activist groups. Since then it has been revealed that the Police through its SIG Counter-Terrorism Spying Taskforce has been spying on a number of political action groups, climate change groups, Greenpeace, the Green Party (yes the political party in parliament), a number of major workers Unions incluing UNITE, and the NDU, and students’ associations especially VUWSA.

Now this is nuts. There is a clear boundary between what is terrorism, what is a terrorist action, what is a threat to national security and the actions of small political lobby groups. I personally believe that if you have done nothing wrong then you should have nothing to hide. But that is not the issue here, the issue is police used a counter terrorism unit to spy on many harmless, democratic and legal political lobby groups.

There are two columns in today’s HoS which add more to this story (and be sure to read the other articles as well there are heaps of them – google is showing over 100 stories written already (http://news.google.co.nz/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&hl=en&q=police+spying&btnG=Search+News)

The first is Bill Ralston who calls for an inquiry into the issue:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10549093

Initially John Key, sensibly, said only those who “present a real or credible risk to the safety and security of communities” should be the subject of such investigations. He then passed the issue on to Judith Collins to sort out.

She spoke to Broad and promptly ruled out any need for an inquiry, saying Broad had assured her police were “meeting their responsibilities”. Hiding behind the old “Governments can’t interfere in police operations” line, Collins blithely accepted Broad’s assurance they were not targeting groups but individuals who might commit criminal acts.

Wrong. Emails from their spy show the SIG was targeting the activities of entire unions, including the EPMU, the CTU, the Maritime Union, and the Unite union.

Its spy also infiltrated the Green Party and reported on the plans of Greenpeace, conservation groups, climate change organisations, animal rights groups, and anti-war protesters.

Oh yes, police also used SIG surveillance to protect its own vested interests, targeting anti-Taser protests and investigating a man who is trying to take action against the police after he was pepper-sprayed.

The SIG was set up and received funding after 9/11 to combat the threat of terrorism. None of the groups listed even remotely come near that description. The SIG seems oblivious to the fact that peace groups are, by their very nature, largely peaceful in intent and, ironically, one of its targets, Greenpeace, is the only victim of terrorism in New Zealand.

You have to watch those dangerous unions. In emails to the SIG, its spy breathlessly reports that the NDU and EPMU were having a day of action and locked-out workers would be planning pickets and making banners. Shocking criminal acts that surely imperilled the safety and security of the community.

What has happened is that, in the hysteria after 9/11, the police got a big budget to set up the SIG which then found it had no real terrorism to combat. To protect its budget and its reason for being, the SIG and police then busied themselves with trivia.

Collins has more than enough evidence to show the SIG was acting outside its brief. She should set up a ministerial inquiry, with a QC or someone like the Ombudsman, verify the facts and get serious about cutting costs by axing the unit.

Yes that is right. The police are spying on the only group ever in NZ to have been targeted by terrorism! (and for those with poor knowledge of NZ history it is a reference to the 1986 bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour by the French Secret Service.

The second column is by Matt McCarten head of the Unite Union and a victim of the police spying:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10549080

These groups which were being spied on are incorporated societies carrying out legitimate work on behalf of their members and supporters. They are democratic and transparent. No one has ever accused them of criminal behaviour, let alone terrorism.

…

Gilchrist started collecting information on our union three years ago. At that time we were running our SupersizeMyPay campaign, set up to abolish youth wages and raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.

Through a combination of employer negotiations, community demonstrations and parliamentary lobbying, we won. Tens of thousands of workers have since had their wages lifted by more than $3 an hour, in large part because of this campaign, and youth wages were scrapped.

Are our spies seriously suggesting minimum wage workers and school kids working in fast-food restaurants were part of a budding al Qaeda network?

The actions of this spy unit go to the heart of our democracy. Frankly, their actions are worse than the so-called danger they claim to want to protect us from. What could be more of a threat to our society than a secret police force paying undercover “Walter Mitty-type” informants to infiltrate and secretly report on civil and political groups? Isn’t that what totalitarian governments do?

…

A meat worker who ran as a communist candidate in the last election was detained at Auckland Airport for four hours after returning from Australia. She was subjected to a humiliating strip search. Nothing was found. But what was disturbing is the Customs officers spent the whole time grilling her on her political activity and were well aware of her history.

The only way you can explain this is that a file has been compiled on her and given to other state agencies. If this doesn’t worry New Zealanders, we’re in real trouble.

…

The new Prime Minister, John Key, should agree to the request by the targeted unions for a full inquiry. If the unit has been spying on organisations carrying out lawful work, it should be disbanded and the Police Commissioner sacked.

In future, when our political leaders tell us we need greater police power to fight terrorism, just be aware it has little to do with keeping us safe and everything to do with keeping us under control.

And so we end up back with a scene from V For Vendetta.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

http://melissa-network-news.blogspot.com/2008/05/healthy-competition.html

I read an interesting blog post today about supposed “healthy competition” between universities (see link above).

Now I want you to ponder this. Should universities be in competition with each other?
What marks the difference between “healthy” and “unhealthy” competition?

This is something that the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) has been focusing on over the past few years and trying to stamp out. Universities and other tertiary providers should not be in competition with one and other but should rather be working together. At the end of the day cooperation benefits everyone far greater then competition.

Think about this. With cooperation in research people can move forward on ideas faster. How many different universities need to invent the wheel? Cooperation in research also allows for more open, honest and transparent findings and less allegations of faking results because rather then being the first to do something, as a team you are the best at doing it and therefore you have the best result. Competition does not drive improvements in research but rather forces researchers to work harder and rush things often making mistakes rather then actually doing something beneficial.

So how does this apply to undergraduate and postgraduate taught classes? Well the reality is this, in New Zealand you are forced to pay for your education. Therefore the education that you receive should be the highest possible quality education and you should get value for money. Money aka your fees should not be wasted on competition between universities such as advertising that trades off one university against another and neither should it be spent on anything other then the provision of your courses. Universities should not set up courses to compete with each other and steal students off one an other but should rather be introducing courses to meet the need of the market – something the TEC is trying to implement through its investment plans.

So is any form of competition healthy? No. Competition should not be permitted between universities. There are only 8 universities in New Zealand we are a small country and the majority of our funding to our universities comes from the government and at the end of the day they are all owned by the crown so in a round-a-bout way you only end up competing with yourself. Cooperation not Competition!

This is the video of the transcript that I posted a few weeks back

Go the Greens and New Zealand First! Good on you for standing up for students!

Tomorrow is going to be huge. Student Debt hitting 10 Billion is already in TV3 News as the third story, New Zealand Herald, Stuff, Scoop. And probably lots more.

http://tinyurl.com/3mw9zc

9. Debt, Student-Increases

[Uncorrected transcript-subject to correction and further editing.]

9. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Has he received any reports that student debt will reach the milestone of $10 billion this week; if so, what, if anything, does he plan to do about it?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) : Yes, I have. Next month’s Budget will contain some measures to further increase student support, just like each of our first eight Budgets have already done. I acknowledge in passing the Green Party’s consistent support for progress in this area, and I also acknowledge that the National Party has consistently voted against such progress.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister stand by this statement, which he made in January of this year: “Each year under Labour-led governments student support has strengthened,”; if so, how does he reconcile that comment with the fact that the latest figures show that fewer students received a student allowance in 2006 than when Labour came to power in 1999?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The proportion of eligible students who are receiving the allowance now is well over half-it is about 57 percent-about three-quarters of whom are receiving the full allowance and one-quarter of whom are on the cusp, if the member might see what I mean. That is a great many more students than when we first came into office. I cannot express the difference in a percentage, however, because I do not have the figures with me.

Hon Mark Burton: In the light of the Minister’s response to the primary question, does he expect that total student debt will go on to reach $11 billion or even $12 billion; if so, why is the total debt still rising?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is a very good question. The total debt continues to rise because, apart from inflation, there are more students, and more students are studying to a higher level. That is a good thing. It is a good thing. The question is what is happening in the life of an individual student, and what is happening there is that conditions continue to improve. They would say “too slowly”, but conditions do improve. The average debt is now rising more slowly than the average wage, with the average wage being the way that one pays the debt off. For that reason the average repayment of the debt has reduced from where it was in 2001, at 9½ years, to where it is now, at less than 6 years. So there is an improvement for students. The Greens have assisted with that improvement. We need to make more improvement.

Dail Jones: Does the Minister accept that the problem associated with student debt, with or without interest, can be substantially reduced by the introduction of New Zealand First’s policy, which for many elections has stated that New Zealand First will introduce a universal student allowance that does not require repayment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Having a universal student allowance is the policy of a number of parties in this House. For my part, we are happy in our party to move towards, but not to, a universal student allowance, and this is why: I have other priorities. I need to pay attention to the quality of tertiary education. I need to ensure that the completion rates continue to rise. I need to ensure that the access-especially for Māori and Pacific Islanders, which is well below par-must be increased. These things all cost money and I happen to place them above the move to a universal student allowance. On the other hand, we make progress towards that universality in most years, and I hope we may do so again next month.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister disagree, however, that his inadequate student support policy, which includes interest-free student loans, has actually led to a 9 percent decline in the enrolment of students from poor backgrounds; and will he then make a real commitment to fulfilling the policy of the Green Party, the New Zealand University Students Association, and, obviously, New Zealand First, for having a universal student allowance, which would ensure that today’s students are able to have the same opportunity to learn, to buy homes, to choose when to have families, and to take control of their financial destiny, as he and most of the Labour Party leadership have also been able to do?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The short answer is no. I have no advice to the effect of a 9 percent reduction in whatever the member suggested might be occurring for New Zealanders who are from more modest backgrounds. On the contrary, there is documented evidence of higher access for Māori and Pacific Islanders, but not high enough, and of higher completion rates at level 7 and above, but not high enough. We have had some dramatic, outstanding improvements in education amongst Māori and Pacific Islanders in the tertiary sector in this country-especially in the years 2002 to 2006, which is the latest data available-but I would be the first to say, along with all of my colleagues, that progress is not yet sufficient.

Dail Jones: Is the Minister aware that student debt can begin to be decreased by increasing the current parental income maximum for a student allowance from $71,000 before tax, if one lives in a parental home to study, and just over $77,000 before tax, if one lives away from a parental home-the current rate-to, say, $100,000 before tax, if one lives in a parental home to study, and $105,000 before tax, if one lives away from a parental home, which would cost an estimated, and I emphasise “estimated”, additional expenditure of about $300 million to the Government, and surely this would be a good investment in education and in the future of New Zealand and it would encourage qualified people to stay in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I am aware of that, which is why, although the member was not able to be with us, this Government shifted parental thresholds three times in each of the last three Budgets-by 20 percent, 10 percent, and 10 percent-and we do not rule out the possibility in the future of a further shift in the thresholds.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Finance recently told the TaxAgents’ Institute: “We have real ambition for New Zealand and our economy. And we know that by refusing to burden our children and grandchildren with a legacy of debt, we are removing one of the biggest obstacles to realising that ambition.”; if so, does it worry him that the Minister of Finance is so ignorant of the $10 billion legacy of student debt left by this and previous Governments, which has a proven, disproportionate exclusionary impact on women, Māori, and the least well-off New Zealanders?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Just a couple of comments in response: first, the level of participation of, say, New Zealand Māori in our universities is still below that of, say, New Zealand Europeans, but it is getting better, not worse. The member shakes her head-she needs to go back and look at the statistics. Second, I did not have the pleasure of being in the room when the Minister of Finance made his quoted remarks, which is a shame, of course, but I would not mind betting he was talking about KiwiSaver, and that is a magnificent policy that will change the face of this country.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a chart showing that the numbers of students receiving an allowance in 2006 are 5,000 fewer than in 1999.

* Leave granted.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table an article describing how the under-35s are now effectively shut out permanently from financial security.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table “Freedom from debt, freedom to prosper”-the Minister’s speech to the TaxAgents’ Institute of New Zealand given in March this year.

* Leave granted.

Dail Jones: I seek leave to table a document to introduce a universal student allowance, being New Zealand First’s election policy.

* Leave granted.

It seems to me that every major political party in New Zealand tries to be moderate and just when you think it is safe to vote for them they suddenly release extremist policy to scare you off.

Going from left to right:

Greens. The Greens have a fantastic education policy and vision. But some of their social and financial policies go a little bit to far. People need to wake up and realise that anything and everything that we do will hurt the world in someway. It is chaos theory. We need trucks to transport goods we can’t use bikes for everything!

Progressive. Again great education policy. Student allowances for all! Yes! Although you can’t spend that money on alcohol as they want to outlaw it and don’t go even talking about herbal highs because unlike the Greens they may be a little to natural for you.

Labour. Not to left. Not to right. Except when it comes to tax and social welfare (see below). I earned my money why are you taking so much of it and redistributing it. This is not Robin Hood country is it?

Maori. Probably the best small party. But why do we have to segregate based on race?

New Zealand First. The party I am probably the closet in my views to. Except on singling out minority groups. I think New Zealand needs skilled migrants regardless of race. It is not just Asians flooding in.

National. Again just like Labour. Not to Left. Not to Right. However they want to introduce voluntary students’ association membership. No! You cannot pay nothing for services and still expect services.

Act. Freedom! Yes. Although having to pay through the nose for everything because you go from too much control to no control is a bit of big problem. Oh and Roger Douglas. I loved Cullen’s comment “Just when you thought it was safe to vote for National like something out of a B Grade horror comes Roger Douglas.” Fantastic way to take the country backwards 20 years.

Entitleme is a new website that takes a look at your tax take and what you get back for it. Very rough information for me is shown below.

Check it out: http://entitleme.com/ I can’t believe that the largest proportion of my tax is going on social welfare. Maybe we really are in a communist country after all and we have been hoodwinked.

Andrew Chan And Myuran Sukumaran are now facing death by firing squad in Bali. A penalty that is opposed by the Australian Government.

However, the worst thing about the sentance is that the Australian Fedral Police (A department of the Australian Government) gave the information about the drugs to the Indonesian Police. This got these Australian citizens arrested in Indonesia and facing penalties that the Australian government is against. The Fedral Police could of arrested the members of the Bali 9 when they arrived back in Australia, and they would not be putting the lives of their own citizens at risk.

The end reality is that the Australian government has put international politics before the lives and safety of its own citizens. The very citizens that elected it to government to protect themselves and their nation. Shame on you John Howard, Shame on you the government of Australia, Shame on you.

True politicians, honest leaders do not sell out their own citizens.