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 rather alarming that New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key is involved in discussions with the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard over the processing of asylum seekers: (from the NZ Herald)

Ms Gillard said she had also spoken to New Zealand Prime Minister John Key about the possibility of a regional processing centre for asylum seekers.

“John said to me that he would be open to considering this initiative constructively,” she said.

“East Timor and New Zealand are vital countries in this initiative, as they are already signatories to the refugee convention.

“And New Zealand, like Australia, is a key resettlement country.”

Currently the two major political parties in Australia are locked in a battle of who is the biggest bigot and racist. This is not a game that New Zealand wants to join. New Zealand prides itself on its multiculturalism.

Declining asylum applications from people of Afghanistan and Sri Lanka just because they are from those two countries is racist segregation in its most simple form. For any New Zealand politician to support the immigration policies of a country that is happy to endorse racism is political suicide. Crosby|Textor may have done well with John Key so far but this is one push poll that they will lose.

A gem of a comment from NZ Prime Minister John Key:

“We fully believe in the freedom of speech and freedom of rights in this country. I’d hate to see that overshadow what has been a growing and developing relationship.”

The comment was made in response to a protest by Green Party leader Dr Russel Norman where a Chinese Security Detail took a Tibetan Flag from him and roughed him up a little. The reality if Russel Norman probably did get a little close for comfort of some of the security guards.

However, to make a statement that we care about our own rights and freedoms but not enough to let it overshadow the money we are making through economic relationships with a dictatorship is rather concerning. I recognise it is not our place to dictate policy in other countries and we would not expect other countries to dictate policy to us, but, to completely ignore and not mention the extreme human rights abuses that occur in China in the name of ensuring free trade is rather concerning. Good treatment of workers, fair pay, and respecting human rights should be a condition of any free trade agreement not something to ignore as they could overshadow it.

Apparently the NZ Budget announced today is the biggest change to the tax system in 25 years. It doesn’t seem like much of a change more just adjusting the dials of an old and broken system.

The key adjustments are:

The personal income tax rate changes from 1 October 2010 are:

• Up to $14K – tax rate goes from 12.5% to 10.5%
• $14K to $48K – tax rate goes from 21.0% to 17.5%
• $48K to $70K – tax rate goes from 33.0% to 30.0%
• $70K+ – tax rate goes from 38.0% to 33.0%

GST will rise to 15% and company tax will drop to 28%.

If you really wanted to make radical changes to the system this is what I would do:

Taxation:

• Flat tax rate – equal for both individuals and businesses
• No GST
• Capital Gains Tax
• No Working for Families or middle class welfare

Transport:

• Build and upgrade highways but introduce tolls on most major roads
• Encourage people onto public transport by building more railways and introducing light rail into busy bus corridors. Make fares much cheaper than driving until a critical mass is achieved and slowly phase out the subsidies once things are paying for themselves.

Education:

• Free public education until the age of 25 including university or polytech study
• Universal Student Allowance to everyone in full time study in public post secondary education living away from home
• No funding to private schools – if parents want to send their children there they can pay for it entirely
• Increase funding for Research

Healthcare:

• Free doctors visits and hospitals
• Remove ACC
• Introduce Private Health Insurance for accidents with various options around cover but ensure everyone is eligible to be covered

State Owned Enterprises:

• Sell all SOEs operating in a commercial environment such as TVNZ, and Air New Zealand.
• Other SOEs do not pay tax as overheads in giving money to an SOE and then taxing it back is just silly.

Defense:

• Focus on Search and Rescue and Peace Keeping
• Increase funding for equipment to ensure state of the art equipment is used

There is a very unpatriotic opinion article in the Sydney Morning Herald today suggesting that we don’t honour the ANZACs.

While the author, Martin Flanagan, does well to point out some of the history surrounding the Gallipoli campaign his tie in arguments against remembering the dead simply do not stack up.

Gallipoli was a military disaster. We should note that in justice to the young men who died there. Do we owe them less than we owe those who die in bushfires like Black Saturday? We should also note it in justice to future generations. The voices that urged Australia into the invasion of Iraq were of the same character as those that propelled Australia to Gallipoli in 1914.

Flanagan is correct in stating that Gallipoli was a military disaster, one of the primary reasons for this was that the ANZACs landed at the wrong beach. But I do not want to get bogged down in historical arguments. The most offensive and false claim by Flanagan in this statement is comparing the Gallipoli campaign to Iraq. There is a big difference in roles between the two, in Gallipoli the ANZACs were defending, sure they were invading Turkey, however the only reason for doing so was to defend the British Empire and end the war, they did not start the war but their goal was to end it. In Iraq the Australian Army is among the aggressors, they did start the war and they did make the choice to attack.

What the Australians won at Gallipoli was huge respect, including from their enemy. It really is time we started making clear to young Australians that the Anzacs didn’t die protecting Australia from being invaded. Rather, we were invading a country on the other side of the world – to wit, Turkey – with whom we had no difference as a people outside the larger politics of the day.

Surely it is time we owed Turkey, and Turkish Australians, that respect. Look at the respect Turkey shows our dead.

I ask this question most seriously. Does any country in the world – other than Turkey – permit a people who tried to invade it to commemorate the fact of that attempted invasion on their shores each year? I know of not a single one. Imagine if the descendants of the Japanese pilots who bombed Darwin held an emotional service beneath the Japanese flag on the shores of Darwin Harbour each year.

Again there is a massive difference between the attack on Gallipoli and the attack on Darwin. The attack on Gallipoli formed the basis of the ANZAC bond that has seen NZ and Australian troops work together jointly in a number of wars, exercises, rescues, peacekeeping missions, trade and politics over the last 95 years. It also formed the basis of maturing as two nations independent of Great Britain and through the war a bond with Turkey.

The services at Gallipoli are not the celebration of war they are remembering the dead, the dead who died serving their country, defending their country, and believing in their country. They are also about respecting those who fought to give us the freedoms we enjoy today – including the freedom to criticise what they fought for.

The difference with the attack on Darwin is that the scars between the actions of Japan and Australia have never fully healed. The way in which the author compares the attack suggests this. The way in which Japan and Germany among other countries avoid talking about the war also suggests that they are not at a point yet to move on from the past. The attack on Darwin was an attack and only an attack, the Gallipoli campaign was a lot more than just an attack, it was the forming of nations and what is honoured on ANZAC day is those who helped form those nations not those who needless died in a failed campaign.

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?

Ex-Act Party MP Deborah Coddington gives the current leadership of Act a roasting in today’s Herald on Sunday

But Hide never did get angry. His mind went to dark places and he could sulk, but current MP David Garrett, for instance, should have been roasted alive long ago, so his sterilisation remarks remained just ideas in a peculiar mind. Now Garrett has destroyed the Act brand.

Because what 21st-century liberal would vote for a party whose caucus supports a man who makes lewd remarks around the office, justifies that behaviour by saying it was okay in Tonga, then advocates bribery and sterilisation as a means to control child abuse and the population of the underclass?

Does Act stop to think that the 21st-century liberal is both an economic and a social liberal? We want low taxes and small government, but we’re not redneck, pro-smacking, tough-on-crime unforgiving mutants.

Why didn’t someone have the forsight to not select David Garratt? For a first term MP he has managed very easily to destroy half a party.

The other half has been destroyed between Hide’s handling of the Auckland Supershitty Supercity and his own contradiction over spending. And do we even need to mention his partner in crime Roger Douglas.

If Act get knocked out at the next election there could be an interesting change in NZ politics. An extreme right wing party is needed to keep pushing National towards the centre. Act represents everything that the majority of NZ doesn’t want and by reacting to that it keeps National from doing stupid things. Without Act there National could easily go further right and this would not be a good thing.

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.

Seriously Awesome Short Film from Godzone

Hat Tips: @vodafonenz and Get Frank