Tag Archives: Politics

Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill Voted Down

Posted on by Brad Heap

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.

SUBMISSION on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill

Posted on by Brad Heap

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?

Act Party in Self Destruct Mode

Posted on by Brad Heap

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.

Energy Minister Bullies SEO

Posted on by Brad Heap

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.

A dangerous precedent

Posted on by Brad Heap

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.

Less representation is a good thing? Yeah right!

Posted on by Brad Heap

David Farrar at Kiwiblog this morning posts that under the new structure for the Auckland council the total number of elected representatives drops from 258 to 147 and then proceeds to say “I’d say 111 less Councillors etc is a good start!”.

How is it that less representation is good?

Currently with 258 democratically elected representatives across the region there is one representative for every 5,426 people (from a population of 1,400,000 people). With only 147 elected representatives this drops to one representative for every 9,523 people.

However, what is worse is the drop in the number of councilors from 109 to 20. In other words from one councilor per 12,844 people to one per 70,000 people.

That is a massive drop in representation.

Community boards simply do not cut the mustard when it comes to representation. The reality is community boards are designed to feed a majority view into the council. However it is only a view, and only a majority one. They are essentially nothing more than people with good intentions who unfortunately will have the majority of their good views railroaded by the superiority of the much more powerful council. This is hardly good democracy.

The call for one united Auckland council was primarily focused around reducing bureaucracy rather than mucking about with the representative democracy. It is unfortunate that the National Government has overrun this process and turned it into a farce by playing politics with the biggest city in New Zealand. Pathetic.

National does not believe science should be taught in school

Posted on by Brad Heap

My jaw dropped this morning when I read this information posted by a friend this morning on facebook.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/10/22/1245ce3b9622

Primary schools have been told that art, PE and science are to take a back seat to the three Rs.

The Ministry of Education has told schools they will get no extra help next year to teach subjects other than reading, writing and mathematics.

The ministry says support services for schools that it funds through various advisors will now focus on a smaller number of critical priorities, including literacy and numeracy, as well as help implement the Government’s national standards policy.

Teaching groups say the move is short-sighted, and the first sign of how national standards will affect schools and children.

This move is going to a major affect on the intelligence of our young people. Yes you need Reading, Writing, and Mathematics they are fundamental skills in being able to engage with the world. For instance you are currently reading a blog, that I have written, and when you go to the shops later today you will need mathematics to know how much money you can afford to spend. You use these three primary skills in every situation of every day.

However, you also use PE, Science, and Art just as much. And they are equally as important to a child’s intellectual development. PE lets students explore the world, learn how to run, catch, and have fun, it promotes good exercise and living a balanced healthy life. In the process it gets much needed oxygen into the body, and the poisons from the foods we eat out so that we can focus better and all round be a lot healthier. Without PE we are not going to learn inside the classroom very well.

Art. One of the defining characteristics of our generation is our individuality. And we primarily express that through art. Art is not about painting, drawing or scribbling, it is about expression and gaining a cultural understanding of the world around us. Through art our society changes and improves. Art allows us to photograph the past so we can learn from our mistakes, it allows us to plan, think, and see things before we actually have them in real life, like plans for a building. Art is a key part of a child’s development it enables them to mature. Forget about writing for a second, if a picture is worth a thousand words we should be able to read that to.

Finally science. Where do I start, science is the key to the world. Mathematics may be the fundamental language of the universe. But without science mathematics is simply numbers with no meaning or context. Science gives numbers meaning it explains how things are related. It explains how we came to be, why things are the way they are, and can even predict the future. For instance if I know a car is traveling at a certain speed and it needs to stop at a certain point, and its brakes are not powerful enough to stop it from that speed in that time then I can tell you now through science, physics, and the use of maths that it will not be able to stop.

Reading, Writing, and Mathematics are primary skills our children need to learn, but there is no point in giving child the skills and the tools to do things, without the context within to use them. What is the point of learning algebra if you are not going to be given any real life situation (through science) of its application.

The majority of people learn best through example, demonstration, and hands on learning. The government is sending us back to the dark ages where what is said is absolute truth, you rote learn everything, and never challenge the absolute truth. This is a sad day for New Zealand education.

A State of Urgency

Posted on by Brad Heap

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?

Duncan Garner on Chris Carter

Posted on by Brad Heap

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.

Poneke: NZ’s political leaders want to destroy us…

Posted on by Brad Heap

This must be one of the best political posts I have read in a while, read the full version here: http://poneke.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/away/

NZ’s political leaders want to destroy us with despair. Where is their confidence in our country? No wonder Australia beckons for so many

In Australia, where I have had the opportunity to have travelled about these past few weeks, everyone except the media (which anywhere, always, promotes doom and gloom) is constantly upbeat about the state of the economy and the country’s outlook. The Polyannas include not just Kevin Rudd’s Labor Government but also Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal Opposition. Yes, of course, the Opposition in Australia constantly attacks and carps on about the Government, but it does not attack and carp on about Australia.

Numbingly, in New Zealand, it is our Government that is constantly attacking New Zealand and running down its fortunes and prospects at every opportunity. Chief among the Jonahs is the dour Finance Minister, Bill English, who constantly claims we face a “decade of deficits.” Even worse, at the New Zealand Herald’s annual platform for corporate greed, he said all we can look forward to is a “demoralising trudge”.

And then people were surprised that New Zealand’s still very strong economy was immediately put on credit watch. If your finance minister so publicly and continually rubbishes your country and takes as much delight in company closures and layoffs as this one does, then the ratings agencies will sit up, take notice and act.

I would not try to argue that the grass is always greener elsewhere, especially the grass in Australia, which is almost non-existent in some places I have been, thanks to the usual droughts which that huge desert continent experiences.

But, my god, there is no constant running down of Australia’s prospects by its political leaders, who are united in their determination to keep unemployment low and the economy ticking along very nicely thank you. You do not hear Australian cabinet ministers boasting how many public servants they are sacking.

New Zealand went into this world recession – caused by the corporate greed which some people in New Zealand think is admirable – with among the lowest unemployment and public debt in the developed world. The latter was thanks to former finance minister Michael Cullen’s determination to use his budget surpluses to repay debt rather than splurge on the tax cuts loudly demanded by National through all of Labour’s term. Cullen’s Scroogeness meant New Zealand can afford the modest deficits that would be expected in such an international downturn. Instead we are back to the slash and burn of 1991, when unemployment hit 11 per cent amid similar applause from the same cheerleaders.

Australia entered the world downturn similarly low in public debt – though with slightly higher unemployment – and there is little talk there of a decade of deficits. In fact, Australia is yet even to experience technical recession, as there has been just one quarter of negative growth, not repeated, since the Greed is Good parasites destroyed the world’s financial system.

I fear for a country being as constantly bad-mouthed by its government as New Zealand is, for the constant denigration is likely to bear the fruit that could be expected, as demonstrated by the negative credit watch, which the cheerleaders applaud from their tax havens in Geneva and elsewhere.

I fear for this country not for myself but for my children. All three of them constantly talk of moving to Australia for work and education. Even from a distance, the allure of a country whose leaders do not constantly denigrate it is apparent to them. Having had a good look around a lot of Australia in recent times, I can understand that allure.

New Zealanders are not a bunch of losers, but many of our political leaders give more than the impression that losers are how they see us and a failed state is what they want us to become. Maybe they should piss off to North Korea and invite a few people with confidence to take us boldly and confidently into the future that so scares them.

And one wonders why so many of us go off to Aussie. Can someone remind me why I should stay when I finish my post-grad studies at the end of this year?