So what do you stand for?

The local elections are coming, and one local has possibly the most ridiculous billboard ever. The woman is called Leandra Bowen  and her punchline is

Advocating crime prevention

Now some of you might think I am being a little flippant - but I do not see any of the other candidates with an opposite response, e.g. advocating domestic violence, supporting theft and/or encouraging fraud. I would suggest that my little town has its fair share of other problems - a polluted lake, a dying CBD, a lack of job opportunities, crippling debt and no population growth. I think Ms. Bowen needs to get out more!

More annoyances

I am back on motoring, but on motoring with a slant. In previous moans I have pointed out the stupidity of those who text and drive, those who are stupid enough to purchase American cars and those who do not give way to cyclists.

Anyway, back to today’s grumblings. Firstly, I am not holier than thou, I am not able to chuck the first rock (as in having never sinned), but I am no bank robber or serial killer either. The group I intend to complain about are an insidious breed, some of the most annoying lot, the tax dodgers.

Here in New Zealand every vehicle on the road, be they a car, a truck, a motorcycle or even a trailer or a caravan requires two things. The first this if known as a WOF – the warrant of fitness. This is essentially an inspection test that is done every six months, checking the vehicle is roadworthy, the tyres have tread, it isn’t likely to fall to pieces and kill someone. It isn’t perfect; it doesn’t have an emissions test, it can be fiddled (e.g. sticking your mates tyres on instead of your bald ones), but it is a safety check.

There second thing is called the Rego, or vehicle registration (it is actually called vehicle licensing, but as most people call it the rego that’s what I’ll use). This is essentially a levy, paid to the government for a range of things, such as maintaining the roads, providing road safety training, but largely to fund ACC.

What’s ACC? Well in New Zealand we have this thing called the Accident Claims Commission, a state body that pays out for accidental injury – it prevents lawyers chasing ambulances like you get in many other countries. It generates income from levies from every worker, from insurance premiums on home property and vehicle policies, but mainly from the rego.

It currently costs about $250 for a year, of which about $150 per registration goes to ACC.

So why is it that such a large number of cars in Rotorua have neither? And more worryingly why are the police not actually bothered?


I take it when the drivers of these cars impale themselves on a tree they will happily forward the bill to the drivers and not ACC - or maybe they will give me a refund - yeah right!

Another generalisation....

Another batch of stunning gross generalisations.

Recently in New Zealand the use of mobile phones by the person driving a moving vehicle was outlawed. However, some people are above this law, clearly far too clever/important/powerful to need to comply. Recently an off duty police officer, in full uniform, was pictured by a passing motorist exceeding the speed limit on a motorway whilst chatting on the phone - but this is not the generalistion.

The two groups I intend to criticise are as follows.

The perpetual texter, slaloming their way down the road fit quite simply into a single group - young and female, generally driving a blinged up hatch back - Mazda 3, Honda Civic, Subaru Impreza.

The other group is the chatting away whilst trying to hide the phone - again quite easily spotted - the works Ute or 4x4, usually a carpet fitters, decorator or a security alarm firm - I kid you not - I see at least one of each every day; maybe they have an exception certificate - I am allowed to use my phone because people Axminster rugs are more important than other road users safety, and why should I have to pull over to answer a call, because my truck is bigger than your car.

Another one? Why is it that fat people can usually be found eating pies?

What a wonderful world

After a summer break the blog is back; actually, I couldn’t be bothered. There were a few things I could have gone on about, such as the NZ government planning to sell off 49% of state owned assets – apparently so they can be owned by locals (correct me if I am wrong, but don’t they already belong to the country?)

So it comes as no surprise (well to me anyway) to read that the Conservative party receives over 50% of its funding from the city. That’s right, the bunch of tossers who got the world in mess through their corporate greed are filling the trough for the equally greedy Tory pigs to dine from.

For those outside New Zealand you may like to know our current prime minister was, guess what, a merchant banker.

What a messed up world we live in!

Another evil bitch

The world, it seems to me anyway, is becoming a place where nasty, callous women are taking charge – pretty heavy vitriol from me!! I have mused about Thatcher (dead soon – the sooner the better), Palin (can’t come soon enough) and others, only for me to read about Emma Harrison – who I hear you say?

Well, in the UK unemployment is rising, with the biggest growth being in the long term unemployed. Like New Zealand these are the group that the right leaning governments want to get into work and off benefits. Unlike NZ the UK have decided to allow the private sector to do this important role via a company owned by Emma.

Enter Mrs Harrison who proudly states

"The coalition government's cuts are, in fact, fantastic!... Cutting benefits will put a stop to people making a profession out of being unemployed."

Whoopee, rather than addressing the reasons why they are unemployed, force them on to a programme in the private sector. Rather ironically A4e was initially contracted by the Labour government.

Academics have identified the root causes of poverty, yet governments continue to do their own thing, reacting to the issues rather than having the courage to adequately tax to fund proper poverty reduction and improving learning out comes for students. Indeed the performance of A4e leaves something to be desired, but business must be OK given the plushness of their new HQ.

 

Oh, and don’t say it’ll never happen here – they are already operating in Australia!

And then there was five….

As a follow on to my comments the other day comes this – the third fatality from Sunday’s crash, rapidly followed by another incident, this time caused by a less than diligent motorist forcing a cyclist to take evasive action simply because they did not pay enough attention to other road users as they exited their car.

Add to this another story – fortunately not another death (that’s five cyclists killed in four days by the way!) – where a lovely motorist forces a rider into the kerb, causes them to crash, breaking their collar bone and then telling them it was their fault. I too have had the same thing happen to me (minus the injury). I slapped a van once to alert them they were about to grind me into the pavement, only for the driver to stop me a few km along the road to ask what my problem was and to advise he would rip my head off if I touched his lovely van again!

Now, in the last blog I complained about the driving standards – last night I had ANOTHER near miss, rural, female driver, lack of attention, etc. It makes you wonder if you are on borrowed time riding a bike.

Another weekend of CARnage

It’s official, being a cyclist in New Zealand is as fun as being a crash test dummy – a dangerous existence not helped by the low quality vehicles on the road (in terms of safety features and serviceability) and the atrocious driving standards.

Last night I was enjoying a leisurely ride with my mate Pete; this involved a trip around the mountain, mainly flat with a steep climb at the end followed by a rapid descent where you can easily (as we did) touch 70kmh. Great fun, until at the only T junction on the road, out ‘drives’ (actually Kangaroos, jumps, stutters or hops might be better descriptions) a white car with young female Maori driver. Avoiding action was required and luckily for Pete and I there was not any on coming traffic as we overtook the silly cow at over 60kmh.

Now I can hear you say “but you were reckless in your actions’!

Well, the speed limit there is 70kmh and we were both under this; we were both wearing hi-vis gear and were, unlike the car driver, paying attention. Furthermore, we had right of way, the car failed  to give way and frankly appeared not to give a toss about the near miss she had just been involved in (we could have conceivably rear ended her, but this would have hurt!).

So fortunately Pete and are not statistics, unlike those less fortunate than us this weekend. Three cyclists were struck and killed by cars this weekend. In this article there is an overview of the two incidents (two others were killed last week, making five in a fortnight); now I am obviously biased – as I biker I have had several near misses, last night being the most recent. I also appreciate that the media has to produce stories that balance reporting. But please, the poor car driver (who hit the cyclists so hard she had to be cut from the vehicle), is very distressed! She is a farmers daughter who lives in a nearby farm, the cyclists are on a regular, organised Sunday ride – so, why was she on the wrong side of the road, given that she knows the area, presumably knows cyclists use the road and given it is a rural area she could have hit a milk tanker, a tractor a farm bike – anything in fact! I am guessing because she could, because motorists really only care for themselves and not other road users; and from the ‘gross generalisation’ file comes the next bit. Many bikers have pointed out that young female car drivers are the worst, the least attentive, the least in control, the least likely to see a cyclist and the most likely to take you out. I have deferred from having this opinion – until last night!!

Losing your child at McDonalds....

Recently there have been a couple of media reports that have caught my attention; added to this I received a link to a very interesting and somewhat disturbing website – not disturbing in any weird or depraved way, but disturbing that people actually are so stupid!

The first story and the second are linked, albeit they are 12000 or so miles apart. Last weekend a two year old girl was found wandering in a car park at a McDonalds in Otara, South Auckland. For those not in the know South Auckland is probably New Zealand’s most deprived community; it has above average unemployment, poor education achievement rates, over crowded housing, high rates of domestic violence, drugs, etc.

Now, a lost two year old isn’t that unusual – what parent hasn’t had a toddler wander off?  What is more unusual in this scenario is that it took the family two days to actually front up to authorities and claim their child – their explanation, they thought someone else must be looking after her!

The second story was about something related to the above – the lack of parenting skills in modern society. The generation osmosis of ‘good parenting’ has been lost, with many children raised by surrogates, at day care and the like. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating a ‘keep the mums at home’ campaign, but there is a need for basic common sense parenting to be a pre-requisite for a successful future life. It goes without saying that with kids it is often ‘monkey see, monkey do’, that behaviours good, bad and indifferent are observed, stored in their sponge like minds, to be reproduced at a later date. If poor parenting is the norm it is logical to assume this will escalate and snowball as time progresses, hence we have a generation that are not able to adequately care for children, but don’t actually know when they have been lost!!

The last bit I guess is at a tangent, but could be thought as the glue that needs to hold the lot together. This is something called Health Literacy, which has been defined as

Health literacy is the ability to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services to make appropriate health decisions (Kōrero Mārama, 2010).

It probably comes as no surprise to find that over 1/3 of the NZ population has been assessed as having poor health literacy – meaning they are unable to make sound health choices, follow medical instruction, understand the requirements of their treatment, and so on. Is it any wonder then that countless health dollars are spent ‘fixing’ these issues?

People with poor health literacy:

• are less likely to use prevention services
• have less knowledge of their illness, treatment, and medicines
• are less likely to recognise the first signs of medical problems
• are less likely to manage their long-term/chronic condition
• are less likely to communicate their concerns to health professionals
• are more likely to be hospitalised due to a chronic condition
• are more likely to use emergency services, and
• are more vulnerable to workplace injury.

Indeed it would be very simplistic to generalize that people with poor health literacy are more likely to leave their child at McDonalds, not claim them for two days and likely have inadequate parenting skills to assist their child out of the poverty trap!

A Very Interesting Read!

Some people may know that I don't like the idea of National Standards, as proposed by the National government and their education minister Ann Tolley. I also have held a belief that Canterbury was a place that was dyed in the wool National territory, the kind of place that would endorse all national policy. This link shows quite the opposite.

New Zealand’s Lost Villages

These are all over the place and I’ve visited quite a few. They all share similar traits; they all have seen better days, they all had prosperous industries and, according to one of my work mates, they should have all been bull dozed a long time ago!

View Larger Map

Today I visited Te Mahoe, a small settlement in the eastern Bay of Plenty. It is near another town, Kawerau, which itself has seen better days. Te Mahoe apparently was established as a village for two groups of people, those who built the nearby dam and those who originally ran the power plant driven by the water from the dam. But, we now live in a modern, automated age, with the power plant now seemingly run from afar and bereft of actual employees, so Te Mahoe sits silently in the valleys, a small collection of well kept homes, but little else. The small primary school could be the next in line (especially as Kawerau’s schools are to be consolidated into fewer and bigger schools).

What future does Te Mahoe have? No actual sign of work places in the area, the teachers at the school (as well as many of the students) travel to there. It is like a scale model of Turangi or Mangakino, similarly constructed for hydroelectric; Turangi, by virtue of proximity to the ski fields and trout fishing, as well as two large prisons, at least looks like a town that will survive.

There are others of this ilk – Te Kaha, dairy factory gone, tourist ventures failed, it sits in decline; Kaingaroa, once a thriving forest settlement, now it is a collection of near derelict homes – mostly with families living in them. A recent TV news report showed how in the Central North Island sections of land were available for free, as nobody wanted those house section in those villages

So, does the outside world actually know of these places – what is more troublesome is that few in New Zealand really care about these places or the people in them, who sit between the metaphorical rock and a hard place. Whilst we fret over ‘The Hobbit’, there are sections of New Zealand with substandard housing, long term unemployment and no prospect of changes or improvement. Overseas the ‘heritage’ angle would be used, considering these required saving for the benefit of the nation. Maybe the people should be considered the national treasure?

It's official - the government doesn't care!

The Hobbit, a book by JRR Tolkein or a defining moment when workers rights were sold down the river by John Key and his merry men?

There are always two sides to any story, the left and the right (unions and employers), those directly affected, those who the issue will have no effect, those who care, those who don't - and those in NZ and those outside.


In today's NZ Herald there  appeared this poll - and from the early results the majority seem to think it is wonderful that the PM has forfeited the rights of workers and plans to pass a change in labour laws in under 24 hours to appease a Hollywood media giant. Contrast this with yesterday's comment piece, where many, particularly those from overseas, could see that New Zealand, well maybe not all the country but the government, was being played by big business. As Brian Rudman put it,

Not so long ago, the rest of the country guffawed at Wellington planning to rename itself Wellywood.

Now the whole country seems to have taken leave of its senses, demanding we rename New Zealand "Hobbiton" and elevate the Gnome of the Wairarapa, Sir Peter Jackson, to be our Lord and Master. Have we no sense of shame, or of the ridiculous?

On Monday, Samuel Parnell, the father of the eight-hour day, would have turned in his grave at the way the day set aside in his memory was desecrated. Up and down the land, crowds marched and rallied to pledge to be servile to a Hollywood movie conglomerate.

The story has not escaped other news sources (ITN for example) - so globally the people of NZ are seen as Kowtowing to 'save' the production of a movie; The Guardian used the headline 'Picking up the Bilbo'

Key is quoted as saying yesterday

"We will be moving to ensure that New Zealand law in this area is settled to give producers like Warner Bros the confidence they need to produce their movies in New Zealand,"

So they require 'confidence', not money?

So why the change from his earlier stance?

“We'll have to make an assessment about whether we think a clarification in the law would assist economically. If we do, then we might make some changes,”

 So from a might to changing law in 24 hours. And as John Armstrong pointed out today

What kind of a country, however, sells its democratic soul for 30 pieces of silver?
The answer is a small one. And one where the economy shows little sign of recovery in the short term.

As I said before there are lots of sides to every story - lets examine those -

1. So the actors wanted more money? Well they actually wanted the same powers as every other worker, the opportunity to seek a collective agreement in terms of wages and contract conditions - nearly every other group in the country has this, be they doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen. The actors wanted the same deal and were vilified as 'corrupt' and 'uncaring'. So an overseas film company can dictate what rights employees in a sovereign nation - so if a New Zealand company want to runs their business in a uniquely 'Kiwi' way, they'd be encouraged to do so and the laws of that country changed to meet their needs?
2. The film was already a done deal? Well actually no; MGM is broke, the original director walked away and the project is well behind schedule.
3. It isn't about money? Warner's have stated that the budget was US$500 million; now two years ago that would = NZ$1 billion; with exchange rate movements that figure is nearer NZ$1.5 billion - New Zealand is no longer a cheap option (although our pay rates are far less). One bonus California has over NZ is the ability to use non-union labour, a great way of keeping costs down, and if you can achieve the same in New Zealand....
4. But the tourists won't come to New Zealand! Prove it - tourists came in their droves before The Lord of the Rings trilogy was filmed here and they will continue to come freely long after. Some come for scenery, some for adventure, many to see ex-pat family.
5. Everyone wants the movie here? Well not me if it means workers lose their rights!

Another slant could be added to this; this government has been openly challenging to unions, pro-employers and only too happy to court the popular vote on every occasion. If you had asked me yesterday i would have said this debacle could have been the National governments downfall, instead they may have played their joker and actually picked up support - but wait till the full picture come out.

Another ridiculous idea!

So, it’s official, the government are going to tackle the obesity epidemic and are contributing a massive $2 million to the fight. So, what will they spend their money on I hear you say? Surely, lots of public information campaign using the best brains from the media agencies? Maybe a mass education of families to ensure they have access to home prepared, healthier food? How about funding for sports, so people are more active? A crack team of nutrition advisers working with disadvantaged communities?

Wrong, wrong and wrong again! The $2 million is being spent on ‘increasing surgery’ for the morbidly obese. That’s right, a grand total of 300 operations.

Don’t get me wrong, these people deserve treatment, but why not spend the money STOPPING them from eating themselves to death; why not invest in proper education, stop every corner having a McDonald’s, a KFC or similar on it. From my office window I can see the queue at the drive through at 9am, and they are doing a roaring trade every day.

Want to fund these operations – then slap a burger tax on every burger sold – you’ll soon raise $2 million (and then some). It will also act as a deterrent, encouraging people to actually think about what they eat and penalising them for unhealthy choices. The evidence shows that the biggest influence of change in smokers is increased taxation.

Governmental control

Earlier today I received the following message in an e-mail. Of particular note is the three words at the end of the first sentence

support Government policy

So, regardless of whether the information is best practice, evidence based, culturally appropriate or cost effective, if it does not reflect the policy of the current government, thou shalt not produce it in a form that a member of the public could read. Sounds a bit George Orwell to me!

The best advert on New Zealand TV

And they do make some good ones!

Lotto 'Lucky Dog' by DDB NZ and The Sweetshop
- Watch more Music Videos at Vodpod.

And here's another - some people suggest it is fake - possibly!



However, exactly which one came first?

How do you become the CEO of Telecom?

Just been browsing the internet and came across this fella - like me he is Scottish, unlike me he has a doctorate in Geology (well, I have a Masters, but not in Geology). His name is Paul Reynolds and he is the CEO of Telecom. Not really a very bad job - he gets a mere $7 million per year, 17 times your average MP, and probably quite a bit more than the sub $50K that is the average wage.

So how do you get a job like that? I don't mind being their CEO, indeed I wouldn't mind just being a director - look what they get!

During the year ended 30 June 2010, the fees paid to non-executive directors were as follows:

• For the Chairman NZ$435,000;
• For each non-executive director NZ$145,000;
• For the chairman of each of the Audit and Risk Management Committee and Human Resources and Compensation Committee, and Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee (if a different person than the chairman of the board) NZ$30,000; and
• For each member of a board committee NZ$15,000 (excluding the chairman and those persons who chair a committee).*
• For the Telecom board representative appointed to the Independent Oversight Group NZ$30,000.

*No more than one amount for membership of a Board Committee will be paid where a director is a member of more than one Committee.

Unreal - $435K for being the chairman and attending meetings - gees, I could do that!! Obviously there is a catch

No superannuation was paid to any director for the financial year ended 30 June 2010.

Poor directors losing a perk there!

So exactly how do you become a director - does anyone 'ordinary' actually know?

The Nanny State?

Who needs remote control
From the Civic Hall
Push a button
Activate
You gotta work an' you're late

The words of Joe Strummer – in a recent blog I considered was NZ too democratic for its own good. Now, having had the chance to reflect on that, the outcomes of the local body elections and the political context of New Zealand (as we seeing Rortney Hide going toe to toe with the Maori Party over access to beaches), it would be good to discuss the concept of the ‘Nanny State’.

Returning to the lyrics of the song above – who exactly needs ‘control’? Do we leave ourselves open to be ‘controlled’, do our ‘leaders’ need to have ‘control’ in order to maintain their status and the general equilibrium of society (NB according to Thatcher there is no such thing as society, yet she was one of the most controlling politicians ever!)

 

There is a very interesting and understandable explanation of how politics became ‘left’ or ‘right’ here. What is less well defined is the concept of ‘nanny state’

It is interesting to see how it has been identified as a force for good; in my musings earlier this week I mentioned obesity, tobacco and other harmful things (gambling springs to mind). Anyway, is a government who has ‘controls’ to prevent harm coming to various members of its population actually a nanny state? Some examples

• Having speed limits on roads
• Increasing taxation on harmful substances
• Preventing children from being smacked
• Banning smoking in public places

All four have been contentious issues in New Zealand, generally within the last Labour led administration, and they are arguably one of the reason Labour were voted out. However, whilst exerting ‘control’ all four do exactly what governments are elected to do – to ensure the safety and well being of the population of the country.

Speed limits are there to ensure safety, reduce accidents, minimise wear and tear on roads and structures. Taxation on say Tobacco products increases revenue to assist in treating the ailments cause by that addiction, but also acts as a barrier to taking up smoking. Harming children is just bad – normalising violence is not good (in any case the right did not really explain what the repeal of section 59 was actually for). Same with banning smoking in bars – in prevents the exposure to smoke for those who want a smoke free environment.

None of these are nanny state. So why are the National government afraid to act on our obesity epidemic, our excessive drinking culture and most importantly, ignoring the evidence that drink driving kills? Thinking back to when I studied social policy, rather than taking a pluralist approach, the current government are only really interested in business; their view is self determination, do what suits you, minimise state intervention.

Looking at the second image all I can say is how irrational is that!! Is it time to tell the world about how irrational behaviour will, in the long run, cost the control more than just dollars and cents?

Gross generalisations....

First in a series of I don’t know how many…. I guess this was somewhat inspired by those ‘people of Walmart’ pictures, the train wrecks of life, obese cross dressers, fat women in short skirts, the mis-shapen, the child neglecters, etc…..

Anyway, I frequently have to walk through Rotorua Central Mall, as it is where my work is located. To describe it as a ‘mall’ is a bit misleading, it is a collection of shops, with an enclosed food court, but mainly open to the elements. From my observation today I bring you generalisation number one -

If, as alleged, smoking helps to keep you thin and/or suppresses your appetite, why is it that all people sat on their butts out side the food court, engaging in the self destruction called smoking are in excess of 100kg – and that is the women, not the men, they are even larger?

This links to generalisation two –

Why is it that shop security people are so big that they could not possibly chase any sticky fingered youth? Is it a pre-requisite for the job?

And to close today observations

It would appear that the ability to use a cars indicators in inversely proportional to the size or volume of the exhaust – e.g. if you have a big bore ‘muffler’ (contradiction in terms) you can’t use your indicators – probably as your seat is so far reclined you can barely reach the steering wheel!

So what exactly is racism?

And more to the point, how does it happen, is it appropriate, is it worse in New Zealand or the UK; and possibly why even bother to try to start to explain

* I am explaining as it gets it off my chest - me, today!!

According to the dictionary definition racism is

• the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
• discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

The UN doesn't actually define racism, but instead

• the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. 

So, let's consider some recent media stories, both here in New Zealand and from the UK. In the UK there has been some interesting research on the make up of the prison population - in the 10 years from 1998 to 2008 (when the UK has been under a Labour government) the number of black inmates has doubled. There are now seven times the number of Afro-Caribbean prisoners than the percentage of similar people in the mainstream population; Muslims make up a stonking 12% of the prison population (despite being less than 3% of the general population. So, why is this? Are all black and Muslim people criminals, or, are they more likely to be singled out for custodial sentences - this would certainly link to the second definition. Similarly in New Zealand it is well recognised that Maori and Pacific Islanders are over represented in custodial statistics. Maybe there is some truth to the over representation by virtue of committing more crime - if you are in a situation that is perceived by you as hopeless, where your peers are in gangs, where the education, welfare and health systems have failed you, you are more likely to go off the rails - and of course minorities are over represented in these groups.

Meanwhile in the media in New Zealand we have witnessed not one, but two media 'personalities' engage in real 'racist' activity. The first is the Paul Henry case - he's gone, which is good news. The second is the Michael Laws case; he is another outspoken individual, another who has set race relations back many years. In both these cases the perpetrators were offensive to specific ethnic groups and both asserted that they were somehow superior - racism as per definition one. Hiding behind an excuse of 'but it's funny!' is weak - it may be a chuckle, but not when you are the population that is affected, offended or disadvantaged through no fault of your own.

Why has this whole debacle upset me so much? Well simply because I believe that left unchecked inequalities are harmful. I am extremely worried with the road New Zealand is going down, it is not healthy. Labeling individuals in the manner these public figures have done is not productive, it undermines any attempt to have a fairer society, arguably something the current government have failed to nurture. What is reassuring is that you can actually find some real empirical evidence of measures that do work, that help communities to have stronger, more egalitarian societies and in doing so rid populations of the scourge of racism.

Pub Charities, and in particular one based in Hamilton

Some of you may know that I take my kids sport pretty seriously, I could never be described as a shrinking violet, I am that screaming abusive parent on the side lines - sorry, that's just me!! Some of you also know I take it to the next level, getting involved in the organisation of these, often being the poor bugger left to do the applications for funding.
For anyone outside of New Zealand let me explain what exactly Pub Charities are; these are 'trusts' that are organised to manage the 'Poker Machines' - the casino type machines where you pop in your silver in the hope of getting three kings and a payout. Unfortunately, whilst these are seen as a legitimate 'leisure' activity, in really they target the lower end of society and New Zealand has a real problem gambling issue. The Pub Charity trusts, of which there are many, take the net proceeds and divvy these up to charitable and philanthropic groups so they can fund certain projects. Very noble, real latter day Robin Hood's, taking from the poor and giving to many others - at least the profit doesn't end up where it shouldn't - or does it? Well let's consider the group below

The Grassroots Trust, by all accounts is one of these fair and transparent organisations. Now, all the 'trusts' are supposed to give back to their local communities. Well the Grassroots Trust was established by the Waikato RFU, and guess what, they get a nice $250K per month. That's right people a cool $3 million per year goes straight to the group that controls rugby in the Waikato (not Rotorua where we have a few of their venues); of course the process of giving grants must be transparent - not if each member idenitifies and affiliation with the major recipients - I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine!
In the second three months of this year their 'donations were as follows

BOPRFU		Waikato RFU				Other Rugby
22724		210000			Hamilton Marist	112022
40000		150000			Te Rapa	25000
		250000			Hamilton OB	30000
					Waitete	5000
					Tauranga Sports	6103.39
					Te Awamutu	47245
					Hautapu	91021
					Leamington	20000
					EBOP	2000
					Marist St. Michaels	1894
					Morrinsville	15000
					Raglan	10000
					Thames	2000
62724		610000				367285.4

So over a million dollars to two rugby bodies plus nearly $400K to clubs, the majority of which are in, yes that's right, Waikato. (and about $300K went to Waikato basketball and Northern Districts cricket, leaving $200K for everyone else)

Now, their charter says they help amateur sport - the Waikato provincial team is professional (as the the BOP), so are Northern Districts cricket AND the Waikato Pistons basketball franchise - none of which draw sell out crowds. Now I could guess and suggest that the $3 million that wings its way to Waikato RFU pays the wages of this lot because technically they govern and support amateur sport (as well as having a professional team) - 24 staff!! Compare that to Waibop football who have more players, cover a larger geographical area and have about eight staff!!

A quick call to internal affairs - yes they know the trust, yes they know the situation, no they are powerless to do anything - why? Because the RFU themselves set the trust to fund THEMSELVES - that's right people, they place gambling machines in my community to fund their enterprises - grossly unfair. Other trusts it has to be said are much fairer (step forward the likes of the Lion Foundation, Southern Trust and Pelorus Trust, all of whom make sure the communities get back what they put in)

So next time you place a buck in a pokie machine, ask yourself, who is going to benefit?

Immigration, Nationalism, TV Journalists and Facebook

I had a very interesting conversation with a work colleague today, a Californian lady who is also a Facebook friend. She had read my status on October 1st, which went a bit like this

Ian would like to thank the New Zealand government for increasing GST to 15% and adding 7c per litre to petrol. You folks know how to get people to leave New Zealand

Now I thought this was pretty self-explanatory, so much so that a couple of people clicked the 'like' button. But oh no, some people found this offensive and came out with lines such as

if all you can do is bag nz ian, why not just faaark off home!?!?!?!?!????

OK  I thought, better revisit that post and see what I said that was derogatory about New Zealand. I was derogatory about the current government, which I have been openly critical of. The fact of the matter is people are leaving New Zealand in record numbers, something John Key promised to stop - FAIL!

My Californian colleague was actually quite surprised by the vitriol that such a comment could create. This brings me to the next thing - as immigrants does that remove our right to offer critical comment on anything Kiwi? Cue the idiotic Paul Henry, who whilst interview his 'best mate', John Key' proceeded to offer racist views regarding the governor general of New Zealand with his

Can the next governor general actually look like a kiwi?

A real Kiwi?

So what does a 'kiwi' look like? Being born, raised, educated and holding down senior position in New Zealand,  learning Te Reo Maori and being a good citizen (gaining a knighthood in the process) clearly doesn't make Sir Anand Satyanand a 'kiwi'. 


I love where I live, I love my lifestyle, I love the majority of the population of this country, but there is an incredible need for certain things to be sorted. The levels of racism are, in my opinion, as bad as racism in Europe. Often this is directly from people who are themselves immigrants. The sooner that 'Kiwi's' stop referring to everyone from South East Asia (be that Korea, China, Japan, etc) as 'Asian', the better. The sooner they recognise that Maori contribute to NZ in a positive way, the better - and lastly, the sooner racist clowns like Paul Henry are removed from prime time TV the better!!