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.

The use of the right word

Maybe it is a sign of aging, but I am increasingly becoming aware of the inappropriate use of certain words. When I was doing my under graduate degree my supervisor was a chap called Peter Callery. One thing that sticks in my head is his criticism of how I attempted to make my writing some how more ‘academic’ by the selective use of big words – as I progressed down my academic career I realised how right he was.

Dr. Callery really disliked the word ‘utilise’; I would have a sentence like

In this paper we utilise the following approaches….

His preference was the word ‘use’ – simple, correct and far more readable. I later found out his first degree was actually in English Language!

So, to the point, what word is bothering me this week?

Well, should you ‘use’ insane or inane?

I guess that depends on the sentence, but generally you hear people, objects (e.g. cars, journeys, buildings, etc) or even policies being described as insane – the definition of which is

not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.

of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.

utterly senseless: an insane plan.

The word you hear less frequently is inane, definition –

lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions. 

empty; void.

something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space. 

So, in real terms people are doing exactly the same as my ‘utilise’ experience, they are using a word inappropriately. The next time you want to be clever, just replace the incorrect ‘insane’, with the more apt ‘inane’, you’ll feel and look much more smart.

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!

Turning green

Yesterday I lost my virginity – well to be more precise my Hybrid car virginity. A work colleague took a Honda Insight out for a test drive and I hopped in for the ride. Was I impressed? Well it was very plastic inside; it was very quiet in economy mode and the little dials and stuff were impressive. Less impressive were the screams of the engine as it supplemented the system as we climbed a relatively steep hill (at 6000 rpm it reminded me of an electric drill on full power). This got me thinking when in the shower this morning.

The first thought was have I turned green; quite by chance I haven’t eaten any meat for nearly two days, so I must have reduced my carbon footprint considerably, seeing as the production of meat is one of the most energy consuming activities going (as is the refrigeration used to keep it in an edible state). However, the lengthy shower where I have these thoughts probably makes up for any savings.

I also got to thinking about renewable energy sources. I had seen the previous day that the proposed Severn Barrage had been cancelled in favour of several nuclear power stations. As a kid I loved nuclear, it was modern age, it was a symbol of power and it seemed all too good to be true – that was before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl – as an adult I am far more cautious.

Now I can understand that there are ecological reasons behind the cancellation, but are there as big ecological reasons as nuclear waste or accidental radiation release? It is about time governments started selling their green credentials a bit more and actually looked at renewable's in a more proactive manner.

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?