THE PERILS OF GOING RED

This is our street; these are our friends and neighbours:

• “Quake-hit residents forget it's Christmas” [NZ Herald 27 Dec 2011]
• “Depressing deja vu for quake victims” [ODT 27 Dec 2011]
• “Flooded area can't be fixed – expert” [The Press 27 Dec 2011]

The 23 December quakes seem to have broken the resolve of Monterey Place, Parklands, Christchurch. The street is flooded from liquefaction for the third time in a year. It looks like the entire street wants to be “Red-Zoned.” I live in Monterey Place, I’ve done the research, and I don’t want to be Red-Zoned. This article explains why. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what Vanessa says (apart from, perhaps, the confirmed number of re-builds); it's the Red Zone compensation plan I take issue with. Forgive me if I sound bitter or cynical at times as you read this – you’ll see why.

I write with a lot of sadness, but understanding, when I hear about my friends and neighbours in Monterey Place who have had enough. To be fair, my family and I haven’t been around for the third clean-up, the clean-up resulting from 23 December’s quakes. I’ve a feeling that has been the final straw for some. We’ve only been through two clean-ups, and my family still wants to live there long-term. So, in 10-15 years, we hope the quake effects would be behind us. However, we all have different agendas, different experiences, and different effects from the quake. As you might appreciate, this article is written from my family’s perspective.

In June 2011, the New Zealand government determined a system of coloured “zones” for quake-hit Christchurch residents, following the quakes of September 2010, February 2011, and June 2011:

• White Zone – the land still has to be assessed.
• Green Zone – the land has been tested and is determined fit for habitation.
• Orange Zone – the land has already been tested, but is awaiting further testing and a decision. Such land will subsequently be determined as Red or Green.
• Red Zone – the land is condemned, unfit to place a dwelling.

http://www.landcheck.org.nz/

In the event of land condemnation ("going Red"), the government will put together an “offer.” I put “offer” in inverted commas, because it isn’t an offer at all – we don’t have a choice. If we don’t accept, we’ll be forced off our land. Well, that offer in question is the GV (government valuation) of our land-plus-dwelling based on the 2007 rateable valuation. Sounds fair? Read on. The “offer” doesn’t come anywhere close to giving my family the house we have, elsewhere in Christchurch.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/5179959/Crown-to-buy-worst-hit-Christchurch-homes

In our case, we would secure $542,000 from the government “offer” if our house is placed in the Red Zone, and we are forced from our home. This might seem a lot to anyone outside Auckland, but it’s about comparing like-with-like. We found that our house will cost in excess of $600,000 just to rebuild – before we even find a section. Lord knows what the cost will be in a few months time. The key issues here are; house-affordability, and securing that like-for-like. We have neither with the government “offer”

There’s a lot of talk about re-building for quake-hit residents. In the aftermath of the February and June 2011 quakes, Mayor Bob Parker championed “10,000 sections” that will be available for evicted homeowners. Sections in Halswell are kicking around the $250,000 mark at the moment – up $50,000 since the government announcement in June 2011. It’s a prosperous household in these times that can afford to pay $250,000 for a section to build on, before even thinking about the kind of house they’d like. Frankly, that’s completely out for most of us. Remember, the earthquakes have destroyed thousands of jobs and livelihoods.

So, the obvious cost-conscious solution is to buy an existing house, elsewhere in Christchurch. Guess what’s happening to those houses that are habitable and are in areas which have avoided the liquefaction? Yup – prices are on the rise. What did Gerry Brownlee say on Campbell Live, when a Bexley resident predicted this in June 2011? “Oh, I don’t think that’s going to happen.” Thousands of displaced homeowners, and Free-Market Gerry didn’t think that such demand would increase house or section prices?!! And what did Gerry say to those that said the “offer” isn’t enough to buy another house? “This is when you need to talk to your bank.” In other words, folks, we’ve got to get deeper into hock. And what did Gerry say in the run up to the offer being announced? “It’s all about equity preservation.” If the “offer” is “all about equity preservation,” why is he saying people should be talking to the banks to arrange $100,000 more debt?!!

When I explain this financial wrangle to people, those who aren’t going through this, I’m asked, “Well, you have insurance, don’t you?” Yes, we do. In fact, we have Full Replacement House Insurance. However, this is where the insurance companies are behaving quite cynically (albeit, to be fair, probably to the letter of their policies!). You see, our house is not a technical write-off. So even though the government condemns our land, AMI will say, “But your house is reparable – here’s the repair money.” And wait; that repair money will be deducted from the government payout!! So we still will receive only $542,000 to find a new house.

And by the way, that $542,000 has to include lawyers’ fees, any additional mortgage application, planning applications, surveying costs, moving costs, and anything else associated with buying or building a house. Remember, we don’t want to move – the government would force us to move.

This is why we can't embrace being "Red-Zoned.” Yes our market value will take a hit - but we won’t lose any money if we don’t sell! We don’t want to move – we love our house! In a couple of years, the quakes will settle down, our house will be repaired, and we will achieve that “new normal” that everyone keeps talking about. Yes, our market value will take a hit, but it’s still better than the government’s derisory “offer.” I accept that many of my neighbours want out, and some don’t. What might be a good idea in marginal streets like ours (Green TC3, Blue) would be to give homeowners the choice; take the “offer” or stay in the street.

The financial truth is that for most, the government payout is woefully inadequate. I accept that the government had to come up with some solution, but is this truly the best they could do? It was certainly the cheapest and least imaginative. I hear Gerry and John talk about “winners and losers.” Well, those “winner” stories are keeping awful quiet. Or maybe those winners are few and far between. The truth for my family is that we will NOT be able to buy like-for-like. When you have insurance, isn’t there an expectation to be compensated like-for-like in the event of your house being condemned? You’d think so. We hear arguments about how this is a major event, and an act of God, so insurance doesn’t apply. In defence of the offer, we also hear arguments about how our house is worthless now anyway, because of its location and the earthquake. All these arguments try to tell us the government offer is fair.

Well, if we didn’t have the EQC then that might be true.

When the Earthquake Commission (EQC) was formed in the wake of the 1931 Napier-Hastings quake, there was an expectation that we would be “covered” in the event of the next big quake. There was an expectation that we would get “like-for-like.” As part of our insurance premiums, we also put into the EQC fund which has since been put into off-shore government bonds. In other words, successive New Zealand governments have had sixty years to prepare for the next big quake. Sixty years. The government has created an expectation within New Zealand, and now it’s baulking. Prime Minister John Key makes us feel that we’re fortunate to be getting this “offer,” because this is the biggest government land deal in history. Well, we don’t buy it. It’s insulting, it’s belittling, and it’s not enough for another house.

The next phrase we get from worried taxpayers is, “But who’s going to pay for it all?” Answer: The government. Yes, the taxpayer. Get over it. Raise the upper tax rate; tax those who can afford it. It’s an emergency event for crying out loud. Europe’s doing it, and even America’s considering it!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/5653077/Obama-tax-rich-to-cut-deficit

In summary, here’s the reality if the government forces us out of our home:

• The government will give us $542,000 compensation for our section-plus-dwelling, if they condemn our land.
• We haven’t gone “Red” yet. So every day that goes by, in the event that we DO go Red, devalues that $542,000, as Christchurch house and section prices continue to rise.
• To rebuild our house on another section will cost in excess of $600,000 – before we even factor-in the cost of the land.
• Current equivalent houses, already built in Christchurch, are selling at around $600,000 to $650,000.
• Our house isn’t damaged enough to be an insurance rebuild. Even if the land is condemned, AMI insurance company will say, “We will repair your house, not re-build it.”
• Any repair money given to us by the insurance company will be deducted from the government “offer.”
• If we stay in our house, and resist the “offer,” we will be threatened with a “reduced offer.”
• We have Full Replacement House Insurance, yet we will have to find another $100,000 to buy the equivalent house for my family - because $100k is about the difference between what the government will give us and what the equivalent house in Christchurch ACTUALLY costs!

If we had a like-for-like offer, we might happily "Go Red". However, the recession-ridden, cold-hearted decision-makers of this government have delivered vulnerable, quake-shocked people into the hands of the banks, the property developers, and the lawyers. When such people are already down, they don’t have much fight left in them.

WHY ARE TAX CUTS NO LONGER A PRIORITY?

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6158896/Tax-cuts-no-longer-a-National-priority

I wonder why cutting income tax is now such a low priority? It wasn’t three years ago. Could it be that tax-cuts are a low priority because of the government’s legislative workload? Hang on – I thought the bulk of the government’s legislative workload was geared towards economic policy? And isn’t tax one of the key tools of this government’s economic policy?


And therein lays the key implied admission by tax-cuts being “near the bottom on the list of National's priorities”: lowering income tax doesn’t work. Lowering income tax doesn’t bring utopia prosperity. Lowering income tax doesn’t filter-down wealth to the impoverished. Lowering income tax doesn’t create a swath of new jobs. Lowering income tax doesn’t bring back the thousands of Kiwis who have migrated to Australia.

In fact, all that results in lowering income tax is this:
• It empties the government’s coffers of much-needed tax revenue. Governments then find new taxes to fill them – usually regressive taxes – such as increased GST, increased power bills, or increased duty on fags and booze.
• It gives more money to those who already have it, not to those who need it
• The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer

Let’s be quite clear: when I talk about “the rich,” I am not talking about hard-working small business operators, successful sales people, or successful information-age professionals. I’m talking about over-paid executives who continually command pay rises at obscenely higher rates than their employees. I’m talking about people who make money simply because they already have lots of money. I’m talking about people who exploit suppliers, customers and staff – and give back far, far less than they take out. I’m taking about people who actually don't need tax cuts. So when I talk about increasing tax, and not cutting tax, I'm referring to income tax at the high-end.

One of today’s wonders is the internet and the wealth of information that is freely available to all of us. And that has changed our thinking. We don’t blindly accept (well, most of us don’t) when a politician tells us that something is. When a politician spins, we can now jump on the computer and conduct some research (Hah! Like I did!).

When Margaret Thatcher was carving out her “New Age” in the 1980s, Norman Lamont and Tubby Lawson were heralding the arrival of M-O-N-E-T-A-R-I-S-M. “Ooooooooooh!” we all cooed, “Sounds impressive.” Before the internet and easily-available economic information, the western democracies accepted monetarism as the solution to stagnating economies. We let it happen. Top founding monetarist Milton Friedman became a chief advisor to Ronald Regan, and Regan thought the Laffer Curve was the most important economic diagram of the millennium. Margaret Thatcher followed suit in the “Special Relationship” between Ron-Margaret and US-UK. Poor Dennis Thatcher: how could he compete with the President of the USA and a film star (albeit a damn poor one on both counts)?

The Laffer Curve (illustrated right) determined that if you increase tax to a point, you actually lower tax revenue returns, because tax evasion becomes worthwhile. So, the Laffer Curve determined that if you lower tax, you actually increase tax revenue because the logic works in reverse (yes, that’s the theory!). At the equilibrium point, profits for business, taxes for the government, and happiness for the rich are all in sync. Monetarists will always claim the current tax rate is to the right of the curve (Point B). But just try getting those said pundits to put their head on the block and determine that optimum tax rate! In other words, the Laffer Curve is another hokum theoretical economic model.

However, Ron and Maggie loved it, and adopted it. America plunged into debt, but Britain actually climbed out of debt.

Then came the reports in the mid-1980s that Milton Friedman had fiddled the figures in his research, and so monetarism was a farce. How then, did British monetarism allegedly succeed? How did the UK national debt reduce? It wasn't due to tax cuts. It was because monetarism, chiefly a US concept, didn’t factor-in privatised industries – the USA had none! Thatcher gave away £2b a year in tax cuts, on the back of £2b a year in public asset sales. The conclusion for us all, including our new shining New Zealand government? Tax cuts don’t reduce national debt. Far from it. All that happens with a tax-cutting regime is that the rich have more, and the needy are further deprived. Thirty years of monetarism, 30 years of a tax-cutting culture, and what do we have:

• “US Affluent Classes Dwarf China and India”
• “Wealth Gap Hits 30 Year High”
• “NZ Rich-Poor Gap Widens Faster Than Rest of World”

It’s taken us 30 years of social deprivation to wake up. In the Austerity Wars of 2011, was the talk in Europe about tax cuts to bring prosperity and reduce debt? Far from it. Europe, and now even America, is considering increasing income tax at the high-end, to drag itself out of debt and recession:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/5653077/Obama-tax-rich-to-cut-deficit

Because monetarism doesn’t work. Because cutting high-end income tax doesn’t work.

As I was writing this, I was so wrapped up in the economics, I almost forgot about the social aspect of tax cuts! And therein lays the fundamental problem with the right-wing government which runs our economy. It’s all about the numbers. What do you think are the social effects of tax cuts? Consider how the needy and impoverished feel, as they watch the rich grow richer. Consider how the low-waged feel as power, rent, milk, rates, all rise above their ability to pay for them.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5989843/Revealing-the-gap-between-NZs-rich-and-poor

What reminded me about the social aspect of increased impoverishment, were the words of my flatmate in 1995, when I lived in Wimbledon. Jim Deighton was arguing against our other flatmate, Sam, whose wealthy daddy “paid too much tax.” Jim's words, while harsh, had a crude truth about them:

“So here’s the thing, Sam,” says Jim. “If you deprive the poor of social programmes, self-help programmes, and adequate living, then they’re going to come into your fancy street, and they’re going to come into your fancy house and they’re going to rob your f*cking home.”

PROTEST IS NOW A CRIME

“V for Vendetta” and Resisting the Establishment
I spoke with a bright young lady last night, who reminded me how good the film, “V for Vendetta” is. We discussed the fine line between terrorists and freedom fighters. We discussed the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the recent London Riots. It made me think about our attitude to protest and the establishment’s attitude to protest. In my subsequent research, I found some interesting recent articles:

"Police arrest 20 at London student protest" [Stuff, Nov 2011]
"An internet kill switch and cyberIDs for all" [Aardvark Aug 2011]
"Stop apologising for these louts" [Aardvark Aug 2011]

“V for Vendetta” is set in the UK (probably London), where a masked crusader fights a repressive government which clamps down on freedom and protest. Ironically today, the UK government wants to exert a similar repression. The UK government wants to use the recent London protests as an excuse to adopt a Kill Switch “to disable social networking sites and networks if they feel some unease rising within the ranks of the great unwashed” [Bruce Simpson]. Prime Minster Cameron must love this; for the publicity on his own self, for the restrictions he can exercise on one of the world’s most important democracies, and for the attempted controls (yet again!) he can impose on the internet. Look closer - this story is really three big-picture stories:

• How our so-called free democracies continually try to restrict our freedoms
• How our so-called free democracies continually try to control the internet
• How our so-called free democracies consider sporadic protesting a crime

Cameron might yet succeed in convincing the proles on all three counts. He might succeed, because the spin on the initial London protests has been whipped up into a frenzy which purports to rip apart the fabric of UK society. It won’t, of course, but Cameron is spinning it thusly. The reality is that western politicians of mainstream parties are hypocrites who simply want to exercise more controls on what little democracy and free speech we have left. Shame on you, our elected representatives. Are we now in such a place that protest – albeit angry protest – has now become a crime?

Protest is Bad and Naughty and Nasty
All too often, we tow the establishment line; “sporadic protest = riot”. I am not condoning the opportunistic thugs, looters and low-lives in London who have hijacked this protest. These idiots play into the hands of the establishment, and make the lives of The People even more restricted. In fact, these idiots kill our freedoms and kill our democracy. Read on - you'll see where I'm going with this. The riots were sparked off by a perceived huge wrong; a young black man shot dead by police. However, when protestors take to the street to express their anger, they're BAAAAAAAADDDD. The immediate government reaction to the protests was "They're activists, they're thugs, they're radicals, and they’re nasty."

Do you know, that's exactly what the establishment said about the UK Chartists (Google it!) in the 19th Century? We have since adopted all points but one of the Chartists' 6-point charter, as the building blocks for our modern democracy. Sadly, this is where the Occupy Movement will fail utterly; it does not have the specific, listed aims that the Chartists did. By the way, the Chartists leaders were all imprisoned for between 16 months to 21 years. Before they were imprisoned, I might add, they formulated our contemporary democracy which has since been perverted and abused by career politicians. These are the political parasites who now govern us – victims of power abuse who have not grown up. Read Alice Miller’s “Drama of Being a Child”

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_drama_of_being_a_child.html?id=lG9xQgAACAAJ

I digress a little. Bear with me, I’m getting there.

Even the peaceful Occupy Movement protests are considered a threat – otherwise they wouldn’t be resisted. The Occupy Movement directly challenges the establishment, rather than the indirect threat of the London Riots. Splendidly, their adamantly peaceful nature is frustrating the establishment’s attempts to quash them. Thankfully, the Occupy Movement isn’t giving the ammunition that the London Riots did. However, the machinations of the US, UK and even NZ governments are trolling through the various laws to try to end the Occupy occupations. Let’s face it; in the UK, the police and government can do just about anything under the auspices of the Breach of the Peace, National Security or Disorderly Conduct laws. And I’ll elaborate on the limitations on our freedoms from the so-called War on Terror, later.

How Protest is Used to Erode our Freedoms
So here’s the hypocrisy. Let’s remind ourselves of some populist activists whom the western establishment has applauded in recent years;

• The Berlin Wall scalers, who tore down the wall in a populist movement
• Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia and Lech Walesa of Poland - good, naive men who led a populist movement, and then ousted by said political parasites from their own country
• The students in Tiananmen Square who stood in front of tanks and died
• The Egyptian protesters who fought against Mubarak and died

These protesters, above, were applauded by the west because they didn’t involve or result in change in the west. Capitalist “democracies” resist social change to their own country, but love change in other countries as trade opportunities. This is why I cite our western governors are hypocrites. And so are those who ride on the wave of their hysteria over these protests. How many of our fundamental freedoms are chipped away when events like this are used by the establishment? In fact, some would say the western establishment loves events like this. It uses them as excuses to curtail our fundamental freedoms. Geogre Dubya Bush was the Master! Look at how the UK and USA has used this and “The War on Terror” to limit, monitor and control:

• Our freedom of association
• Our freedom of speech
• Our freedom of communication
• Our freedom of anonymity
• Our freedom of movement
• Our privacy

Defining the Establishment
Before I discuss the internet and social-media threat to the establishment, it’s worth me defining “The Establishment,” so I don’t get accused of using wide clichés. I’m very clear on exactly who makes up the establishment:

• Capitalist-led, business-orientated politicians. That’s pretty much the mainstream political parties in all our governments. They came to power as a result of the bankruptcy and failure of the monarchies, post-WWI.
• Business leaders. The ruling executive class whose corporations are threatened by disruption and social change. They’re the hypocrites who now reap the most rewards from business expansion in foreign markets undergoing radical social change – but can’t abide such change in their host countries.
• The Civil Service (police leaders, judiciary, reserve bankers) who are most threatened by radical change to their host country.

The civil service part of the establishment is an interesting one. Following the collapse of the European monarchies after WWI, they seamlessly switched allegiance from the collapsed monarchies to the capitalists who subsequently won the peace.

I’m often accused of being a communist. If the Leninist-Stalin model was communism, then you can keep it. AJP Taylor, the famous historian, noted that the “revolutionary” Bolsheviks used exactly the same civil service – same employees – that the Tsars used! Strange how little change actually occurred as a result of the 1917 Russian “Revolution.” One dictatorship was replaced by another. There was no real social change; poverty was retained, elitism was retained. Today, the internet offers radicals the real opportunity to facilitate and plan real change.

If communism means egalitarianism, limits on power, controls on greed, and political accountability, then I’m happy to have that lable.

The Threat of the Internet to the Establishment
So here’s my point. The establishment is truly threatened by the internet. In the crass words of Dubya, “They hate us because we’re free.” The internet allows enormous freedom of speech (hah - like this blog!), has few controls, and it changes so fast, the people who rule us find it threatening. Anything that can’t be controlled by the establishment is a threat – which is why so many of the freedoms I described are being eaten away. This is because those things that can’t be controlled might, God forbid, lead to change. Real change. Social change. Such true change, that is for the betterment of our society, is abhorred and feared by the establishment. Such change means that as we become more empowered, the power of the establishment becomes diluted. Or worse (gasp!), the members of the establishment have to pay more tax to pay for that change. This is the reason that the establishment continually tries to put controls on the internet. Up until now, the reason for controls has been to (quite rightly) curtail kiddy porn. When those controls don’t work, copyright infringement is the excuse for new, tighter controls on the internet. And now “potential riots” is the excuse to stem the paradigm shift of social networking and the freedom of information transfer inherent in the internet.

It doesn’t help that the establishment doesn’t truly understand the internet, which is why their attempts to control it are so clumsy. But wait. I hear the whores of the establishment screaming in my ears. “If you’re not committing a crime, then you’ve nothing to fear.” Fine. Have you read Orwell’s "1984"? The logical conclusion to this indolent thinking is that you then have no problem with government CCTV cameras in your house. You have no problem with CCTV cameras in your lounge and bedroom, with more government agents watching your every move. Your increased taxes would be paying for these agents. Well, such controls would surely eliminate every crime, wouldn’t they? And, you’ve nothing to fear from government cameras in your room, remember - because you’re not committing a crime.

Conclusion
Do you value our democracy? Do you enjoy the limits placed on our politicians? Do you enjoy universal suffrage? Do you want the government in your lounge? Read more about the “Chartists.” They’d be turning in their graves by now.

I’m afraid that the powers-that-be will succeed in their attempts to do adopt a kill switch, on the back of this right-wing hysteria, whipped up by the equally right-wing media. Time and again, the white middle classes roll over and take it up the jackseye, if anything threatens their mortgage-related comfortable living. We are ants. The powerful voice of the educated middle classes has been silenced by the mortgage tombs around their necks and the vain hope of promotion. Capitalism has enfeebled, virtually enslaved, the middle classes. The current form of our business-driven democracy dilutes our voice, and protest has become a crime. We are ants.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE RUGBY. YEAH RIGHT

Background – Corporates Control the Rugby World Cup
Being a rugby-loving Scot here in New Zealand was particularly interesting in September-October, as we hosted the 2011 Rugby World Cup (RWC) tournament. I started writing an article about how ridiculous the bagpipe ban was, at RWC Scotland matches after I read this:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/fan-central/5651953/Scots-appeal-Rugby-World-Cup-bagpipe-ban

I felt irritated by the ban, because of how much apparent control the IRB exercised on what is supposed to be a people’s national event. Heck, the supporters wanted bagpipes!! As I researched and debated the issue, my friend AND my wife said, “Hang on! How would you feel about a piper sitting next to you blaring away while you’re trying to watch the match?” There’s a lot of truth in that, although I challenge anybody to show me a piper who can play for a full 80 minutes - plus half-time!

However, my research instead led me to something more serious; the hijacking of our national sports event, RWC 2011. Once the IRB allowed itself to be ruled by corporate sponsors, it led to a corporate hijacking of the RWC tournaments - including RWC 2011. This led to decisions being made contrary to the wishes of the average rugby supporter, voter and taxpayer. The NZ government was complacent in that hijacking, because they wanted to keep on-side the IRB. We’ll discuss how later, when we talk about the Major Events Management Act. Succinctly for now, The NZ government didn’t want a repeat of 2003, where New Zealand was to co-host RWC 2003 with Australia, then lost it.

For RWC 2003, Australia and New Zealand put in a joint bid to co-host the tournament. As preparations continued, the NZRFU resisted the amount of IRB control, including the absolute definition of “clean stadia.” This was the excuse the Australians and IRB needed, to move RWC 2003 solely to Australia, and away from those “gobby kiwis”. The sad thing was, that the NZRFU was pushing against the IRB control - unacceptable control of what the NZRFU saw as a New Zealand tournament. Unfortunately, the NZRFU simply did not understand that the IRB and its sponsors LITERALLY own the RWC. It was never "a New Zealand tournament.” The Australians understood this in 2003; it allowed Australia to steal-away the tournament from New Zealand. And today, that RWC ownership is even more controlled! Once the IRB became infected by greed and profit, they became whores to their corporate sponsors. Then, that level of control on the RWC went beyond reason.

Let’s look at how the corporates hijacked "our" RWC. Does anyone else think it’s outrageous that we couldn't drink anything but Heineken at RWC games or at Fazones around the country? The single-beer farce is merely one example of how supporters’ wishes are suppressed in our national event, but there are other examples. The IRB and its sponsors now own the RWC with unashamed control. The reality of that fact, for you and I, is this:

• Inflated rugby ticket pricing at stadiums, well outside the affordability of your average rugby-loving kiwi.
• Consumer choice crushed, when you go to buy a beer at a rugby game – and don’t even get me started on the beer price gouging!
• Virtually all live rugby games during the season only on Sky TV, aside from a couple during the World Cup
• World cup games delayed or non-existent on free-to-air channels
• Pubs couldn’t even say “Rugby World Cup matches here” on their pub chalkboards.
• Frustratingly petulant examples of brand infringement in the news, such as players fined for wearing unsanctioned mouthguards

Good God, I’ve just found out that “Heineken” is so insidious, that it’s even in my spellchecker! Heck, I’ll probably be in trouble for using the phrases like “RWC” and “Heineken” without permission from the IRB!


IRB Attempted Control Over the Media
As the most visible corporate hijack is that of TV coverage, I’ll elaborate on the issue. How many of us wanted to (or could afford to) pay for Sky TV, simply to watch all 48 RWC games live? Because I can tell you that, sadly, Sky was the ONLY channel where you could watch all the games live. Our free-to-air Maori Channel did well to secure all the games, but most of those were delayed coverage. Was I the only person who thought it was outrageous that our national state-owned broadcaster couldn’t even secure a fraction of those games – delayed or otherwise!? The New Zealand free-to-air channels tried to take some control back in the TV rights bidding-process, in 2010. However, the IRB didn’t like the free-to-air channels colluding in the bidding process. Remember, the IRB thrive on control. So, the IRB pulled the games from the TV1 and TV3 partnership. The IRB said it was trying to maximise profits from the RWC – Sky was prepared to pay more for live games exclusivity. In trying to maximise profits, the IRB believed that control and dictation, rather then partnership and communication, were the best ways to achieve that. There are many examples of the dictatorial IRB trying to crush resistance to the amount of RWC control. Here’s where the IRB tried to control the written media, not just the TV coverage:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/5500028/Aussie-media-groups-to-boycott-World-Cup

The essence of the story is that the Aussie newspapers said “No!” to a restrictive contract with the IRB on the use of video clips of the games on websites. Australia's Newspaper Publishers' Association (NPA) CEO, Mark Hollands, expressed that ''Publishers' rights to use video to report news is permitted under the fair dealing exemption of the Copyright Act. Publishers are not prepared to contractually sign away these rights [to the IRB].''

There were two interesting sub-issues here, with the Aussie media’s resistance to the IRB:
• The IRB having a corporate-like hold on what is supposed to be a national event. Because Sky paid for exclusivity, the IRB wanted to deny the hosting country the right to show all the games on the free-to-air channels – even down to little video clips.
• The hypocrisy of Rupert Murdoch (pictured right) over his relationship with the IRB. He’s happy to hijack the sole live rights to the RWC, but his media outlets bleat when the IRB reciprocate with controlled media reporting.


Consequences for Rugby Being in the Professional Age
Yes, I know rugby is in the professional age, and this is the price we pay for letting Sky and other corporations monopolise rugby around the world – particularly here in New Zealand. However, these things creep up on us, don’ t they? They creep up on us so insidiously, that by the time the full implications are realised, our voice has been diluted, and it’s too late to cry “FOUL!” How many of us truly realised that this is how it would be, when the IRB did a deal with rugby players in 1995, to make the game a professional sport? Slowly but surely, the corporate takeover of our national sport dug in its beachhead.

The problem with our society and our form of democracy is that this is exactly what happens and how it happens in all things, not just with RWC; when something is wrong, our voice is diluted when we try to protest. As with the Sky TV hi-jack of the games, the Major Events Management Act slipped in quietly, before we all realised its implications. “The what?!!!” I hear you shout. Well, this was a law that our government passed to grant the IRB the right to fine businesses who breached the advertising “clean zone” rules. That is, fines for displaying wares which are not those of the IRB sponsors, or are not sanctioned by the IRB. Let’s be quite clear here – there are wars, rapes, murders and world-wide starvation, and our government coludes with the IRB to criminalise conflicting advertisers?!! Sheesh. This is supposedly “Our Government.” How many men-in-the-street agreed to that stupid act? The beauty of the act for the IRB is that our Ministry of Economic Development (MED) did all the dirty work in policing and fining for the act. It was a clever way for the IRB to be seen to be keeping its hands clean, don’t you think? Thankfully, it didn’t work too well. With every ludicrous example of where our MED enforced the Act, the IRB looked sillier and greedier. Here are some ridiculous examples of that IRB control. This is what the country had to put up with, because rugby is dominated by sponsorship:

• Samoan winger Alesana Tuilagi was fined NZ$10,000 because he wore a "branded" mouthguard for a match (good grief!). [Click here to read]
• A helicopter company was challenged by RWC organisers for taking aerial photos – it didn’t have IRB-sanctioned branding on the side. [Click here to read]
• Ambulances were required to “cover-up” logos of sponsors, not sanctioned by the IRB. Did the IRB have no shame? [Click here to read]
• A strip club and its workers risked fines after scantily clad ladies in skimpy, pseudo All-Blacks gear handed out leaflets in the 'clean zone.' [Click here to read]


Is it Truly About the Rugby Any More?
Remember in early September 2011, when Mike Miller (IRB CEO) was on TV watching a kids’ game of rugby? Did anyone else cough and splutter where he said, “This is what the rugby world cup’s all about.” Yeah, right, Mike. It’s all about the money, isn’t it? Yes, yes, yes, I know the arguments; we need the money to pay the All-Blacks, so they won’t go overseas. We need the sponsors’ money so we won’t lose All-Blacks players to the high-paying European and Japanese rugby clubs. However, if we’d shouted loud enough as the game was descending into this professional melting pot, things might be very different. Perhaps a few of us did, but that voice was not the mighty roar needed for change. Cleverly, the fall into professionalism was a slow one, and we protested a few at a time, at differing stages of the fall. Our voice was diluted – again.

So, when you read this article, there’s an emotion in us that says “That’s disgraceful!”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5679217/European-clubs-another-barrier-for-Pacific-teams
However, as with soccer, our top rugby clubs have ceased to be “Our Clubs.” They are now franchises, to the degree that the large European clubs are now, effectively, rich corporations. They’re not “clubs” any more; they’re profit-making companies.

Therefore, the decision of some “clubs” NOT to release their key players for the RWC was, from their perspective, purely a financial one: the club has paid for that player, they own him. The clubs do not want to lose that player’s impact on the field, nor risk him being injured in the RWC. I guess the unanswered question here is, why were some players released from high-profile clubs (Jonny Wilkinson, Brian O’Driscoll), but not others? The logical conclusion is clear; how long is it before all clubs refuse to release their players for a RWC, and professionalism bites the IRB on the ass? I hope I live to see that day.

You know, there was something innocent, sincere and pure about the Rugby World Cup in 1987, and even in 1991. This was before the executives clasped their grubby hands on it - before the IRB became infected and corrupted with greed. Where is it going to end:

• You and I get fined if we go to a RWC game and wear a rival sponsors clothing or display any brand not sanctioned by the IRB?
• We can only use Mastercards, not our widespread VISA or EFTPOS cards, during RWC?
• Part of the Major Events Management Act lowers the drinking age so Heiniken can sell more beer during RWC?

Sadly, I don’t think the Rugby World Cup is about the rugby any more.

ELECTRICITY SAVINGS THAT WORK FOR US

INTRODUCTION – NZ’S ELECTRICITY “REFORMS”
Maxwell Robert Bradford (born 1942, pictured right) is a former New Zealand politician and Cabinet Minister. He was an MP for the National Party from 1990 to 2002, and is known for introducing reforms to the electricity industry in 1998. What many of us don’t know, or forget, is that the New Zealand First Party supported those “reforms”. These are the same reforms that now provide you with limited competition, reduced supply per capita and increased power prices on an annual basis.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10526747

The Bradford legacy is this: since 2002 average residential electricity prices have risen by 4.7% a year in real terms. That means 4.7% over and above the general rate of inflation! It has created a new generation of people who can’t keep up with rising power prices, as every-day wages fail even to keep up with inflation. It has created a new kind of poverty; Power Paupers.
http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/electricity-prices

It has, on the other side of the scale, created a whole new swathe of high-paid executives. We pay their wages. To give you a specific example of these powerful people whom Bradford’s “reforms” have created, have a look at the case of Michael Stiassny. Who? Well, www.stiassny.org reports him as “The face behind New Zealand's skyrocketing power bills.” It tells us that “power rates have increased an astronomical 80% [since] Michael Stiassny took over as Chairman of Vector Energy” in 2002. During that time, “Stiassny's own compensation doubled.” Hang on - who the hell is Michael Stiassny?!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Listener_Power_List
Scarily, he’s the Chairman of Vector Energy (pictured right) and has leaped from nowhere to become the 7th most powerful person in NZ, 2009. Such are the rewards from managing an electricity company. So desperate is he to protect his low profile and his interests, he uses that power and money to gag our principal documentary maker:
http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845376#stiassny-sicks-lawyers-on-tvnz-

More recently, we’ve had eleven years of a Labour government, and how many new power stations were built? All those years of boom-time, and the most Labour did with that tax revenue, it would seem, was to build a layer of middle-management bureaucracy. Hardly a lasting legacy, don’t you think?

So, how’s those electricity “reforms” working out for you, New Zealand? If our mainstream political parties will not help you, how can you help yourself?


SAVE YOURSELF – SAVE ELECTRICITY WITH THESE 14 STEPS
These steps work. My family has always had low monthly power bills around $210-$250, largely to many of these points, below. That's not bad for family of five. However, the ideas coming out in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes of 2011 took our monthly power bills down even further to $177-$194. And that’s in a country of rising power prices. I’m not saying these tips, below, are a magic wand. I’m not saying each one of these cost-cuts will pay off your mortgage. BUT:

* Use them ALL and they WILL save you money:
* I’m sure there are other solutions, but these are the tips which work for us NOW
* This is our own personal experience – so it may not work for you
* These work for us – so there’s no harm in you giving them a go

1. Implement “Ripple” Power
Make sure, if you can, that you have “Ripple” Power installed. This is the facility that gives you cheap power after 9pm and until 7am the next morning. We had it when we moved in to this house, and not every house has it. Make sure YOU do.

2. Do Everything After 9pm, on Cheap Power
This, of course, depends on having Ripple Power. However, once you have Ripple Power, it opens up a whole avenue of cost-cutting. Do everything you can after 9pm on this cheap power; water heating, washing machine, dishwasher, mobile phone charging, re-chargeable batteries, even the car battery when it’s dead! Heck, we steam-clean the floor after 9pm!

3. Effective Water Heating – Turn it Down!
Crucially, we only do our water heating after 9pm as well. I know this is doubling up (a bit) on the above, but it’s worth making this point specific. We have a whacking great water-tank salvaged from Ashburton Army Base. As we only heat after 9pm, the tank lasts us all day, so it proves very cost-effective water heating. We kept tweaking the temperature down, until we heat only what we need to heat. Experiment with yours – turn it down until you have the lowest level that you need for your family.

4. Use your Microwave.
Anything with an element costs big electricity money. A microwave, alternatively, vibrates molecules to heat things. This means that heating a cup of water in the kettle costs TEN TIMES as much as heating a cup in the microwave. So, think what you can do in the microwave, instead of on the range or in the kettle; baked beans, tinned spaghetti, peas, soup, carrots, other vegetables, hot water for instant coffee, hot milk for hot chocolate, and much more. Be pragmatic about cooking with your microwave. Cooked chicken and a cup-of-tea from the microwave are awful. However, there are many recipes that WORK using your low-cost microwave!

5. Use your Slow Cooker (or “Crockpot”)
In the same way, a crockpot is a particularly efficient way to cook. It keeps the heat in, recycles that heat, and so cooks with very low power. It uses a lot less than those electricity-guzzling ranges and ovens. Also, there’s a lifestyle effect from using your crockpot: for families where both caregivers work, a crockpot can deliver a family meal in one pot, ready for when you come through the door. And, the crockpot DOES cook chicken well (but not cups-of-tea). Look at the crockpot cook-books by Simon and Alison Holst – they’re the masters - but there are many free recipes on the internet.

6. Use your (Gas) Barbeque
In the same vein, this was one that Orion suggested (trying to alleviate pressure on their fragile Christchurch power network). And it works. Using your barbeque just once or twice a week to cook your family meal will have a significant effect on your monthly electricity bill. Yes, I know you’re still using gas (LPG), but we’ve found it’s still a lot cheaper than using the ranges and ovens.

7. Avoid your Range and Ovens
So, the summary of 4-6 is DON’T use your oven and ranges wherever possible. Use your microwave, crockpot and barbeque instead.

8. Washing Machine on Cold
A washing machine on a Cold Wash uses 80% less power. It worked for us, and gets our clothes clean. Try it! To be fair, we did experiment with powders until we found one we liked. We settled on “Fab” Citrus Blossom by Colgate-Palmolive. Also, “Surf” Aromatherapy by Unilever was effective.

9. Fill Your Washing Machine – and get a Bigger One!
Before the Christchurch earthquakes, we’d put on the washing machine (albeit after 9pm!) regardless of how full it was. We’d just put it on a Low-, Med- or High-Water wash. However, Orion said "Use only when full." Indeed, we found that it’s cheaper over the month to miss a wash, and put a full one on the next night. So what, if there’s a half-full laundry basket for a day? It’s led us to the conclusion, that the next time we buy a washing machine; it’ll be an even bigger one. That way, we may even only have to laundry every couple of days.

10. Fill Your Dishwasher
As above, we now do the same with the dishwasher as we do with the washing machine; only put it on when it’s full. Whilst there is some debate, we’ve found a dishwasher to be more cost-effective on power than sink washing. A lot of this has to do with putting the dishwasher on only when full, and after 9pm. Critics of sink-washing say that much hot water (and therefore energy) is wasted by eking out hot water over the duration of washing and rinsing dishes. A dishwasher works for us.

11. Use your Heat Pump Effectively for Heating
We have two heat pumps; one upstairs, and one downstairs. A neighbour reminded us that a heat pump works on the principle of a freezer: once you get it to the ideal temperature, it uses very little. She then told us to run it 24/7, and we wouldn’t notice the money difference!! And she was right! We started up our heat pumps (after 9pm, of course!) when winter set in. It uses a bit of power as it starts, getting up to an ambient temperature (which is why you start it after 9pm). However, once we got to “cosy,” we hardly notice the difference in our heat bills. We used it sensibly, at temperatures between 18-20 degrees, and we subsidised that with our log burner (with free pine cones from the forest!!). We also found that there was a heckuva difference in the heat pumps’ performance when we had them serviced and cleaned. We didn’t notice much money difference from the service, but we did notice more heat for the same temperature. We recommend you do the same.

12. Use Free Wood for your Log Burner
Become a wood hound. There are always piles of wood on the road – especially around the industrial estates. As you drive around, look out for the “free wood” signs or old pallets folk throw out. It all burns. Also, we live near the forest: pine cones give off a lovely toasty heat. They’re free, lying there on the ground ready for you to pick up. The more you do this, the less electricity heating you’ll use.

13. Efficient Light Bulb Use
Couple of things here. It’s not just about switching bulbs to low-energy ones. That’s a given. It’s also about changing your habits. The kids are useful here! Whilst we can’t have them digging coal or cleaning chimneys any more, they’re easier to train than we are, in terms of switching off lights! Get started! Switch off lights behind you as you move around the house. Don’t light up rooms you’re not in. How many times do we see houses lit up like Auckland Sky Tower? In isolation, this method saves just $30-$50 a year according to the energywise.co.nz site. But used in conjunction with everything else, you can save real money.

14. Change your Power Provider – Shop Around
I was already on my way out of Contact Energy, so Mercury knocked on my door at exactly the right time. Call me old-fashioned, but I have a real problem when executives award themselves higher-than-inflation pay rises (insultingly higher than their employees) and then charge their customers (again) higher-than-inflation price rises. After what we’d been through with the earthquakes, I found Contact’s price rises insulting. So I changed from Contact to Mercury:

Company - - - - - Night Rate - Day Rate
Contact Energy: - 10.113kWh - 24.257kWh
Mercury - - - - - - 9.74kWh - - 23.49kWh


WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE – WHAT MORE CAN WE DO?
Remember, this is all about reducing the cost of something that fleeces us on a monthly basis. Because the electricity market is not yet truly opened up, being an electricity provider is having a licence to print money. This article is all about reducing dependence on someone who is trying to screw us regularly. And here’s what else we can do about that in the future:

1. Capital Expenditure – Solar Water Heating
“The time to buy Solar Water was always 5 years ago.” This is a phrase the solar pundits use, and they’re right. Because the solar hot-water solution has such a high capital cost and long-payback rate, it’s an electricity-cutting solution that draws a sharp intake of breath. However, I know the owner of a motel in Christchurch who installed solar water heating for all their units, and he borrowed to do it. His cash-flow actually improved, to the extent he proved to me it was more cash-effective to borrow for solar water heating, than to rely on legacy electricity water heating. The savings outweighed the interest payments! The reality is, for us normal house owners, the best time to install solar water heating is when we build a house.

Watch out for those solutions that use electricity as well as solar. The system in our neighbour’s house uses electricity to push the solar heated water from the panels to the water tank. This means, in the event of a power cut, you still don’t have hot water! In that same power cut, there’s the danger of the heated water blowing the seals on the panels! Shop around for the right solution for you.

2. Capital Expenditure – Log Burner
The only bummer now is that, with Christchurch’s “Clean Heat” programme, it’s difficult to get consent for standard log burners in the city boundaries. And that's a shame, because traditional log burners can burn your free wood, and heat your house for virtually free. Watch out for those pellet fires – they need electricity!!! Yes, honest. My other problem with pellet fires, until recently, was that there was only one provider of pellet fires in Christchurch. Call me old fashioned, but that’s the monopolistic fleecing arrangement we’re already in.

3. Burn up Electricity Next Power Crisis
Yes, radical and contradictory, I know. However, nothing lights a rocket under the arse of a government quicker than nationwide power cuts. It brought down the UK Heath government in 1974, and even Thatcher worried about it during the 1980s UK miners’ strike. In the early 2000s, Pete Hodgson was the NZ Energy Minister managing a drought situation. The resulting energy crisis was from the South Island dams running out of hydro water. The best Pete Hodgson could do (in this second drought year!), was to muster a meeting with the power companies and ask “Why are we here again?” I’ll tell you why Pete; because in 11 years of a Labour government, you didn’t build any more bloody power stations!!

So, the country bought into the government propaganda and conserved power. The whole nation massed behind electricity-cutting campaigns to avoid power cuts. And the media endorsed it by joining in and encouraging us. Remember the country charts on TV1's news that showed Christchurch saving more electricity than Auckland in this week or that week? What we should have been doing is RAMPING up our usage to trigger nationwide power cuts. I guarantee you, there would have been changes. Sadly, not that time. Next time, perhaps.

HOW DO WE DEAL WITH BULLYING IN OUR SOCIETY? DAMN POORLY

This story infuriated me, it’s still on-going, and it prompted me to write one of my most extensive (that means long – sorry) blog entries. This is important for all of us and all our children, so please bear with me on this:

MORRINSVILLE GIRL BEATEN SENSELESS BY BULLIES
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4669216/Bashing-bully-girls-back-at-school

If you don’t want to read the news link, here are the article’s summarised facts:
• four girls from Morrinsville College, New Zealand, beat a peer so severely, the victim has a brain injury
• the police are “investigating the attack.” There are no reports of charges.
• the incident is almost an exact repeat of the victim’s beating in November 2010, where she was left with concussion
• the attackers were not expelled or even suspended – they were “stood down.”
• while the victim was in 24-hour care, the four bullies returned to school

So where were the real consequences for this unacceptable – and repeated – behaviour? The Principal, John Inger (pictured left), issued a woolly statement about the attackers incurring “various consequences.” Apart from his phrase, “various consequences,” the only specific punishment I could read was that the attackers were “stood down” – for a week. That’s a flaming holiday, for God’s sake. What about financial compensation, detention, community service, public apology, expulsion? Are those some of your “various consequences,” Mr Inger? Probably not. I look forward to reading about some real deterrence, Mr Inger. The TV media has asked some hard questions, but Mr Inger has given up trying to put his point across, because of the “hard time” he’s getting, trying to explain his point of view. Clearly, the coward hasn’t the strength of his convictions.



And that’s what this article is about. For New Zealand to deal with bullying, we have to have a lot of courage.

WHY IS BULLYING SO PROLIFIC?
The TV3 60 Minutes article on Mikayla Edwards’ assault tried to ask “why?” bullying happens and came up with some answers. The programme implicated that the parents of the bullies might have some responsibility here for the viciousness of their children, but that was never followed up by naming-and-shaming those parents. Frankly, the programme bottled out. Let me state what we all know; bullies have been bullied – usually at home. A specialist on teen girl violence, Dr Donna Swift (pictured right), hinted on the programme at accountability and reasons (the parents!). However, she came up with few solutions on how to break the cycle of violence. So why is New Zealand among the worst in the world for school bullying? I’ve no idea. However, I’d like to put it to you that if New Zealand has a poor record for bullying at school, it doesn’t end just because those bullies leave school. It’s clear we have a real bullying problem in our New Zealand society at large.

I’d like to put it to you that bullying might be part of our instinctual make-up. Darwinians might say that bullying occurs in the animal kingdom, and everything we do in our society has some parallel in the animal world. This is true. And, Darwinians could argue that bullying is designed to weed out the weaklings in the world, or make them tougher – so they contribute to our society in some way. That contribution might be; by the victims toughening up, or by the victims just fading away. If we start to believe that, we start to accept that it is simply part of nature’s life. And, if we accept that, bullying continues. And that is totally unacceptable.

This is where we humans are supposed to be different, aren’t we? We have moved beyond “beast” to where we live in a supposedly civilised society. That means, whilst we still have those animal instincts, we socialise-out that behaviour in place of a collective-good: a civilisation. This civilisation is governed by rules – and law. Those people who administer those rules, therefore, have a duty to protect us, if we are thereby to live by those rules. For example, I can’t pick-axe a bully’s head as a reaction to bullying – I’ll be punished. So society’s governors have an obligation to both protect us and administer the consequences to those who would harm us. So (God forbid!) when society’s rules are broken, there are specific, explicit consequences which act as a deterrent. You’d think.

INEFFECTUAL – THE INDOLENCE AND SHAME OF OUR PROTECTORS
In that light, let’s look at some of the statements coming from the Morrinsville school. Tell me if you think there’s something wrong here:
• The bullies were “stood down” - for a week. Remember, this is a repeat attack.
• The Morrinsville College principle Mr Inger said the girls would "almost certainly [not definitely!!] be looking for a different school" if they did something like this again. Remember, this is already a repeat attack
• Victoria McAuley stood up in front of her Year 9 peers during an assembly yesterday and told them "bullying and violence is not acceptable no matter what the reason". Remember, this is already a repeat attack
• Morrinsville College deputy principal Murray Feast said the girls would not have been allowed to return to school if school management did not think it was safe. Remember, this is already a repeat attack
• Mr Feast said, “Morrinsville College is actually addressing the problem really well." Remember, this is already a repeat attack

How many times do we hear these phrases (below), in respect of bullying:

• “Just walk away, move away”
• “Just try and keep away from these people”
• “Just try and ignore it.”

We heard all three from our Community Constable and all three from our school principal. “Just.” That’s one of those words that completely trivialises and minimises an issue. And, these three phrases are so easily uttered by those who are strong, balanced, have power, or who’ve never experienced bullying. So, by definition, they simply don’t understand the victims’ point-of-view.

The add-on words I often hear, to the phrase “Try and ignore it” are, “the bully will grow tired of it.” Well, that’s bollocks – and I’ll qualify that.

CURRENT STRATEGIES ARE SIMPLY NOT WORKING - SOME PROOF
The strategies above may be true for some, but I’ve two examples that say otherwise. The son of a man I know was bullied almost all through primary years. His dad taught him to ignore it, and the son coped well. He told me that “the bullies soon get tired of it.” But then he admitted his son still got chipped by the same bully at high school!! For years. So, this story – with countless others - tells us that this society expects us to address our own reaction to the bully, not shut down the bully himself!

Well, I think that’s bloody wrong.

The second example is our own. We incurred the wrath of our next-door neighbour. After a year of physical and verbal abuse, we had to take her to court under the New Zealand Harassment Act 1997. Judge Michael Crosbie issued a half-assed Judgement-of-Solomon, whereby we did secure a year’s Restraining Order – but we had to accept a Restraining Order back. Through the resulting uncertainty of the year of that Order and beyond, the bully slowly learned what she could get away with. When we tried to bring the case to a conclusion, the judge couldn’t be bothered, instructing us to mediate with a bully who had been given no consequence by the judge to go to mediation. Not suprisingly, she rejected mediation, and we'd run out of money to go back to court. You see, “the judge threw out” the case [bully’s husband’s words!]. It was true that the judge washed his hands of it. So the needle continues. Four years of bullying, and she hasn’t “grown tired of it.”

The other moral of these two examples, is that society treats bullying as always the victims’ problem. When we went to counselling, the help is ONLY centred on the premise that being bullied is our problem!!! We have to change our reaction to the bullying, you see, not actually stop the bullying. Throughout our harassment case, neither the police, lawyers, judiciary, nor school was able to offer any leadership on how to shut the bully down. And that is exactly how the whole issue of bullying is treated at every level of our society. The emphasis is not on consequences or punishment, but on how the victim has somehow allowed this to happen by his/her reaction to the bullying. By that logic, murder, rape and burglary are the victims’ own fault. And I can tell you, there have been a few public figures that have slipped up by admitting that little number!

The phrases we often hear, the three I listed above, are so easy to blurt out. And they’re a cop-out by our protectors. However, for the vulnerable people under siege and attack, they are an alien language. Is that really the best our protectors are able to do? So it would seem. As the 60 Minutes article suggested, bullying is endemic in our society. However, in terms of our actually dealing with it, bullying is in the “Too Hard” basket. How do politicians and the police show “Reduction in bullying”? The Harassment Act 1997 was designed to help, but it’s an expensive option for victims. In addition, even after 14 years of the Act, lawyers still say that the area of harassment is “an evolving law.” One area of its evolution is that judges don’t trust the very people who bring actions – judges fear the restraining order will be abused. Judges don’t trust victims, you see. The police can’t do much unless there’s an actual criminal law broken, which clever bullies won’t do. And, actually, the police don’t really want to get in involved: their empathy has been de-sensitised, and harassment disputes are exceptionally time-consuming.

Dealing with society’s bullies is too hard, too expensive, for seemingly too-little return. Politicians won’t deal with it effectively – because there’s not enough glory or publicity. Now, the schools. Ah, not much better. Like the police and judiciary, they simply don’t want to get involved. Perhaps they’re haemorrhaged by the workload or by inadequate guidelines from the respective Ministry, but they’re certainly not dealing with the problem where it first enters the public arena – the school.

OUR OWN RECENT EXPERIENCE – WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?
Here’s one of our own most recent incidents. I want you to read this, thinking “How would I have reacted to the bully in this situation – what would I have done?” In the school playground, shortly after school finishes, the bully’s 6-year-old son stamps my 6-year-old, as he tries to climb a ladder. My 4-year-old tries to intervene (bless him) shouting, “Stop, that’s my brother!” The bully’s 10-year-old takes out the legs from my 4-year-old. When I went up to the mother (the bully) and asked what she was going to do about it, she laughed in my face. I told her that whatever she did to me or my family, she was still a sad, cowardly hyena. I looked around for help, and another teacher flippantly told me I should “walk away – just walk away.” So what would you have done?

I went to the principal for recompense and asked him to confirm his no-tolerance of bullying. He said he’d have to have “pretty damn good evidence” before he’d issue a trespass order. So I write to him to get him to put his talk on paper – I asked what evidence he would need before a trespass order was issued. I never had a reply to that letter, but was told he “preferred to talk about it instead.” Then there was another incident. It, too, was dealt with ineffectually. After writing to him a second time and pressing for a reply, I received a short one-paragraph email that still didn’t answer all my questions. I still don’t know what proof I could gather (in terms of my family being bullied in school grounds) before there would be a trespass order on the bully – the mother. So, the bully was not punished or deterred for the future. Telling me to “walk away,” is not a deterrent to the bully – far from it. In fact, it only serves to make the bully braver and vindicates her behaviour. So, it was no surprise that there was a repeat incident a month later.

BULLYING IS TOLERATED AND IS ACCEPTED
Bullying is tolerated and is accepted, because it is often so difficult to prove that it happens, so its difficult to deter. It’s difficult to prove the effect of bullying, or it’s difficult to capture evidence of it over a sustained period. Clever bullies will say “I deny it – where’s your evidence?” We had to use audio recordings, doctors’ letters and therapists’ letters to prove our harassment case in court, with little result. We distressingly bared our soles to the court, with our attacker present, with little result.

Back to our school. I challenged our principal’s policy on “No Tolerance to Bullying.” He said, “I’m not going to suspend a boy for calling your son a ‘fat-boy’.” And he’s right, although he chose to take that ONE comment out of context, and trivialise what my son is going through. However, the Morrinsville case has shown that it’s likely that even if the bully and three of his mates concussed my son, the bully might not even be suspended! I told our principal, I never wanted to hear his “No Tolerance to Bullying” phrase ever again. However, his answer to my complaints is endemic of schools’ continued inability to deal with the problem, and society’s continued inability to deal with the problem. So, where’s our principal’s answer on behalf of the school, when that same nasty-piece-of-work continues to chip away at my son again, and again, and again? We all know the basics of psychology: you repeat a statement often enough and it is believed - taken on board. A parent calls his son “useless” and that son takes it on and will feel useless. In the same vein, my son is being affected by this over a sustained period. I’m not the only parent of a school kid with this heart-rending problem. The mother in Morrinsville has it much worse than I.

After our incident in the playground, I wanted to beat the living crap out of that smug, mocking bully. The cold, calculating intelligence of the woman was frightening. She wanted to provoke a violent reaction from me – perhaps towards her children. She knew damn well that a physical retaliation – which she deserved – would be severely punished by our so-called protectors. The provocation is often completely ignored in these circumstances, isn’t it? What would you have done? As we all know, we’re not allowed to retaliate. Whilst the story in the link below is a bit of a popular fairy tale, we know damn well, how much more the retaliator is punished than the bullying initiator:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/4780726/How-the-net-transformed-bullied-boy

WHAT’S THE SOLUTION? YOU WON’T LIKE IT
What made those children do that to my children? Who put them up to it? What makes school bullies? Clearly, we have to educate out the problem. We identify those bullies quickly, educate those children, so that even if there is violence or bullying at home, they go through the school system with help, understanding that bullying is completely unacceptable – every day if necessary. This is the way we break the cycle of bullying and violence. If the impetus to bully is coming from the parents, then we make the parents accountable. If consequences don’t work, then we keep hammering and hammering and hammering consequences into these parents until it does work – the bullying stops. The reality is that this expensive, long-term, and bloody hard work.

I listened to someone who told me that we will never educate-out or eliminate bullying (the Darwinian argument?). That may be, but I can’t accept it. I think it’s a matter of will. Currently the will is not there in our protectors; the judges, the police, the government, and even our headmasters. From those same people, who tell me about their “No Tolerance” policies to bullying I hear the phrases “walk away” and “ignore.” That’s hypocrisy, it doesn’t work and it’s not addressing the root problem. The victim at Morrinsville tried to walk away,” and the bullies kicked the toilet door down to get to her.

Even if strategies of “walk away” and “ignore” actually worked, it only moves the problem onto another victim. It puts up someone else, even weaker, to be bullied. And, it’s not dealing with the bullies’ issues. Is that our definition of a civilised society? Actually, it probably is, of the society we have now. How many times do we see in our lives, the problem being pushed aside rather than addressed at the root source? It doesn’t have to be this way. The root problem is not the victim, it’s the bully. So, the true solution is not to change the victim’s reaction, but stop the damn bully. However, the will isn’t there to do that.

Our protectors’ unwillingness and inability to deal to this problem is so frustrating, that it is maddening – literally. With our own experience, four years of tension took its effect. The fact that all these bullying incidents happen (and continue to happen) across New Zealand is because of a complete failure of leadership by those who are supposed to protect us. That failure of leadership is at every level of those who are supposed to show leadership in our society: the government, the schools, the police, and the judiciary. So what’s the solution? You won’t like it. For our protectors, it’s expensive, difficult and long-term (so they won’t like it either). Here are my summary thoughts:

1. Educate the bullies. Identify bullies, and have it hammered into them every damn day at school, that this is not socially acceptable, even if it’s part of their violent upbringing. Isolate the bullies in tight, disciplined, special classes if need be. Involve the parents in the communication, but not the decision-making process. Re-shape the school bullies.
2. Put Consequences in Place. For the school bullies and their parents. Not woolly stand downs, but real financial, community service and reduction-in-freedom consequences. There should be staged severe consequences that become even more severe with every incident. The consequences may have to be hard. Have the courage to kick them out. Have the courage to implement the consequences.
3. State Explicit Consequences. Educate the bullies, and their parents, to the fact that there will be FIRM, consequences for bullying. And if that’s ignored, carry them out. If that’s no good, escalate the severity of the consequences. Make the staged consequences of the behaviour explicit – have a contract if needs be. Keep the consequences coming, until the bullying stops. Again, involve the parents in the communication, but not the decision-making process.
4. Have the Will to Eliminate the Problem. Clearly, we do not, currently. If we baulk at the consequences, as did John Inger of Morrinsville, the problem will NOT go away. In fact, baulking at the consequences exacerbates the problem. If we do not have the courage to punish bullies severely, the problem will continue.

Only by courage in our civilised society, will we kill this problem. Hammer the bullies with consequences again, and again, and again until it stops. And, with our shouts of “Shame, coward!” at our ineffectual protectors, we can induce some progress.

CAPITALISM “LOVES” CONSUMERS, AND WE “LOVE” FONTERRA TOO

I saw this article from 18 February 2010, and I tried to clarify in my own head, what the hell is going on in our milk industry in New Zealand. I’m still not sure:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/4672810/Milk-price-Minister-demands-answers

We're told by Fonterra that, because we live in a global market, "sadly" we must pay global price. However, some of the reasons that New Zealand (essentially Fonterra!) is ahead in world milk production is because of cheaper labour, cheaper land, and cheaper water. So, we pay global price for milk - but milk is not produced at global cost!! Clearly, Fonterra has no qualms about crapping on its own doorstep. Remember, this is because the only loyalty a capitalist company has is to its shareholders (the milk farmers). However, in the last 150 years, since the industrial revolution, there has emerged an new class; the Executive Class - they manage stuff. Despite being elected and delegated by the shareholders, the Executive Class' priority is to maximise its own wealth - at the expense of the shareholders and consumers. The Executive Class will self-award the highest bonuses and salary, and the lowest possible return to the shareholders - that it can get away with. The Executive Class is clearly alive and well in Fonterra. Because, if you read this article, it makes you think:

http://www.nzfarmersweekly.co.nz/article/8731.html

The writer of this article, Alan Emerson, is a former farmer himself. And, if he is to be believed, FARMERS aren't reaping the benefits from the "international" milk price. I believe him. Which leads me to state that someone in the milk process is getting very rich - and it ain't the farmers. However, Alan harps on about the government stepping in and inhibiting "market forces" (that old chesnut). OK, Alan, what say New Zealand milk farmers pay "international" water prices? Various government forces have intervened ON YOUR BEHALF to prevent that. This means, that farmers' water is in fact subsidised by the New Zealand rate payers - we pay more for water because farmers pay less. And, it is still a reality that we Kiwis are bitter about paying "international" milk prices, for a product produced on our own doorstep. So forgive me, Alan, if I don't feel "$270 better off." I question how broad are your paramters, when you conjure up that figure.

The other reason that New Zealand is ahead in milk production, is because of the sheer size – and POWER – of Fonterra. Fonterra was created out of a number of New Zealand milk production companies, to have a strong conglomerate company capable of taking on the world milk market. Our intelligence was insulted when we were told that Fonterra’s creation was necessary to generate exports to make our country stronger. We were told we’d benefit from those exports with increased wages (long term), and a stronger dollar in our pocket (long term). Well, it’s been 10 years now, and I ain’t seein’ it. How “long” is the “long term?” Well, wages haven’t increased (past housing and cost-of-living), and the effect of our higher dollar has been increased interest rates on our mortgages!!

Our wages are still way behind those in Australia, but (more importantly) our prices continue to grow faster that our wages. In other words, it’s getting harder to pay for things even aside from the fact that our next door neighbour’s wages are rising faster. Houses, council rates, petrol, power, all continue to rise faster than our ability to pay for them. In other words, there are a few people getting very rich, while the majority of us are getting poorer in real terms. “Get a new job that pays better” I hear you shout. So, if we all shift jobs, does that increase our collective ability to buy goods at faster rising prices? I think not.

Oh, and milk. Milk continues to increase in price.

The Market Force economists herald phrases like this:
• “So, don’t buy milk”
• “Buy another milk brand that is cheaper.”
• “Let consumers dictate prices”

So here’s the answers to those fallacies:
• So we feed our kids cola instead, or just give them calcium vitamin tablets instead, do we? Milk is more expensive than fizzy drink.
• We’ve all tried buying another brand. How many of us now buy the “Budget” brand because the “Anchor” brand is simply too expensive? Remember, it’s essentially all the same milk. Well what happens when we’ve done that, as we’ve done? Even Budget milk products rise faster than wages.
• Well, we’d love to dictate prices, but the reality is that we can’t if the company supplying milk is the ONLY company; monopolistic Fonterra.

And then, as I was writing this, THESE stories were released a day later!!!!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/4676611/Fonterra-freezes-prices
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4677953/Call-for-shops-to-freeze-milk-prices

My wife’s uncle loves his phrase “Capitalism Loves Consumers.” Well, frankly Alistair – that’s bollocks. These articles above show that capitalism doesn’t love consumers, it exploits them. It’s true, in a loving relationship, there is some f*cking - because that's what's happening to us consumers! However, this kind of exploitative behaviour from companies like Fonterra is wrong, it’s pimping and it's raping. Companies generally view consumers cynically, as untrustworthy, with no loyalty, who will buy from another company when there’s a favourable price shift. And that’s true – but there’s nothing wrong with that!!! Apparently, that’s called “Market Forces.” And that’s why Fonterra was formed – to stop that consumer shifting. Capitalism doesn’t “love” consumers, it exploits them.

I’d like to think that the Fonterra climb-down (the milk price-freeze) is a victory for consumers. However, in reality the Agriculture Minister David Carter has had to step in to “rein in Fonterra's domestic market power.” This is the FIRST time he’s done that: not because he’s worried about consumers having to pay more, but he’s worried about unfettered capitalism upsetting the right-wing National Party’s attempts to secure a second term. This is election year. In fact, I DO see this as a small victory - for democracy. Voter pressure has forced our elected representatives to do what voters want (there's a first!). However, if it hadn’t been an election year, David Carter wouldn’t have given a toss.

Fonterra’s continued, cynical attempts to raise the price of our milk over the last ten years, demonstrates they will continue to do so. Let’s be quite clear: price has NOTHING to do with cost-of-production. Price is ONLY about our willingness to pay for it. You can make something for $1, but if consumers will only pay 50c, then it won’t sell. You can also make something for $1, but consumers might be willing to pay $5: that might be capitalism and “the market,” but it doesn’t make it right or ethical. As consumers, we are prepared to pay a fair price for a fair product. Fonterra’s continued scaremongering, and the associated publicity, about “rising world dairy prices” are attempts to FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) us into raising our willingness-to-pay. Thankfully, it’s not working.

Remember, Fonterra has this power because of its privileged monopolistic position. As we all know, Privilege has Power. Fonterra has power, because there are no competitors. Where small milk operators in New Zealand do try to establish a foothold, we see this:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/tatua-co-operative-dairy-company-ltd/news/article.cfm?o_id=204&objectid=10420907
In other words, Fonterra raises the milk price it pays to its farmer-suppliers in the region where there is a Fonterra competitor. Fonterra calls it “tactical pricing.” I call it abuse of monopolistic power.

At this point, I want to tell you about the people who talk about “too much government interference” or even “we don’t need government – let market forces do the work.” Yeah? What would the victims of Somali pirates say about the effects of there being no government there? What about the children working 12 hours a day in the mines of the industrial revolution? Capitalism NEEDS regulation. Capitalism will ALWAYS exploit and work towards increasing market share of a particular industry. In other words, it will try to secure 100% market share – monopoly. Fonterra is an example of that “success.” New Zealand consumers are getting a taste of unfettered capitalism through this experience. If it hadn’t been an election year, we’d be paying more for milk. I wonder, how long after the election will we be having this debate again?

Frankly, capitalism with no restraints scares the crap out of me. The milk debate has nothing to do with “Market Forces” here in New Zealand, and everything to do with global capitalism fighting for maximum returns. In other words; greed. It’s quite a shame really, because I remember there was a sense of pride around New Zealand when Fonterra was formed – a company from small NZ, capable of taking on the world. However, why did the scorpion sting the fox as he was hitching a ride on that fox across a wide river, knowing that he too would drown? Because that’s what scorpions do. Fonterra is going to continue to screw us, going to continue to push the price of milk for New Zealand consumers whenever it can. It’s what capitalism does. Change will only come about by regulating these companies who try to harm us financially. Get used to that fact, or send us back to the industrial revolution.