KISS THE ALL BLACKS GOODBYE

This is a mighty rugby union country, where kids can start playing the game as young as 3. All three of my kids play for Parklands Rugby Football Club, here in the City of Christchurch, New Zealand. My youngest (5 years) is in his second year of Rippa Rugby. Last weekend, he had the unfortunate experience of playing against a third team from Christchurch RFC. Despite the fact that Rippa Rugby is supposed to be non-contact, at least two players came off injured after being thumped by Christchurch players. One was such a blatant tackle near the try-line, that it should have been a penalty try. This is the fourth time I have witnessed a Christchurch RFC team use illegal tackling and shirt-pulling in a (supposed) non-contact scenario. Saturday’s game has prompted me to pour you another Cup of Vitriol.

Woah! Hang on. Back-up; what the hell is Rippa Rugby?!!!!

Well, Rippa Rugby is the junior (Under-6 and Under-7 grades) version of Rugby Union. Instead of tackling, the kids rip off fluorescent tags from a Velcro belt. It’s not too dissimilar to Touch Rugby. Tackle rugby, in New Zealand, starts at the Under-8 grade. Rippa Rugby is the precursor to that collision game. The clever use of bright tags focuses the kids on the future tackle area; the hips. For my sins, I have the huge honour, privilege and pleasure of coaching my son’s Under-6 Rippa Rugby team. However, with that coaching comes significant responsibility.

I have a responsibility for the kids’ enjoyment of the game. I have a responsibility to develop their skills. I have a responsibility to the Parklands Rugby Club to uphold their good reputation. However, more than anything, I have a responsibility to the kids and their parents to keep the players free from harm under my care.

I believe the worst offenders of these physical infringements, that I have ever seen, are 2012 Christchurch U6 Bronze (and yes, I’m naming you!). Here’s a quote from the official NZRFU site on Rippa Rugby; “It is a very safe, non-contact, easy to play game…” I think the coaches of Christchurch Bronze need to read that statement many times; “very safe and non-contact…” I had FOUR players off injured from contact in that particular game, three weeks ago. “...it’s fun and exciting for all involved…” Two of those players – and we’re talking hardy kids here – had been thumped to the ground so many times, they didn’t want to go back on. The parents of our team, my co-coach, and I were appalled. It was such a disgusting display, that one of our parents wrote a strong and eloquent letter to the Canterbury Rugby Football Union to protest. As a result, Christchurch Bronze will be audited by the Union. But Christchurch RFC is a very large and successful rugby club, and a major part of the provincial Canterbury RFU. I’ve heard parents sign up their littlies at Christchurch RFC, in the expectation of becoming a part of that successful, winning culture. It's apparent that parents sign up their kids there, thinking they'll all be All Blacks. When you see that, you see why winning becomes everything there – at any cost – even in the junior teams. The parents' need to win becomes secondary to the little kids' enjoyment of the game.

I’ve become a cynical boor in my old age, when it comes to “process,” “auditing,” and “taking action.” So here’s what I think will happen; Christchurch Bronze will be audited, I’m sure. And, the coaches might be apologetic: “Oh, it’s kids being kids. We’re trying to rein them in, but they love their rugby soooooo much. And they so want to play for Christchurch.” [yeah, right. The PARENTS want them to play for Christchurch].

From my experience, the Christchurch perspective will be full of spin, and our account will be trivialised: “Oh, come on, they’re exaggerating, this is a physical game, it’s nowhere near as bad as they’re making out, they’re sore because they lost. We’re trying to breed hard kids here. Rugby isn’t tiddlywinks.” In other words, I think nothing will come of it.

Please prove me wrong, Canterbury Rugby Football Union. Show me you’ll take action when our concerns are corroborated, when the safety of 5-year-old kids is threatened.

Setting aside for now, the injury potential for my son and his mates (and that WILL be difficult), there’s a deeper worry the CRFU need to think about. It’s been whispered in my ear that the real reason Rippa Rugby was introduced, was because Mrs White-Middleclass became worried about all those big Pacific fella’s thumping down on poor wee Johnny. Pfff! Really? True or not, the NZRFU say, "Rippa Rugby will promote excellent ball handling and running skills, and give all kids a chance to participate in our national game," before the kids enter the tackle aspect of rugby. Now that, I do agree with.

Yes, yes, yes. I know that my Under-6 kids will have to get into the collision game eventually. I can hear my critics screaming now, “Rugby is a physical, contact game – get over yourself!” I truly don’t have a problem with tackling, per se. My issue with sticking to the non-contact rule in Rippa Rugby, is about giving my players a level playing field (no pun intended). Why should Christchurch Bronze players be allowed to tackle when my players aren’t? Why should I have to take my Under-6 kids, who have been taught running and evasion, onto a field with Under-6 kids who seem to have been taught tackling and shirt pulling? I want to develop my kids LOVE for the game first, before they mature into tackle-readiness. THEN, I’ll develop my fit, hardy players into tackle monsters.

So here’s the clever part from the NZRFU (in my humble opinion): mums LOVE Rippa Rugby. It is truly a fast, exciting kids’ sport that parents love to watch. AND, kids can be playing Rippa for up to four years before they enter the tackle game. By this time, the kids are hooked. They have fallen in love with rugby, as my three sprogs have done. Once the love for rugby is there, the KIDS are in control of their sport, not the mums. I've seen Rippa suck those faint-hearted mums inexorably into tackle-rugby. So, when the tackle game comes along and Johnny gets thumped at Under-8, the mums can “Ooooh! Ahhhh! Ouch! Poor Johnny!” all they like, but Johnny now loves the game - and wants to keep playing! “No Mum, I’m fine – I’m going back on the field!”

And here’s the threat to all that: When asses like the coaches of Christchurch Bronze fail to rein-in the physical play at the non-contact Under-6 level, lots of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds are going to get hurt. Enough to put them off the game! And if that proliferates to other Under-6 teams, a heap of mums will start to pull their kids out of rugby – before the love takes hold. The mums will take their wee ones back to (gulp!) that strange game with the spherical ball, for histrionic prima donnas. By definition, there will be less young talent going into the All Blacks Funnel. So when that happens, lack-of-depth will threaten the very future of our national rugby side.

And if that takes hold for any length of time, my friends, you can kiss the All Blacks goodbye.

THE CONVERSATION

Parklands residents in Christchurch seem to be screaming out to “Go Red.” They want to take the government “offer” following the earthquakes and get out. I think there’s a lot of folk missing a fundamental point here. If we “Go Red,” those of us who are not insurance re-builds will have to find the $100,000 shortfall - or more - to pay for the same kind of home we had before the quakes, as a result of John’s “offer”. Yes, if we stay “Green TC3,” we may be subject to liquefaction. I know neither scenario is palatable, but if we “Go Red,” the government will deliver us into the waiting hands of the mortgage lenders, property developers and lawyers. Call me old fashioned, but that’s why I paid off my mortgage in the first place – to be rid of those parasites. Uh, oh - I can hear my critics now. I’m going to be accused of being harsh; “These are not parasites - these are professional people providing you a valued service!”

“parasite n. interested hanger-on; sycophant; animal or plant living in or on another.” [Oxford Dictionary]

Now, if I was a cynical man (and recent events are getting me there), this is the kind of conversation I bet took place last year:

JOHN: Hmm. This earthquake’s a bit of a bugger, Gezza. And we’ve got a recession. Our corporate friends are finding it pretty tough in Christchurch. What can we do?
GERRY: What about making those middle-class mortagage whores in Parklands homeless?
JOHN: How would that help the economy?
GERRY: Well, they would need to find and pay for new homes. There’ll be all kinds of spin-off revenues for our friends; land deals, new sections, lawyers’ fees, new mortgages, new house sales. Yummy.
JOHN: We can’t do that! We can’t just turf them out of their homes … Can we?
GERRY: Oh.... Yeah … Good point. Hmmm. Hang on! What about giving them a little “compensation”? Not enough to buy a new home as they had, but enough to give them some more vain hope.
JOHN: Sorry; what do you mean by “more vain hope”?
GERRY: Well, they’ll have to work even longer and harder to afford those new homes (the ones they already had before the quakes), in the vain hope of perhaps getting promotion at work, a pay rise, or even (snigger!) paying off the mortgage.
JOHN: Not sure about this. They’ll be mightily pissed off that we’re not fully compensating them for the loss of their home in the quakes. Let’s face it, we’ve had sixty years to prepare for this, and we’ve given it all away in tax cuts to our friends. Remember, you big bugger, you said publicly on Campbell Live, “It’s all about equity preservation.”
GERRY: Pfff! They’ll forget that. I’ll just deny it or put another spin on what I really said. They’ve been through quakes and liquefaction – they’ll want out at any price.
JOHN: But how the buggery would we afford that? Even SOME compensation is going to cost. Putting up income tax would hurt our friends – the ones who sponsor us.
GERRY: Pfff! We’ve bought off the mortgage whores before. We gave our establishment friends big tax cuts, and those pokey homeowners were happy with crumbs off the rich man’s table. No, we’ll just put up GST and other regressive taxes, instead. Tax the proles.
JOHN: But GST hurts our friends as well – it would mean luxury boats, designer suits and exclusive cars would cost more.
GERRY: That’s OK, they can afford it. They’ve got that back in spades from the huge income tax cuts we gave them three years ago.
JOHN: What about the proles – petrol, food and power will be much more expensive in relative terms.
GERRY: Fuck ‘em.
JOHN: I’m listening.
GERRY: And because jobs are so scarce in Christchurch right now, our friends wouldn’t have to put up with all those moaner mortgage whores asking for pay rises.
JOHN: So what you’re saying is, we make the quake-shocked homeowners homeless, give them some (not a lot) compensation for their house, so that they’ll work harder and longer to pay for the additional mortgage payments? We deliver traumatised, vulnerable people into the waiting hands of our mortgage lender, property developer and lawyer friends?
GERRY: Yup.
JOHN: Get it done.

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.