<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >

<channel><title><![CDATA[Community Voice - Jolly Old Salt]]></title><link><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt]]></link><description><![CDATA[Jolly Old Salt]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:08:43 +1300</pubDate><generator>Weebly</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Electricity and the New Zealand consumer]]></title><link><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/electricity-and-the-new-zealand-consumer]]></link><comments><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/electricity-and-the-new-zealand-consumer#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:36:40 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/electricity-and-the-new-zealand-consumer</guid><description><![CDATA[Electricity prices are too high! (How's that for an opening statement you're already agreeing with?)A lot of our electricity is produced by old, bought and paid for, hydro stations.Prices have been escalating at 4% over inflation since about 2002 when the market first started to function.The reforms were bought in by National's dear old Max Bradford who guaranteed that power prices would reduce in 1998 when separate lines and generating companies were formed.People who started work at the new EC [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:justify;"><font color="#000000" size="5"><strong>Electricity prices are too high!</strong></font><font color="#000000"><br /><span></span> (How's that for an opening statement you're already agreeing with?)<br /><span></span><br /><span>A lot of our electricity is produced by</span> old, bought and paid for, hydro stations.<br /><span></span><br /><span>Prices have been escalating at 4% over inflation since about 2002 </span>when the market first started to function.<br /><span>The reforms were bought in by National's dear old Max Bradford who guaranteed that power prices would reduce in 1998 when separate lines and generating companies were formed</span>.<br /><span></span><br /><span>People who started work at the new ECNZ unfortunately did not understand electricity systems. These people gained the upper hand and insisted electricity was "a commodity like any other". Let me assure corporate clowns working for ECNZ, electricity is no such thing.</span><br /><span></span><br /><span>Take a market commodity, we'll say baked beans, then, if the price goes up, people will switch to a cheaper brand or a new food altogether. Baked beans have essential market characteristics of price elasticity and the availability of a market substitute.</span><br /><span></span><br /><span>Electricity on the other hand has no alternative and the value is much greater than the price.</span><br /><span>The Electricity Authority has calculated the cost of losing a supply of electricity is more than $10/kWh. T</span>his would cause an economic collapse. <br /><span></span><br /><span></span><font size="3"><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Electricity is vital!</strong></font><br /><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; </span><font size="3"><strong>When a supply has been switched off, people die. </strong></font><br /><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><font size="3"><strong>We have seen this.<span></span></strong></font>"<br /><br /><span></span><font size="3"><strong><span> </span></strong></font>Electricity is as vital as water, roads and sewerage treatment, and should be treated as such.<br /><br />Consumers should be able to buy it at the cost of production plus a small proportion more for future new generation and ensure there is sufficient capacity for drought years.<br />The Wholesale Electricity Market Development Group (WEMDG) was set up to give NZ a competitive market. In the end they had to choose between two options.</font><br /><br /><span></span><font color="#000000">One was a "single buyer" system where each power station would contract to supply electricity at its cost of generation over a period of twenty years or more. With this option most of our electricity would have been bought at a very low price because our hydro stations were old and generating at a very low cost. Should a new station be needed the single buyer would look for the station with the lowest overall cost of electricity. WEMDG would get offers from a genuinely competitive market in the business of building and operating power stations. Consumers would get electricity at the optimised&nbsp; ave<span>rage cost of production.</span></font><br /><br /><span></span><font color="#000000"><span>WEMDG was advised that although a single buyer market was the lowest risk option they chose </span>an option based on selling&nbsp; kWh.<br /><span>To an experienced engineer, the shortcomings are obvious. For instance the stations all get paid at the price bid in by the highest bidder. When an expensive station is needed the low-cost stations make huge windfall profits. During a shortage the generators have market power can, and do, push up the price. There are many other examples of poor thinking resulting in distorted market results. A perverse outcome to say the least.</span></font><br /><br /><span></span><font color="#000000">It has been calculated that as a<span> result</span> of the flawed market system and the associated reforms, consumers have paid more than $4,000,000,000! Yup you read it right! That's 4 thousand million dollars more for their electricity.</font><br /><br /><span></span><font color="#000000"><span>On several occasions generators have been seen manipulating the market but without breaking the rules.</span><br /><span>We may conclude the market is seriously flawed and rips us (the consumers) off.</span><br /><span>Many rules and regulations governing the market are just plain nuts.</span><br /><span></span>One example. Because the market fails to co-ordinate the power system for the benefit of the consumer, the industry can no longer use ripple-control to switch off water heaters during times of peak demand.</font><br /><br /><span></span><font color="#000000"><span>Should the market and regulations be rationalised the price of electricity would drop and the only price rises would be a small increase in the average cost of electricity as a result of putting new generating plant in the system.</span></font><br /><br /><span></span><font color="#000000"><span><strong>What is needed is an objective</strong> and independent examination of the market and the regulations.</span><br /><span>There are lots of corporate "executives" in the industry, all sucking as hard as they can on the corporate tit so I don't expect</span> they will be the turkeys voting for an early Christmas.<br /><br /><span>I suppose what this means is:-</span><br /><span>We learn from history what we don't learn from history</span><br /><br /><span>I wish to thank Bryan Leyland, power industry consultant, and part-owner of a hydropower station that profits whenever the generators manipulate the market!!!</span><br /><span></span><br /><span></span><br /><span></span><br /><span></span><span> </span></font></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[Some arguments against privatisation]]></title><link><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/some-arguments-against-privatisation]]></link><comments><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/some-arguments-against-privatisation#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 05:14:24 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[jollyoldsalt]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/some-arguments-against-privatisation</guid><description><![CDATA[We in New Zealand have had some horror-show experiences&nbsp;when it comes to privatisations of public assets.The  sale of New Zealand Rail to private interests, and Air New Zealand's  sale&nbsp;went so completely tits-up that&nbsp;re-nationalisation was imperative.Telecom  was sold into private hands, almost immediately resulting&nbsp;in monopoly  profits being&nbsp;extracted, most of which were expropriated overseas,  with&nbsp;precious little re-investment to develop&nbsp;the telecommunicatio [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:justify;">We in New Zealand have had some horror-show experiences&nbsp;when it comes to privatisations of public assets.<br /><br />The  sale of New Zealand Rail to private interests, and Air New Zealand's  sale&nbsp;went so completely tits-up that&nbsp;re-nationalisation was imperative.<br /><br />Telecom  was sold into private hands, almost immediately resulting&nbsp;in monopoly  profits being&nbsp;extracted, most of which were expropriated overseas,  with&nbsp;precious little re-investment to develop&nbsp;the telecommunications  system.<br /><br />We <em style="">gave</em> the Australian  banks our banking system, simply by selling them our Trustee Savings  Banks, the Bank of New Zealand and Postbank.<br /><br />Remember  Graeme Hart, Australasia's wealthiest man? Our National Government,  bless 'em, kick-started his career&nbsp;by just about gifting him the  Government Printing Office, a&nbsp;strategic&nbsp;asset which&nbsp;even the United  States&nbsp;has baulked at flogging off.<br /><br />There is  continuing disfunction in the privatised electricity system, creating  blackouts, price increases (we all know about these) an appalling&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />maintenance routine, and lack of&nbsp;re-investment capital . The system&nbsp;still fails to provide secure and reasonably priced power.<br /><br />We flogged off Radio New Zealand's commercial stations to private interests, thus assuring duopoly status in the industry.<br /><br />By  selling off state-owned forestry cutting rights,&nbsp;New Zealand&nbsp;has given  away the enormous potential for further timber processing.<br /><br />Housing Corporation mortgages were sold&nbsp;to private financiers, leaving mortgagee holders feeling ripped-off.&nbsp;<br /><br /><u style="">Two examples: Telecom, New Zealand Railways, and the effect on New Zealand's liabilities.&nbsp;<br /><br /></u>Telecom  was bought by a&nbsp;syndicate of&nbsp; US companies Ameritech, Bell Atlantic and  New Zealanders Mssrs.&nbsp;Fay, Richwhite, Gibbs and Farmer in July 1990 for  $4.25 billion when Telecom had shareholder funds of $2.5 billion.  Shareholder funds declined over the next several years despite  cost-cutting (achieved by dumping workers, neglecting maintenance and  failing to build infrastructure)&nbsp;because of large capital payments to  its shareholders who started bailing out of the company from 1997 with a  realised capital of $7.2 billion, in addition to a share of dividends  worth $4.2 billion.&nbsp; (1)<br />Between&nbsp;1990 and 1998 the company shareholder funds halved to $1.1 billion and it was then heavily in debt.<br />From  1995 'til 2004, Telecom paid dividends of $6.7 billion from net  earnings declared in N Z of&nbsp;$5.4 billion, of which approximately $5.0  billion went overseas.(2)<br /><br />This Telecom&nbsp;exercise in privatisation&nbsp;added approximately $10 billion to New Zealand's international liabilities.<br /><br />New  Zealand Railways was sold in 1993 in a sale organised by merchant  bankers Faye and Richwhite (Yup, them&nbsp;again!) who then, get this,  proceeded to benefit from it hugely, by taking a substantial  shareholding.&nbsp;A conflict of interest&nbsp;not unlike the behaviour&nbsp;mirrored  by the criminals that stripped the&nbsp;post-Soviet Russian economy of  enormous wealth.<br />The&nbsp;main shareholders of the purchaser,  Tranzrail, were Faye, Richwhite, Berkshire Fund and Wisconsin Central  of the US, and Alex van Heeren.<br />These people bought a  company which had been freed of debt with a public (taxpayer)&nbsp;injection  of capital&nbsp;worth $1.6 billion. The price agreed was&nbsp;$328 million, of  which they paid only $107 million and borrowed the rest. According to  Brian Gaynor they "were responsible for stripping out $220.9 million of  equity in 1993 and $100 million in 1995"&nbsp;(3)<br />By the time  they sold out, they had made total profits of $370 million, mainly tax  free, because of&nbsp;a lack of a&nbsp;capital gains tax, and insinuations of  insider trading.(4) (They paid $20 million to make these insinuations&nbsp;go  away).<br />Wisconsin's safety record was nothing short of disgraceful,  shameful. By 2000, fatal accidents to employees were eight times the  national average.<br />Investment and maintenance were appalling, which crippled the whole operation.<br />They  then sold out to an&nbsp;Australian company&nbsp;Toll, who similarly failed to  maintain the company, who in their turn sold back to the New&nbsp;Zealand  government in two tranches totalling $960 million, which is all very  well, but the government now has an enormous deferred maintenance bill  (thousands of millions of dollars) to repair the railbeds, signal  systems and replace&nbsp;antique, worn-out rolling-stock.<br /><br />It is difficult to quantify the total costs to the country. <br />Ruined  lives and families,&nbsp;opportunities squandered for the New Zealand  people, years of progress, institutional knowledge and  intelligence&nbsp;tossed away, not to mention&nbsp;the financial losses.&nbsp;Clearly  $1.3 billion was paid to the two owners, even without all dividends  being accounted for, most of which will have&nbsp;ended up overseas anyway.  The cost to us, (the New Zealand government) the citizens, will be  billions of dollars, greatly magnified by the, in this writer's opinion,  criminal&nbsp;negligence of the private owners.&nbsp;It illustrates an almost  perfect example of selfishness and greed.&nbsp;<br />(more to come)<br /><br /><br />(1) "Testing times ahead for Telecom", by Brian Gaynor, <em style="">New Zealand Herald</em>, 26 May 2001<br />(2) "Telecom: What a winner!"&nbsp;&nbsp;Financial report on winner of the Roger award, Sue Newberry<br />(3) "Investment: Track record costly to public", by Brian Gaynor, <em style="">New Zealand Herald</em>, 21 October 2000<br />(4) "A tough case...and a long one", by Brian Gaynor, <em style="">New Zealand Herald</em>, 16 October 2004<br />Bill Rosenberg, Trade union economist, wrote most of this for&nbsp;a <a style="" title="" href="http://The%20New%20Zealand%20Fabian%20Society"><em style="">New Zealand</em> </a><em style=""><a style="" title="" href="http://The%20New%20Zealand%20Fabian%20Society">Fabian Society</a>&nbsp;</em>discussion paper.<br /><br />&nbsp;Malcolm Yeates&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <a style="" title="" href="mailto:Jollyoldsalt@gmail.com">Jollyoldsalt@gmail.com</a><br /></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[I have heard the Government’s budget, Here is mine!!]]></title><link><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/february-10th-2012]]></link><comments><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/february-10th-2012#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:11:55 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[jollyoldsalt]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/february-10th-2012</guid><description><![CDATA["The system is broken"  &ldquo;Questioning  growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and  revolutionaries. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two  billion people living on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile  ecosystem on which we are entirely dependant for our very survival. It  has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic  stability and security in people&rsquo;s livelihoods&rdquo; (1).&nbsp;&nbsp; The system is  broken. Business as u [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote style="text-align:left;"><font size="4">"<span style="">The system is broken"</span></font><br /></blockquote>  <div class="paragraph" style="text-align:left;"><span></span>&ldquo;Questioning  growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and  revolutionaries. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two  billion people living on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile  ecosystem on which we are entirely dependant for our very survival. It  has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic  stability and security in people&rsquo;s livelihoods&rdquo; (1).&nbsp;&nbsp; The system is  broken. Business as usual is no longer an option nor tolerable.  Prosperity for the few founded on ecological destruction and persistent  social injustice is no foundation for a civilized society.<br /><br />Should  we continue on the same path as we have in the past, we will arrive,  soon, in a society with a fabulously rich elite, a middle class shrunken  into insignificance, struggling to keep its head above water, and a  working class that can&rsquo;t. This unhappy disparity of wealth shall be  achieved with more and more production and consumption of goods and  services, at a cost in environmental devastation and a fragmented,  incoherent and violent society in name only. Unemployment will be for  most, the norm, with no chance of contributing to, or being part of a  functioning society.<br /><br />&ldquo;This  is the conundrum of our existence. We have structured our affairs in  such a way that economic growth and excessive consumption are destroying  us and our world, while their absence dooms us to recession and  unemployment.<br />Clearly  we need a steady state economy that can serve human needs without  endless growth. Rather than uncritically accepting this mirage of  growth, we need to build alternatives&rdquo; (3).  &nbsp; <u style="">The minimum wage</u> shall be set at $17.00 per hour. The minimum wage will be adjusted to the inflation rate on an annual basis.<br /><br />Work hours completed after 35 (thirty five)&nbsp;hours shall be paid at double time.<br />All workers will be strongly advised and encouraged to join a union.<br />Five weeks annual holiday will be paid by the employer to each worker.<br />Maternity leave, for both parents will be set at no less than 26 weeks.<br />Redundancy  for every worker shall start at&nbsp;three month's&nbsp;income, for the first  years service or part thereof. Every years service thereafter shall be  paid at&nbsp;one month's income.&nbsp;<br /><u style="">Co-operatives</u> will be strongly encouraged and supported amongst workers with a common interest.<br /><br />&nbsp; The lowest rate of <u style="">taxation </u>will be 10% (ten per cent)&nbsp;and apply to all income up to $30,000. <br />Woe betide any greedy son-of-a-bitch manipulating income to qualify for the lower rate.<br /><br />&nbsp;  A progressive p.a.y.e tax will be re-introduced. The top rate of  taxation shall be 70% and shall be applied to all incomes over $250,000.  Trusts and companies used to camouflage income will be banned.<br />Income levels will be adjusted by the annual rate of inflation.<br />&nbsp; An additional social security tax of 10% will be applied, to be used solely for health spending.<br />&nbsp; The tax rate on cigarettes and alcohol will increase. All tax received from such sales will be paid to public hospitals.<br />&nbsp;  Supermarkets and dairies will be unable to sell alcohol. Local  communities shall have democratic control as to whether or not alcohol  outlets will be permitted in their neighbourhood.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp;<br />Third party insurance for cars will be compulsory. <br />The tax rate on petrol will be increased and all tax received from this source will be used on roads and/or public transport. <br /><br />A  discussion needs to be initiated about our use of finite resources, and  our almost automatic and thoughtless construction of yet more roads and  motorways.<br /><br /><br />Estate duty on all estates valued at over $500,000 will be re-introduced.<br />All  profits on second homes, investment properties and shares sold within  12 years of purchase will be deemed to be part of the owner&rsquo;s taxable  income.<br /><br />'Hot money' sent into New Zealand to take advantage of the movement of the exchange rate will be taxed.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br />The exchange rate will be periodically adjusted, to benefit export businesses.<br />The Governor of the Reserve Bank will no longer be able to increase or lower the Official Cash Rate (OCR).<br />&nbsp;  &ldquo;Greater reliance on macro-economic policies in areas such as the  exchange rate and interest rates to achieve profit, competition,  productivity and innovation. In other words policies directed at  controlling inflation by increasing supply rather than restricting  demand.<br />Greater  use of fiscal policy and an integration of fiscal policy with monetary  policy, so that quicker acting and better focused fiscal measures would  take more of the burden of controlling inflation. <br />A  wider remit for the Reserve Bank so that it is required to look at  broader goals such as growth and efficiency in the real economy in  addition to the current exclusive priority given to the control of  inflation.<br />A  more effective monetary policy taking into account major inflationary  factors, e.g. huge increases in bank lending for residential  properties&rdquo;(2).<br /><br />&nbsp;Or.  Replacing the O C R with an Interest Linked Saving Scheme would be more  effective in controlling inflation and would encourage rather than  destroy the productive economy.<br /><br />&nbsp;The final entitlement age for <u style="">superannuation</u>  will be flexible. Some people will still be capable of good work well  into their 70&rsquo;s; others will be worn out at 60 years of age. The amount  paid will be adjusted annually by the rate of inflation, and will be 70%  of the average wage.<br />A  person will not be entitled to superannuation until they have retired  from the work force. Super payments will cease upon any re-employment or  part-employment that takes a person's total taxable income above the  average wage.<br /><br />Where there are dependant children, the family income, up to $75,000&nbsp;may be halved for tax purposes.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br /><u style="">&ldquo;Public education</u> is the most important element in the maintenance of a democratic system.<br />The better citizens as a whole are educated, the wider and more sensible public participation,  debate and social mobility will be. Any serious rivalry from the  private education systems will siphon off the elites and fatally wound  the drive and funding of the state system. <br />Highly sophisticated elites are the easiest and least original thing a society can produce.<br />The most difficult and the most valuable is a well educated populace.<br /><br />Fashionable  education consultants (Science of Education specialists) have reduced  the budgets for general education and the number of teachers, telling us  there is no money and have concluded that our sophisticated system  cannot afford to properly educate our people.<br />It should be pointed out to these specialists that there will be even less money in a society of functionally illiterate people.<br />We know this is a suicidal and lunatic policy position.<br />What we are doing is passively accepting the conclusion of lunatics&rdquo; (5).<br /><br />Therefore:-<br /><br />&nbsp;There will be no money for private schools.<br />Adult (night classes) education shall be re-established.<br />There will be extra money for kindergartens, schools and universities.<br />An  enquiry will be conducted into teacher training, pay rates, teacher&rsquo;s  status within the community and the &ldquo;after hours&rdquo; public use of  schoolroom resources.<br />An enquiry will be conducted into student loans with a view to the abolition of student loans.<br /><br /><br />Alternatively,  The State will pay those students taking degrees for which there is a  shortage e.g. Agricultural Science, Medicine.<br />Most university degrees will be free, e.g., Arts, Fine Arts, Humanities and the Sciences.<br />Some courses, e.g., Commerce, Business and Law will be charged at full cost.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp;Of major importance to New Zealanders, is the retention and flowering of<br /><u style="">Te Reo Maori.</u><br />Te Reo is an official language of this country, spoken nowhere else. <br />Monoligual people who learn another language also learn another culture.<br />Bi-lingual people&nbsp;are more sophisticated, bi-cultural human beings. <br />To  this end Te Reo will become a compulsory subject at all educational  institutions, with a special emphasis on Language Nests (early immersion  classes).&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp;<u style="">New Zealand Railways</u> will be re-established with the aim of building a&nbsp;railways system similar to France. <br /><br />System  analysts have been given control of finances for Government departments  and have been busy trying to make each separate government service  profitable, yet without realizing that the public service is not a  separate private corporation, but part of a whole, which is the entire  public structure.&nbsp;<br /><br />The proposal is thus:-&nbsp;<br />&ldquo;To  treat the rail system as a fundamental need, adhering to the 19th  century idea of a national infrastructure which requires investment  without any rational plan for a financial return.<br />In  France, they have maintained a large staff at all levels. Taking the  view of customer service, cleanliness, of maximum number of services,  therefore of choice in the use of trains, of good food and of  reliability. They have spent money developing technology to produce fast  reliable trains, building new railbeds and signal systems. Property  values have increased in proximity to railway stations; business goes to  towns served by fast trains-thus helping the policies of  decentralization. The balance of payments is helped by not importing  fuel for less fuel-efficient modes of transport; e g trucks and  aircraft. Tourism benefits with an influx of tourists wanting to use  trains. France&rsquo;s essence of success is that the entire sector is treated  as providing an essential public service, worthy of the best high  technology in the context of labor, maintenance, and an  investment-intensive industry&rdquo; (5).&nbsp; Making a profit is not a concern.<br /><br />&nbsp;<u style="">The New Zealand Shipping Line</u> will be re-established to assist our exporters and to complement the railway system.<br /><br />The <u style="">New Zealand military</u>  forces have concentrated on developing a post modern, hi-tech, abstract  idea of professional warfare (frigates and armored personnel carriers).<br />The  result is that our forces, by training, equipment and attitude are no  longer capable of fighting a real modern war, which can be watched on  television news channels&nbsp;every night.<br /><br />&nbsp;A  typical postwar conflict now involves irregular and highly mobile  combat which mixes armies with civilians and irregular forces,  professional and amateur; low-cost (though in some cases  highly-sophisticated) equipment and public terror. These rag-tag forces  are easily capable of confounding and defeating the most powerful of  &lsquo;conventional&rsquo; armies.<br /><br />Since about 1950 this type of warfare has steadily increased to, by now, more than fifty conflicts&rdquo; (5). <br />E.g. Vietnam, Bougainville, Somalia, The Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. <br />About 1,000 combatants and 5,000 civilians are being killed every day.<br /><br />&ldquo;The National government&rsquo;s neo-conservative, monetarist inspired <br /><u style="">Electricity privatisation</u> reforms in the 1980&rsquo;s didn&rsquo;t work, can&rsquo;t work, and never will.<br />The  government of the day set up five competing generators, commissioned  with making a profit. Prices had to rise to pay for five sets of  lawyers, accountants and marketeers, all of whom would be receiving  over-inflated corporate salaries.<br /><br />&nbsp;Networks have been neglected. <br />Generation capacity has been deliberately stunted, creating higher prices and leaving the nation vulnerable to black-outs.<br />When  networks found they really had to build something, they built  short-term, stop-gap, carbon-heavy, gas-fired generating stations.<br />In  our country, which is geographically long, with a small population,  sparsely scattered, needs a degree of planning and foresight no amount  of market regulation can achieve". (4).<br /><br />The best way of saving money is conservation. What profit-driven enterprise can promulgate that contradiction?<br /><br />Electricity  is not a commodity in our society; but an absolute necessity; when it  is switched off, people die. We have seen that. <br /><br />It  has been revealed recently that electricity companies have overcharged  consumers here,&nbsp;by about&nbsp;four thousand three hundred million dollars.  ($4,300,000,000).<br /><br />If  any more proof is needed of the lunacy of the present system it is the  reshuffling of assets between and around the various generating  companies. No amount of re-designing will ever make this senseless model  of right wing thinking work. None.<br />Private enterprise has clearly demonstrated it is not capable of running this essential resource.<br /><br />Therefore.&nbsp;<br />The electricity generating and distribution infrastructure in New Zealand will be re-nationalised. <br />Government will take the responsibility of rebuilding the system with a unity of purpose and for the benefit of all people.<br /><br />All privatised <u style="">water supplies in New Zealand</u> will be re-nationalised and placed under local, democratic control.<br /><br />&nbsp;The Wellington City Council&rsquo;s private water company &lsquo;Capacity&rsquo; was:-<br />Charged with saving WCC several millions of dollars; they have not.<br />Charged with replacing ten kilometers of water pipe in annual maintenance work; they have not.<br />The Wellington water reticulation system loses nearly a quarter (22%) of its load between treatment plant and consumer&rsquo;s tap.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp;<br /><em style="">I have compiled this budget after reading and being influenced by several writers (they have much more skill and grace).</em><br /><em style=""><br />Patricia  Smith of Christchurch, who published her alternative budget in the  &lsquo;Sunday Star Times&rsquo; about a year ago. I have used the framework she  provided, and modified it to mine.&nbsp;</em><br /><em style="">(1)  Tim Jackson, Economics commissioner, Sustainable Development Trust,  independent advisory board to UK Government. &ldquo;Prosperity without growth&rdquo;  &lsquo;Questioning growth&hellip;&rsquo;&nbsp;<br /></em><em style="">&nbsp;</em><em style="">(2) Bryan Gould&nbsp;&nbsp; Diplomat;  Professor of Law; M.P, British Labour Party; Academic and Rhodes  Scholar contributed the economic measures starting with &lsquo;Greater  reliance&hellip;&rsquo;</em><br /><em style="">&nbsp;</em><em style="">(3) John Rhodes of Greytown, &lsquo;Listener&rsquo; letters,&nbsp;&nbsp; &ldquo;This is the conundrum&hellip;&rsquo;</em><br /><em style="">&nbsp;</em><em style="">(4) Roger Lacey, writing in &lsquo;The Listener&rsquo; letters page, &ldquo;The National Govt&hellip;&rsquo;&nbsp;</em><br /><em style="">&nbsp;</em><em style="">(5) John Ralston Saul, Canadian intellectual and writer &lsquo;The Doubter&rsquo;s Companion&rsquo;,</em><br /><em style="">Voltaire&rsquo;s Bastards&rsquo; and &lsquo;The Collapse of Globalism&rsquo;. His contribution is to Railways, Education and Defence.</em><br /><br />&nbsp;<br /><br />Malcolm Yeates<br /><br /><a style="" title="" href="mailto:Jollyoldsalt@gmail.com">Jollyoldsalt@gmail.com</a></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[A dream for a new Christchurch]]></title><link><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/a-dream-for-a-new-christchurch]]></link><comments><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/a-dream-for-a-new-christchurch#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 04:32:22 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[jollyoldsalt]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/a-dream-for-a-new-christchurch</guid><description><![CDATA["A New Christchurch; Some thoughts for a&nbsp;new Christchurch."  NapierThere are&nbsp;lessons to be  learned&nbsp;by the Christchurch reconstruction authority&nbsp;from the Napier  earthquake&nbsp;recovery and reconstruction struggle&nbsp;of&nbsp;1931.J S Barton, a  magistrate and L B Campbell, engineer, were appointed as Commissioners  of Napier, charged with organising the reconstruction effort, who  together with local committees had the job of organising reconstruction.  Local survey plans  [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote style="text-align:center;"><font size="3">"A New Christchurch; <strong style="">Some thoughts for a&nbsp;new Christchurch."</strong></font></blockquote>  <div class="paragraph" style="text-align:justify;"><strong style=""><u style="">Napier<br /></u></strong>There are&nbsp;lessons to be  learned&nbsp;by the Christchurch reconstruction authority&nbsp;from the Napier  earthquake&nbsp;recovery and reconstruction struggle&nbsp;of&nbsp;1931.<br />J S Barton, a  magistrate and L B Campbell, engineer, were appointed as Commissioners  of Napier, charged with organising the reconstruction effort, who  together with local committees had the job of organising reconstruction.  Local survey plans and land titles were destroyed, neccessitating  property re-surveying.<br />Insurance companies refused to  cover&nbsp;the damage from fires that ensued after the earthquake. In 1931  Parliament passed the Hawke's Bay Earthquake Act, which provided loans  for local firms and citizens to rebuild properties.<br />Because of the&nbsp;economic depression at the time, funds provided were far from adequate and repayment terms were&nbsp;steep.<br />A lot of the recovery funds came from charities, who in subsequent weeks,&nbsp;poured the&nbsp;cash&nbsp;in.<br />The  authorities didn't want haphazard growth and a temporary shopping  centre "Tin town", was built in Clive Square and used for several years.<br />They were then, more or less, told to get on with it.<br />Napier differs fom Christchurch&nbsp;in that&nbsp;Napier's town centre was pretty much razed.&nbsp;A clean palette, so to speak.<br />Authorities  were able to completely re-design the centre, with wider streets, and  some of New Zealand's earliest underground power and <br />telegraph lines.<br />Four&nbsp;architectural practices joined together to share ideas and resources.<br />Louis Hay was influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Natusch and sons' buildings were simple and clean in style.<br />Westerholm did many buildings using&nbsp;Spanish Mission style.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />The most popular though, was the Art Deco style, used by E A Williams, emphasising spare clean lines and geometric motifs.<br />Two&nbsp; years later, at the New Napier Carnival in 1933, the city was officially declared reborn.<br /><u style=""><strong style="">Christchurch<br /></strong></u>The  reconstruction ideas and plans must come from the citizens of  Christchurch, who are fizzing, bursting with inspirational ideas for  using their ambitions, energy and capital&nbsp;and supported by planning,  architectual and engineering professionals who will aid the people to  define and design&nbsp;Christchurch as a 21st century city in sustainable  design and in the use of energy, food and resources. Imagine new centres  of business and laboratories for biotechnology, electronics, finance  and other high-value services for agriculture and manufacturing,&nbsp;with  plenty of rich opportunities for both science and business&nbsp;and a new  relationship between rural and urban&nbsp;communities. The community needs a  set of agreements on their own ideas and&nbsp;plans. Council and the  government can't mandate that, nor can they micro-manage it as they&nbsp;seem  intent on doing. Instead government can set a broad framework for  engagement, support of the work, and pledge to build the city the  citizens want. (See above&nbsp;how the Napier rebuild was handled). The  citizens of Christchurch&nbsp;must own the re-build.<br /><br />I would like to add my two cents worth, so here's what I think<br />The  Central&nbsp;Business District is&nbsp;a 17th century concept&nbsp;and was created  when horses were used for&nbsp;transport and as a means of communication. <br />Forget the idea of a&nbsp;CBD now.<br />There are a lot of buildings within the district irrevocably damaged, these can be cleared and the sites returned to gardens.<br />Hagley Park will be greatly&nbsp;expanded out into the old business district, to the riverbanks,&nbsp;then down to the sea.<br />Having  said that, there are also many hundreds of&nbsp;wonderful buildings in the  centre of town needing to be lovingly rebuilt and&nbsp;restored because  afterall,&nbsp;it is the old buildings which define Christchurch and make it  such a handsome, beautiful&nbsp;city.&nbsp;Some examples are&nbsp;churches and&nbsp;the old  University buildings. <br />New 'hubs' (hearts?) to be  developed in the suburbs, incorporating small parks, civic,&nbsp;commercial,  manufacturing and residential (apartment) buildings. The new buildings  will be constructed in timber and be about three or four stories high  and incorporate everything we know about new  earthquake-proofing,&nbsp;sustainability and environmental building  standards. New vertical farming in converted highrise buildings, garden  roofs and&nbsp;green walls. To bring Christchurch back to its genisis as the  market-place for the farmlands on the Canterbury plains.&nbsp;An  international architectural competition will be held for the designs of  these new buildings.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />The hubs will be connected with a  web of fast, modern trams and bicycle roads. Imagine highly attractive  places for living, shopping, recreation, entertainment and education,  with a very high standard and&nbsp;quality of design.<br /><br />The newly created Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) is mandated with consulting and executing the recovery plan. <br />But  will it?&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't think the chances are very high when we look at this  government's track record of pushing through legislation under urgency  (twice as much as the previous administration) which cripples select  committees and the opportunity for&nbsp;careful debate to improve  legislation. The new CERA legislation has suffered from this. Its  consultation mechanism has been side-lined and it's now all too easy for  CERA to ignore, particularly if it uses the example of  minister-in-charge of Chch's recovery, Gerry (Bozo) Brownlee.&nbsp;This  administation has already abused democracy in&nbsp;Canterbury when it sacked  the elected representatives of the regional council and appointed  commissioners. It then released a shoddy report which misrepresented the  council's performance and ignored the council's progress building  concensus on regional water issues. I wonder if Brownlee will tire of  democracy at city council level and sack the council as&nbsp;was&nbsp;done to&nbsp;the  regional one? People are becoming frustrated, exhausted and frightened.  The major cause of frustration is the government itself, which is  focussed on immediate issues only and seems incapable of responding to  people's needs. "The lockdown of information here is truly scary," an  emailer wrote about rebuilding the fabric and life of the city,&nbsp;"No one  is talking to us".<br /><br /><br /><br />Malcolm Yeates<br /><a style="" title="" href="mailto:Jollyoldsalt@gmail.com">Jollyoldsalt@gmail.com</a><br /><br /></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[Public Service shenanigans]]></title><link><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/february-07th-2013]]></link><comments><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/february-07th-2013#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:19:44 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[jollyoldsalt]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/february-07th-2013</guid><description><![CDATA["Idealogically driven, right-wing&nbsp;destruction of&nbsp;New Zealand's&nbsp;public service"  Right-wing politicians in this country have a rather schizophrenic  attitude toward the public service. The National Party came to power, in  this last election, promising to cut the numbers of officials who  weren&rsquo;t in the front line. Christchurch has shown how vitally  important back-room officials are, and puts the lie to the nonsense  espoused by the National Party&nbsp;(keep the front-line t [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote style="text-align:left;"><font size="4">"Idealogically driven, right-wing&nbsp;destruction of&nbsp;New Zealand's&nbsp;public service"</font></blockquote>  <div class="paragraph" style="text-align:justify;"><span></span>Right-wing politicians in this country have a rather schizophrenic  attitude toward the public service. The National Party came to power, in  this last election, promising to cut the numbers of officials who  weren&rsquo;t in the front line. <br />Christchurch has shown how vitally  important back-room officials are, and puts the lie to the nonsense  espoused by the National Party&nbsp;(keep the front-line troops, while  hollowing out the back-room staff ).<br /><br />This was bought home to me  after the second earthquake. I was talking to my friend, about the six  or seven helicopters almost immediately located&nbsp;to Hagley Park. <br />Clearly, there was Air Traffic Control operating.<br />Maybe there was even a refueling depot set up. (<em style="">Is this helicopter fuel? Is this the </em>correct <em style="">helicopter fuel?)<br /></em>Maybe even a technician was on hand, helicopters being what they are, with heavy demands on maintenance.<br /><br />So, it&rsquo;s not just about the people who aim the hoses or crawl through the rubble.<br />Intelligence and competence are needed by the back-room, as well as at the front line.<br /><u style="">All </u>are needed if the machine is going to work as a whole.<br /><br />&nbsp;&ldquo;<strong style="">How</strong>  will the government&rsquo;s response to the recession and the effects of  Christchurch&rsquo;s earthquake affect our ability, as a country, to deal with  future disasters? <br />And will our public service have the resilience to cope? <br />If&nbsp;we  allow government infrastructure to be run-down to the point of  uselessness, because of under-funding, will we be able to properly  respond to the next big disaster?<br />Is the shocking response by the  incompetent Bush administration to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans  about an incapacity to effectively respond because of the U S  government&rsquo;s &ldquo;small government&rdquo; ideology, and continuous cuts to the  public sector?<br />Or will the eventual demise of an effective public  sector in New Zealand be used as an excuse to move from tax-payer  subsidised public service to subsidising the private sector to provide  user-pays, for-profit services in prisons, schools and even emergency  response services? (1)<br /><br />We were able, as a nation,&nbsp;to respond as  effectively as we did in Christchurch because the remnants of a strong  public service have not&nbsp;yet been completely&nbsp;gutted.<br /><br />Are tax cuts really worth not being ready for the next natural catastrophe? <br /><br /><em style="">(1) Katrina King, Plimmerton, Letters column,</em> DominionPost<em style="">, March 26th</em><br /><br />Malcolm Yeates&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a style="" title="" href="http://jollyoldsalt@gmail.comweeblylink_new_window"><u style="">Jollyoldsalt@gmail.com</u></a><br /></div>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title><![CDATA[A Look at out Prime Minister]]></title><link><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/a-look-at-out-prime-minister]]></link><comments><![CDATA[http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/a-look-at-out-prime-minister#comments]]></comments><pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 05:37:10 GMT</pubDate><category><![CDATA[jollyoldsalt]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communityvoice.net.nz/jolly-old-salt/a-look-at-out-prime-minister</guid><description><![CDATA[A political reporter asked what's not to like about Prime Minister John  Key (July 29, 2011). The qualities as suggested in this article&nbsp;about  why he was the preferred prime minister were that he's "loaded", "a bit  tasty', and&nbsp;"a family man".I am of the&nbsp;opposition who do not want him as prime minister.I  certainly do not like&nbsp;nor approve of&nbsp;the way he made his money. Key,  politely speaking, traded in&nbsp;currency. In other words he&nbsp;gambles&nbsp;on the  &nbsp;mon [...] ]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="paragraph" style="text-align:justify;"><font size="4">A political reporter asked what's not to like about Prime Minister John  Key (July 29, 2011). The qualities as suggested in this article&nbsp;about  why he was the preferred prime minister were that he's "loaded", "a bit  tasty', and&nbsp;"a family man".<br /><span></span><br />I am of the&nbsp;opposition who do not want him as prime minister.<br /><span></span><br />I  certainly do not like&nbsp;nor approve of&nbsp;the way he made his money. Key,  politely speaking, traded in&nbsp;currency. In other words he&nbsp;gambles&nbsp;on the  &nbsp;money markets. Prime Minister Key hasn't created anything, or made  anything, or worked for the betterment of anyone apart from himself, a  completely selfish and, gambling being a zero-sum game,&nbsp;an  ultimately&nbsp;&nbsp;destructive occupation.<br /><span></span><br />I do not approve  of&nbsp;the National Party's policies - giving tax breaks and advantage to  the rich and running down the social services this country was admired  for.<br /><span></span><br />It's appalling that in our deliberately engineered,  low-wage economy, unionism has been largely destroyed; (What role do  strong unions play in strong economies?) and people on wages cannot  claim tax exemptions, as the wealthy may.<br /><span></span><br />I don't like  the way Key and his supporters are very happy to take over this  country's tax-payer owned assets to exploit them for their own  advantage.<br />For these reasons I do not want John Key as our prime minister.<br /><br />I am indebted to Judith Holloway who wrote most of&nbsp;this in &nbsp;Letters to the editor,</font><em style=""><font size="4"> The DominionPost </font><br /></em></div>]]></content:encoded></item></channel></rss>