Pakistan Cricket have announced a new shirt sponsor for their upcoming tour of New Zealand. Speaking at an official press conference last week the Pakistan Cricket chairman, Ivabin of Dosh, named the TAB as the new shirt sponsor. This comes after months of close contact between the two parties as thay have attempted to broker a deal to keep both the Pakistan Cricket Fund and the TAB afloat.

“Pakistan Cricket is over the moon with this new arrangement and we hope for many profitable years ahead. Most of our team is comfortable down at the local TAB so I see this as a real positive move for both the TAB and Pakistan Cricket.”

People close to both sides say that this new combination was a win-win for both parties. The Pakistan team can know work closely with long time rivals the  TAB to rig every cricket match they pay play in to maximise the revenue for both parties. Working together will enable them to rig the odds to astronomical proportions, while providing cricket with some of the strangest results every.

Critics have pointed this may lead to some strange cricket results in the coming months, especially in New Zealand. Some results likely to show that Pakistan and the TAB are working together

- The Black Caps winning 3 games in a row.

- Kylie Mills bowls a maiden over.

- Pakistan dismissed for 18

Today is the 2nd of September.  Whenever New Zealanders recall our nation’s great sporting deeds, the events of September 2, 1960, will always occupy a prominent place.

That was the day of the “Golden Hour” when Sir Peter Snell and Sir Murray Halberg indelibly inked the country’s name on the Rome Olympic Games canvas. so today sit back, relax and watch Snell at his best. Seemingly boxed in on the final corner he powers home to win his first gold medal. Incidentally, his world record time that he set in 1962 in Christchurch on a grass track in bare feet would have won him the gold medal in Beijing.

For a great article – click here – or watch the video below

this is rather cool

Didn’t intend on posting today but saw this video in Church today and thought it was good enough to share. When most of the world sees today as a holiday this video is a reminder of what should be our focus around this time of year.

Beer - aka 'Satan's Urine' in some circles.

While I was busy studying for my Bachelor of Education at Canterbury University one simple pleasure I enjoyed was checking out the ‘new book’ section of the library. On one particular day I remember picking up a book called ‘Tipping Point’ by Malcolm Gladwell. In this book Gladwell talks about social events he calls ‘tipping points’. These are social events or consumer fads which once started, are impossible to stop. These tipping points are moments of ‘critical mass where a momentum change is unstoppable’. Two examples he uses in the book are the rise of Hush Puppies shoes in the 1990 and the declining New York Crime rate in the same decade.

Fast forward ten years later and I have now completed my degree and been teaching for a while. However, I was reminded of the book the other day as our class visited the Life Education Trust van. For those unfamiliar with this school resource, the Life Education Trust is a self sufficient trust that focuses on health education in our Primary and Intermediate Schools. The lesson the other day to my Year 7 class was on alcohol within New Zealand society. Sadly, I was reminded of the ‘Tipping Point’ theory as statistic after statistic was read out and discussed in our class. If ever there was a need for a social tipping point on the issue of alcohol within New Zealand that time is now. 

Alcohol is without exception the single most devastating drug available to New Zealanders. It is a drug that doesn’t linger at the bottom of the social class ladder and is a drug that has no respect for age, sex or race. It is a drug that impacts both users and non users through devastating accidents and spiralling social costs. Legislators within New Zealand have tried to provide answers through liberalisation and a myriad of laws, with little progress being made over the last 50 years. Sadly, it seems that only a social ‘tipping point’ based around honesty, sacrifice and modelling will be able to stop this slide.

Experts have suggested that if alcohol was to be categorised as an illicit drug it would have a class B classification; the same classification as opium and ecstasy. The World Health Organisation has recently classified alcohol beverages as ‘carcinogenic to humans’, placing it in the same category as asbestos, formaldehyde and tobacco. These statistics are nothing new to our politicians and law makers. However, since the turn of the 20^th century whatever policy or law that has been put in place has failed to deliver any lasting solutions. Following on from a wartime measure New Zealand had 6 o’clock closing until that was abolished following a public referendum in 1967. This saw a general liberalisation of the liquor laws within New Zealand as bars, sports clubs and restaurants were granted licenses. Obviously this saw an increase in general alcohol consumption in New Zealand, which peaked in 1978 at 12 litres of pure alcohol per person. The current rate is just below 10 litres per person.

In 1984 the Labour Government established the Alcohol Working Party which gave a report and recommendations for the future focus. Despite a number of submissions wanting the number of liquor outlets to be lessened the committee believed that focusing on providing safe drinking establishments as more of a priority. The resulting 1989 Sales of Liquor Act basically made it easy for shops to sell alcohol and allowed Supermarkets to sell wine. Ten years later that same liberal undertone accompanied the 1999 Alcohol Act which lowered the drinking age to 18 from 20 and allowed beer to be sold in Supermarkets for the first time. Sir John Robertson chaired the review committee and gave an optimistic view of alcohol liberalisation within New Zealand. Sadly, while in theory trying to develop a Mediterranean style of drinking culture within New Zealand sounds nice, it has been nothing more than a romantic dream. The liberalisation of alcohol has had the opposite affect on New Zealand’s society.

In 2009 the Law Commission released a paper called ‘Alcohol in our Lives’ which was a discussion document on alcohol in New Zealand. The comprehensive document looked at New Zealand’s current alcohol situation including both the benefits and problems associated with alcohol. The paper also proposes a number of tentative solutions for public consideration. These solutions are grouped under supply control, demand reduction and problem limitation.

Some of the recommendations are the following;

• Only people aged 20 and over can buy alcohol at off-licences.
• Bars and clubs to stop selling alcohol at 2am, with some extensions to 4am for those with a one-way door policy.
• Powers for police to immediately close bars and clubs that breach liquor laws.
• Widening the grounds upon which a liquor licence can be cancelled
• Giving greater regard to community concerns in granting a licence.
• Allowing the Liquor Licensing Authority to impose additional conditions on a licence for the purpose of reducing liquor-related harm.
• Increase excise tax.
• Lower excise tax on low-alcohol drinks.
• Powers for Government to ban some drinks on health grounds.

These new ideas do highlight a distinct policy change for New Zealand law makers on the issue of alcohol. These proposals are a clear move away from the liberal laws that successive governments have passed in New Zealand regarding alcohol. These new suggestions see a much more legislative reaction towards the issue of alcohol in this country.

Despite this change of attitude and legislative direction these ideas will have very little affect on New Zealander’s attitude to alcohol. The culture of alcohol is totally ingrained in our society and passed on at a young age to our children. New Zealand’s culture of drinking is habitually taught through our families and our communities. This is the root of New Zealand’s alcohol problem. New Zealand’s alcohol education is taught through our sports teams, through our high schools, through our media and sadly sometimes through families. Therefore, true social change will not come about through legislation because legislation cant change these areas to the extent that is needed. The only way that lasting change will happen is if societies and communities come to a crisis point and decide they want to make a change for the better. In other words New Zealand would require a social ‘tipping point’ around alcohol.

Sadly, true change like this requires two key attributes, honesty and sacrifice. Firstly, every New Zealander must be willing to look honestly at their family, their lifestyle and their choices and admit that they are part of the problem. This will be hard for many of us because deep down we do not believe that the problem lies with us. The problem is always greater somewhere else.

“The problem is down the road in the lower socio economic areas”

“The problem is that parents can’t control their kids.”

“The problem is the law.”

The sooner people realises that we all contribute to the alcohol problem in New Zealand the quicker this problem will be resolved. New Zealander’s like to think that what I do in my own home is my business. Unfortunately, as we see from alcohol, what we do in our own home quickly becomes what we do in public.

If New Zealand ever gets to the ‘tipping point’ and starts to look at themselves honestly that is only the start. After honesty comes sacrifice. True change in New Zealand’s alcohol problems will only occur when people start to make personal and community sacrifices for the good of their families and their children. Sacrifice is difficult because it requires us to give up something we may actually enjoy or want. A connected part of sacrificing is also the idea that by sacrificing we are actually modelling behaviour. Therefore sacrificing and modelling are two connected values.

We sacrifice and model everyday in our families and in our communities. Parents give up their weekends to run their children around for sports and music. Parents model correct behaviour to their children every day. For some reason however, sacrificing and modelling responsible behaviour with alcohol seems to elude many families.

So what might sacrifice and modelling look like.

• Sacrifice might involve a family modelling to their children they can have a party without alcohol.
• Sacrifice might involve a rugby club modelling to their players that alcohol does not need to accompany every after match function.
• Sacrifice might involve schools taking a harder line on alcohol related issues.
• Sacrifice might involve families going without alcohol for a period of time.

Sadly, the reality in New Zealand is it seems any social revolution is a long way off. As a society we have elevated alcohol into a position of power and prestige in our society. People sadly believe alcohol is a necessary factor into having fun, socialising or in fact just living. With this attitude pervading New Zealand is a long way off any ‘tipping point’ on the issue of alcohol.

Wikipedia Extract –

Honi Harawira (Maori Party) and Rodney Hyde (Act Party) were well known outlaws, robbers, and criminals who, working together as a gang travelled to every corner of the globe using tax payer’s money and using unnecessary language to convey personal opinions. The exploits of ‘Honnie and Hyde’, became legendary as both of them like to ride their ‘high horse’ on a number of political issues while actually taking part in the very aspects they attacked others for. The bible verse “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” from Matthew 7 is certainly one they should both read.

They captured the attention of the New Zealand press and its readership during what is sometimes referred to as the “Financial Crisis of 2009’ when they willing spent thousands of tax dollars on lavish trips around the globe.  Though known today for their failure to turn up to important meetings and describing ‘white New Zealanders’ as #%^%@#$, they both in fact preferred to rob people blind through the political system. Outside of political life Honnie had a particular love for Paris and the French language while Hyde was a well known as ballroom dancer and part time sea swimmer.

Thank goodness I don’t live in England. Firstly, the weather is rotten and their cricket team is worse than ours. Secondly, and most importantly, it looks as if the government is about to crackdown on bad parenting and family breakdown in the UK. While this sounds great on the outside I do have some reservations regarding the actual implementation of this lofty goal.

According to the Guardian Newspaper Gordon Brown, the current Prime Minister, is about to make a speech at the Labour convention where he will announce that parents of errant children will lose access to benefits unless they agree to accept support to improve their parenting skills. The article actually states he will go further and say that parents with children charged with antisocial behaviour will be automatically subject to a parenting contract. He will also promise that all 50,000 of Britain’s most chaotic families will be required by 2015 to attend family intervention projects.

Where do I start with this one?

Firstly, I am glad this rule was not in force in New Zealand when I was a youngster. My parents would have been constantly on monthly government parenting contracts. Not for any fault of their own. I once threw a dart in my brother’s leg from 15m, often fought with my two brothers and most Friday’s in my 7^th form year were spent missing class for whatever reason I could find. While not the epitimony of a delinquent child, in a court of law my parents still had plenty to answer for.

Secondly, I find the rule just a little discriminating. The underlying precept basically assumes those people who get welfare can’t raise children while those who are wealthy are good parents. Imagine if the following rule was enforced in New Zealand;

“Parents of students who have high truancy rates will not be able to purchase Warrior season tickets.”

There would be a national outrage due to the assumption of the statement.

Thirdly, on an issue like this by the time a child gets to an age where they can exhibit anti-social behaviour, the horse has already bolted Mr Gordon Brown. Real, lasting benefits must be when children are under the age of 5.

Therefore one can assume that this is just a giant election stunt by Gordon Brown to get the vote from the middle and upper class of Britain. Apparently, a few people think it might actually work but I suppose we will have to wait until the general election to find out if it is successful.

Despite this being an election bribe, there is no harm in me putting my own ideas forward on this matter. I think these would be much more beneficial at curbing anti social behaviour and restoring the family.

Firstly, rather than focusing on the bad behaviour offer positives and give monetary rewards for children that behave. A cool $100 for every 5 hours of community service, with a registered charity, would see our youth putting back into the community.  Parents could receive a $1000 bonus for every high school year their child avoided contact with a police officer. This idea is limitless when you think about it. Every visit to a public library with your kid would earn a little cash while not having a TV in your child’s room would give the parents an extra $500 a year. With National likely to bring in standardised testing, a parent bursary of $500 for children passing each test would ensure parents spent time helping their children with their education.

If monetary rewards are not your thing the government could go really hardline. By law parents would have to have a minimum of 2 years between children. During those two years would be required to pass a number of ‘parenting competencies’ to prove their ability to raise children. This would be kind of like a ‘parenting warrant of fitness’. In future years different categories could be added such as a ‘grandparent’ test and even and ‘aunts and uncles’ test, just to guarantee the safety of our children. Basic tests could include budgeting, nappy changing in less than 2 minutes, talking to your child and a test which measures your ability to read Hairy Maclary with different voices and enthusiasm. If parents failed to pass the test they would be unable to have any more children. This would ensure useless parents only had one child and better parents could have the luxury of a large Catholic sized family.

Another idea is to enforce compulsory ‘parenting courses’ for expectant mothers and fathers. I personally found the anti-natal classes a little boring, except when my wife farted when practicing breathing techniques on the floor, and could see this as a time when we teach parenting skills. Despite this good idea people probably wouldn’t go and we would have the same problem we have now.

Therefore the best idea is one I got off a friend of mine in Scotland. We were watching a rugby game and I was abusing some Scottish player for being utterly useless, due to dropping a ball. My mate stood up for him and explained it isn’t easy being a professional sportsperson, with your every move on TV. He then questioned me and asked how I would like having a camera in my classroom with every lesson broadcast to millions of people. I took his point.

But I think he was onto something and it is something we should do with parenting to weed out the bad ones and use the best ones as role models. For the first two years parents must wear a special helmet with a live TV camera directly linked to a local TV station. Parents could watch other parents in action, vote parents out of houses, and Super Nanny could be nearby to offer suggestions via text to help with those struggling. I think this would encourage good parenting, cost very little and ultimately bring families and communities closer together.

Altogether I admire Gordon Brown for trying to do something about bad parents. After all children are the leaders of tomorrow and more importantly the  parents of tomorrow. Sadly though, unless he adopts some of the more reasonable ideas offered on this site I feel in 2 years time we will be having the same argument.

Over at New Zealand Conservative the comment thread on a John Key article has evolved into a debate about sex education in our schools. This is a subject that I feel passionately about so I thought I would put together a piece on this topic:

Sex Education in New Zealand High Schools – Time for a Change.

Firstly, I would like to point out where I stand on the issue. I am a Year 7 teacher in an Area School. I have taught for 7 years and currently teach the health curriculum to Year 10 students. I was involved with PSI (Postponing Sexual Involvement) and Attitude (Parenting with Confidence) as a presenter for around three years. This involved visiting high schools throughout the country and talking to classes and assemblies. Both of these groups teach values based sexuality education.

Before we begin lets look at where our current young people stand in regards to the issue of sexuality. The latest and perhaps most widely circulated research that has come out recently is the Youth 2007 Report. This research paper is based on findings from 9,107 secondary school students at about 120 schools throughout the country. This covers students aged between 13 and 18 years of age. Within the study, the findings are compared with those from the first survey conducted in 2001.

So what did the report find;

35% of female students and 38% of male students reported having had sexual intercourse.

Around 10% of 13 year olds reported being sexually active and around 35% of 17 year olds are sexually active.

Around 15% of sexually active teenagers don’t use contraception regularly.

Around 94% of males and 91% of females are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex.

The report concludes that the Sexual Health Behavious of teenagers has not changed since the 2001 study.

There are a couple of points I would like to make on the report. Firstly, the statement that the Sexual health of Teenagers has not changed from 2001 to 2007 is RUBBISH and blatant lies.  While I am unable to find the exact data  on this issue the graphs from their publication show a different story. The graphs, shown below,  indicate that both the % of males and females having sexual intercourse is increasing.

Secondly, when you read the report you get the feeling that the most concerning aspect for the researchers was the number of people using contraception. It would seem to me that if 100% of our young people were sexually active and they were all wearing condoms there wouldn’t be a sex issue in this country. Sex is far more complex and deadly then just getting young people to protect themselves.

Family Planning is the main sex education provider to our young people. They are contracted by the government to teach our children about sexuality education. The evidence shows that with their education more and more young people are engaging in sex.  For me this is a concern and shows that their focus is not working. Something needs to change.

If you haven’t been onto the Family Planning teenager’s webpage then I suggest you have a look. The site is called THE WORD, which in itself is a little presumptuous. If you can get past the name then take a look at the content and you will see very quickly why more and more young people are having sex. Family Planning is nothing more than, as I have said before, an advertisement and a manual on sex for the young people of New Zealand. Family Planning are glorified sex advertisers given free reign in our high schools. The page explaining sex is incredibly detailed and explicit. The general tone of the site implies every kid in New Zealand is having sex and you should be too. I have looked for the word ‘abstinence’ and to Family Planning’s credit there is a small section discussing this as an option. Although they seem to find as many of the bad aspects as they can!!!

Contrast this with the Attitude Website and you have a totally different slant to sex and the message it teaches our young people. It presents the facts, gives both sides but most importantly challenges young people to think about sex. It doesn’t treat young people as monkeys who cant control their sexual desires, instead it asks them to think carefully about the decisions they make in their life. It provides information and detailed ‘how to’  instruction.

For me it is a no brainer. The government currently provides funding for Family Planning to advertise sex in our schools and we wonder why we have such a problem with teenage sex. Attitude, on the other hand, fund themselves with their invisible giant money tree to enable their message to get to our young people. Family Planning has had their go and we might as well just purchase condoms and hand them out at the door, for all the good they have done. Alternatively a little government money to groups like Attitude and PSI could actually change this concerning trend.

There are some crazy laws out there in the big wide world. For some reason once people arrive in the corridors of power their brain often cease to function. Like a school boy with alcohol and a reconditioned Datsun 180B, they lose all moral bearings and any sense of social responsibility. A simple internet search reveals some absolute hilarious laws out there in the world today. Not surprising the United State of America, home of the strange and mentally weird, tops the charts.

Did you know that in Salt Lake County, Utah, it’s illegal to walk down the street carrying a violin in a paper bag? Meanwhile in sunny Florida men seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown can be fined. In Tennessee, they have a classic where you are breaking the law if you drive while sleeping. Now you may laugh and snigger at the laws that govern the most powerful country on the plant but a little research will reveal that New Zealand is not ammine to both the stupid law and the politicians who lose their marbles once they get in power.

If you are a closet atomic developer you must be especially careful. If you find uranium in New Zealand and don’t report it – in writing – to the Government within three months, you’ve broken the law. But it doesn’t stop there. You actually have to reveal the site of your discovery in your report too. It’s all in the Atomic Energy Act of 1945. But New Zealand’s strange laws are not just restricted to our narrow minded anti Nuclear stance. Apparently the Mercantile Agents Act, 1908, requires shopkeepers to use red ink to write the price on books or magazines that were sold in installments. Might have to run that by the guy at Paper Plus the next time I’m buying something.

Please stop laughing our list of strange and exotic laws because they don’t stop there my friend.  Did you know that within New Zealand, no parental notification or consent is needed for a girl to have an abortion? Oh that wouldn’t happen in New Zealand, the land of the long white cloud. Unfortunately it does. The other day a colleague of my  told me the story of a 12 year old girl who received counsel from the public health nurse. Following that one-sided counsel she aborted the child she was carrying. This entire process was carried out without any notification to the young girl’s parents. But don’t worry the numbers a nice and low. In 2008, a total of 83 abortions were carried out with mothers aged between 11-14 and 4,097 abortions on mothers aged 15-19. (click to view)

Suddenly our American friends and their violins in brown paper bags don’t look so stupid after all do they? Sadly New Zealand’s  list of crazy laws doesn’t stop there.

Next up the for New Zealand’s strange laws is the hotly debated Crimes Amendment Act 2007. In it we have the much talked about section 59 and within that a little clause which reads

“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

Yes, your mind is correct and your vision good. The last two laws make it legal in New Zealand for a young girl to abort her children without her parents being informed of the process. However, in the same country it is illegal for a parent to correct their child using force. Now as force is not defined we are left the police officer on duty is left to decide what is reasonable.

I broke the law today in my class. Now while technically not a parent, as the teacher I assume the role of locus parentis at school. This means I broke the law a number of times today, probably around 20 times before lunch. Mr Mandias was in a grumpy mood. In fact when it is put down in ink, as the law of the land, I break the law almost every hour of every day I teach.  As a teacher of boisterous, yet fantastic 12 year old kids, I am constantly correcting them, shaping them and this is usually done through force.  If you have any other ways please let me know.

Poor Jonny in class today when I gave him written work for not completing his homework. I was technically correcting him and technically using force. Incidentally, I am obliged to inform his parents of this minor imposition. If only he was having an abortion. I would have saved around five minutes and not have had to have written that note!!! Then during PE today I punished a boy for being continually offside in the game of netball we were playing. Shucks, I am a criminal, please don’t tell Sue Bradford. I forced him to the sideline, against his loud protests, and corrected him by forcing him to wait there for 2 minutes.

But don’t worry people it is not all doom and gloom. While this post has looked at the negative of our country Ozy always searches endlessly for the silver lining. While many people assume New Zealand’s politicians are just like the rest of the world, I have faith in John Key that he will listen to what the people told him in the recent referendum. Why do I have faith in a smooth talking businessman from Auckland? Simple, I just went to his website and prior to getting into parliament he showed us what a man he is. The strong moral fibers that make up this man should not be messed with. Mr Key is a man of principle and I am encouraged by the words that appear on his website following a speech he gave on April 18^th 2007.

“I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary.”

“The Greens and Labour now have an opportunity to get closer to the public they serve, by agreeing they’ve got a major problem with the current wording.”

“If Labour really believes that ‘light smacking for the purposes of correction’ will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to ‘lightly smack for the purposes of correction’.

“The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite.”

See John Key has spoken. Now lets see him act.