Some of those parliament could be better without.

Sue Bradford is leaving parliament. Hoo Friggin Ray. After failing to achieve the Green Party Co-leadership earlier this year she has opted to do the honourable thing and quit parliament before the next election. To some degree if Jeanette Fitzsimmons would do the same thing we might all be a bit better off, but then ole Jean is more tolerable.

I don't think I would be so hard on Sue Bradford if she wasn't so much of a social engineer as a politician. Her anti-smacking bill while excellent in its attempt is a success in one area. Social engineering rather than prevention. Since the bills passing it has failed to stop at least half a dozen kids being killed as a direct result of physical abuse and is yet, under that law to see one of those suspected or charged to justice.

But Ms Bradford is one of a few I think parliament could be better off without. Her Green party colleague Dr Kennedy Graham is another. Man that guy is one plodding boring fella. You know, seemingly intelligent person, qualified with degrees to Mars but in listening to some of his speeches and questions in parliament he goes on and on about in the longer term scheme of things in my amateur view mean very little. He has a PhD and seems to like asking questions that seem to make sure people know he has one. Big long words and long sentences that ramble on and on. He can go.

Some of the Labour Front Bench. I think most of Labour, perhaps some of the young guns know that unless some stark changes are made quickly they will be holding the opposition benches for at least another term. Phil Goff, Pete Hodgeson, Annette King, Parekua Horomea and the old duck Trevor Mallard belong to a bygone era and will not be elected to government in 2011. Might as well throw old Jim Anderton into that mix since he cant really decide if he is Progressive or Labour. Don't get me wrong, these guys may be relatively effective constituent MP's but their day in ministerial positions is limited. Retire, take the perks and walk away.

The thing with National there aren't many of the old guard left that I don't like. They to a certain degree have for the most part the older more useful ones are in, the older usless ones are not. THOUGH...there are ones where you wonder. Tau Henare...whats his deal. He's a list MP on the National ticket, former minister of Maori Affairs under the failed National-New Zealand First coalition of the 90's. Spent some time out of the house as a broadcaster and doing other things...but other than a fight last year with Trevor Mallard, what the heck is his deal.

You know who has impressed me though this term so far has been the Hon. Dr Lockwood Smith. I have listened to him in the house presiding over some debates and he gives as good as he gets. This week, I heard him give the prayer to open the house in te reo Maori. That was impressive to me. Much like when H.V Ross Robertson tried all the time to greet fellow MP's in Maori. These little efforts really make perceptions change. I must admit that Dr Smith here is a good fit as speaker and is doing a very good and balanced job.

What the heck is Sir Roger Douglas doing back in the house. Not only is he somewhat resposible for the state of the SOE's in this country but also its financial frame work. Introducing GST in the 80's under a Labour Government as Finance Minister to the late and former PM David Lange, but 18 years after leaving parliament has to be the oldest fossil in the house right now. Well maybe next to Anderton or Peter Dunne. He's 71 for goodness sake and sounds like at times he's either sloshed or his teeth are missing. Ok, Peter Dunne is only 55 but heck. I think the thing that most of us can be thankful for is that he is not in an overly influential position to do anything like the rogernomics reforms of the 80s.

There are others...Melissa Lee, to some degree Tariana Turia, John Boscowen, Keith Locke who I think Parliament could do without. Lee, what a disaster in the Mt Albert By-election. Keith locke & John Boscowen...enough said though Locke, I don't like his speaking methods...its...long...and...drawn...out...and...he...pauses...too...much.

I don't know...are there any others left? The others I would speak about are already gone. Winston Peters, Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Steve Maharey. Good Riddance.

Some university students antics are annoying me

I was reading the other day in the Dominion Post online about students protesting a proposed hike in fees for 2010. Amazingly I still see that some students are banging away at the free education drum. Oh gee, I thought that one had long gone.

Years ago there were those who were fortunate enough to go through university and have their studies free. But that was another time and a very different situation.

Overall in the grand scheme of things a personal investment in ones education is an investment in ones future. You pay what you will or may be worth on the other end. For example, I know by the end of my degree studies my student loan will be at a certain (rather high) level and when I move on to my masters studies it will be more. But that's my own investment in my future.

To me, if the government pays for my future (education wise), then I owe the government. Some may say that its because I pay taxes the government should provide it for me. Rubbish. The government is tasked with so many things that in most cases the provision of a subsidised education system is good enough. Unlike some other countries, health care here, while not exactly perfect is not something we have to go out and pay buckets cash for insurance.

Our secondary school kids don't when it comes to the public secondary schools have to pay thousands of dollars to go to school. Or more money for resources and equipment. I think its fair to expect payment for big trips and all but for the most part, the 'donation' some schools request of people is a mare drop in the bucket considering the small amount of money there is in the education pool.

The PTE sector though is under fire by an education minister who is misreading the climate out there in nearly every avenue. Instead of dealing with low impact and low standard night classes at schools, she's completely wiping the area out. Deal with the small pockets of problems by getting rid of an entire sector of education. Reduce money availability for youth and TOPs classes while the demand is increasing, but not making funding available or more places available for PTE's to take more students.

I have no personal confidence in Anne Tolley actually. Personally, I have in the past heard the actions she has brought in to place in the recent months heavily impacting on the education sector by TEC and MOE officials which lead me to believe that she is acting on poor advice from officials rather on real things that need to happen in the education sector. An increase in funding to deal with the increased need to for training or retraining those who are on the unemployment lines to assist them with the finding of new jobs. But what has happened? I've already said it, wipe out the entire sector to eradicate a small problem. Like throwing out a whole container full of apples when there is one rotten one and shining up the ones that are left. Nah...just chuck them all.

Now some institutions are looking at taking in those who obtain the highest marks in their studies at high school. Somewhat fair as the university campus life is not for everyone...which I think would include me.

But I see students asking for lower fees or no fees and I wonder about this when I also see events like the Undie 500 and the latest one in the south island where all students are going to do is get off their faces and waste money let alone brain cells.

But this is the eternal cycle. Schools put costs up...students protest, the fees go up anyways...life goes on.

Overall though I think most students just have to realise that they are there to be educated not entertained. They are there to study to become contributors to society, not earn criminal records or spend half their education finances on alcohol and the other half on drugs then plead poverty. Most of all I think they have to realise that they are supposed to be adults, and adults are supposed to not act like louts. My opinion any ways. Setting fire to things, running riot around the place, smashing things up when you are off your face. You do and you oblige the law to target you.

Justice for all? Or just some?

I do find it odd in New Zealand's justice system that a criminal can get legal aid but a victims family can't.

I find it odd that sometimes New Zealand's overly politically correct view on things care more that the people in our prisons get three square a day and have a room of their own while families who lose loved ones have empty rooms and little comfort.

I find it odd even now, to contemplate a legal system where the old adage, 'eye for an eye' has not even been brought back into consideration. I mean, we may be willing to contemplate a 3 strikes system where on the third conviction you are locked away for good...but not willing to contemplate a legal system where the tax payer stops paying for criminals.

If I remember right, the cost of having someone behind bars is roughly $80,000 a year here in New Zealand. Roughly twice the average wage of a New Zealander is spent on keeping someone housed, fed, clothed and 'entertained' in our prisons. Take a recent example of Clayton Weatherston and his conviction and sentence. At 18 years before he is eligible for parole, the tax payer will have paid $1,440,000 not including any annual cost increases over the 18 years before he can come out. Graham Burton, the psycho from Wellington who was released on parole, killed while on parole got 26 years, $2,080,000 + additional costs.

I think its high time that the justice system introduced a murder 1/2 system. In most US States this is "First Degree Murder: An intentional killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated action" or essentially what we have as murder.

The second degree could be "Second Degree Murder: Homicide committed by an individual engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. You were a part of the premeditated act of killing someone.

The term capital murder essentially also include first degree murder.

Why don't we shoot them, hang them or drug them? Costs a hell of a lot less than $80,000 a year. A firing squad of 7, 6 blanks, 1 live bullet, no one knows who shot the one.