Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Christchurch, New Zealand‘s Jade stadium says they can host the 2011 Rugby World Cup final if Auckland can’t make a decision on whether or not they should build a new stadium on the waterfront or upgrade Auckland’s current stadium, Eden Park, costing NZ$500 million and $385 million respectively.

Jade Stadium would be able to host the final if they were to include temporary seating to accommodate 60,000 people, required by the International Rugby Board (IRB).

Gary Moore, mayor of Christchurch, said that if they were selected to host the final then they will ask the government for $80 million. The stadium is already planning for an upgrade, worth $60 million but that money will be funded from private and charitable organisations as well as the local and central governments. The current upgrade will see Jade stadium’s seating capacity grow to 43,000 and if they host a quarter-final or semi-final then temporary seating will increase the seats to 55,000.

Trevor Mallard, the Minister of Sport, said that the Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Council have both been given about two weeks to tell the government which decision it supports. If they cannot come to a decision then the final will most likely be given to Jade stadium, Christchurch. The least likeliest of all decisions, an upgrade of Carlaw park, but that is designated for a retirement home and on private land.

Mr Moore said that he and “stadium officials had offered Jade Stadium as a back-up final venue at a recent informal meeting with Mallard because of the continuing Auckland divisions over a site. This is about New Zealand Inc, not about Christchurch versus Auckland. What we have said to Trevor Mallard is we are able to put a stadium into Christchurch that would accommodate the numbers they would need as an insurance policy if Auckland cannot get its act together. The Government knows that when Christchurch or Canterbury puts its hand up it delivers with excellence.”

Bryan Pearson, chief executive of Vbase, the company which manages Jade Stadium, said: “It was not uncommon for major sporting venues to add temporary seating for big events. London had included temporary seating for some stadiums as part of its successful Olympic hosting bid. It was not a low-rent option, and was a commercially prudent way to marry short-term opportunity with long-term legacy.”

Mr Pearson hopes that Jade Stadium will not be used for the final as he understands why the government wants a national stadium, “Let’s hope this gets sorted and we can focus our attentions on playing a very major supporting role. We are only a third the size of Auckland, so what we can sustain post-World Cup is nowhere near what Auckland can.”

Warwick Taylor, former All Black, said it will be great if Christchurch can host the final even though he played in the 1987 final at Eden Park. Though Mr Taylor does say that an Auckland stadium is a better idea as a 60,000 seat stadium is more viable in such a large population city. Mr Taylor said that he “had great memories playing at Eden Park and in some ways would hate to see it lose the final. But I also like the idea of a national stadium.”

The New Zealand Rugby Union said that a waterfront stadium and an upgrade of Eden Park are the only two options being considered, and no other stadiums are being considered.

A lot of people are confirming that Christchurch will be able to cope with the huge amount of visitors that would arrive for the final as Christchurch has the highest per capita amount of restaurants and bars in Australasia. The city also features numerous hotels.

If New Zealand cannot deliver a final in a 60,000 seat World Class stadium then the IRB will allocated the final to another country.

Thursday, December 7, 2006

The New Zealand Government has tabled the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, despite unprecedented political opposition.

In 2003 the Hon Annette King signed a Treaty with Australia agreeing to hand control of the natural health products sector over to an Australian regulatory body, however she needs to pass enabling legislation in New Zealand. “This will be a world-class joint scheme designed to regulate the safety, quality, effectiveness and promotion of therapeutic products in both New Zealand and Australia. That includes the regulation of complementary and alternative medicines, over-the-counter and prescription medicines, medical devices, blood and blood products and tissues and cellular therapies,” Ms King said.

Twice the Bill has been thrown out by select committees, but the Government is determined to ram it through Parliament, according to the New Zealand Health Trust.

“Late tonight the Bill was finally tabled, with no announcement from the Minister,” said Amy Adams, spokesperson for the Trust, “Clearly the Minister is keen to sneak it into Parliament under cover of the silly season, in the hope that she can keep it under the public’s radar.”

“I welcome the support of a majority of the House who want to see the Bill go to Select Committee where New Zealanders can have their say,” Ms King said.

The NZ Health Trust conducted research earlier this year which showed 62% of New Zealanders used natural health products. “This Bill represents a massive and irreparable change to the way we make rules for New Zealand dietary supplements,” Mrs Adams said.

“Under the proposed regime, well over a million New Zealand consumers would find the choice of products adversely affected, and experience cost increases. So you can see why the Government is trying to sneak this into the House without any fuss – they don’t want the public to know.”

All the political parties except Labour have pledged their opposition the proposal, despite some intense lobbying by Australian and New Zealand officials.

“It is a very serious thing to hand sovereignty over your country over to another nation,” Mrs Adams said. “And all the other political parties see the sense in making sure the sector is regulated from New Zealand – not as a minor state of Australia.”

Ms King said: “The Bill… ensures that New Zealand will have an equal say in the setting up and running of the new Authority and joint scheme.” The new authority will be like a crown-owned entity and will have to provide an anuual report and a statement of intent to parliament each year.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

The Green Party of Canada will elect a new leader today. The new leader will replace Jim Harris, who stepped down after holding the position since 2003.

The candidates are:

• Elizabeth May, a former Sierra Club executive director
• David Chernushenko, the party’s deputy leader
• Jim Fannon, a real estate agent from St. Catharines, Ontario who is a four-time Green candidate, and founder of Nature’s Hemp food company.

May and Chernushenko, have emerged as frontrunners of the leadership race.

“We draw pretty much equally from across the entire political spectrum,” Jim Harris told CBC News. “If you were a Progressive Conservative, as I was, where do you go? The Green party supports Kyoto. We were opposed to the war in Iraq and yet at the same time we’re fiscally responsible. This is something that’s attractive to people.”

The Green party didn’t get any member elected in the January 23 general election, but the party did get about 4.5 per cent of the vote, enough to secure $1 million a year in federal funding.Chernushenko, an environmental consultant in Ottawa, got the most votes of any Green candidate.

Most Green party members have already cast their ballots by mail for the next leader.

May says that “her national profile and background as an adviser to the environment minister during Conservative Brian Mulroney‘s government are important for getting more Canadians interested in the party”. May referred to tackling climate change, urging electoral reform and ending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan.

“I don’t really understand yet what she stands for. It’s a lot of rhetoric,” Globe and Mail columnist Jane Taber told CTV Newsnet.

“We will elect MPs by continuing to gain the trust and confidence of Canadians, and by reaching out to Canadians outside of our traditional base of support,” said Chernushenko. Chernushenko said the party should parachute star candidates into key ridings.

“Chernushenko sees a need for government regulation but wants to involve the private sector a bit more, and that’s consistent with Jim Harris’s ideas,” said Jonathan Malloy, political science professor at Ottawa’s Carleton University.

Jim Fannon, who spoke casually to the audience about his talents as a mediator, capable of bridging political gaps between the Greens, Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats. Chernushenko says though he may not always be able to “wow” a crowd, he remains a strong communicator and team player. “I can’t do the rah-rah motivational thing, like Jim (Harris) did an incredible job at, but I can go very deep on complex issues and explain them in plain language,” he said Friday.

Josh Matlow of Earth Roots said: “Elizabeth May is someone I would want to lock myself to a tree with; David Chernushenko is someone I would want to discuss policy with; and Jim Fannon is someone I would go for a beer with”.

Political analysts consider May, a veteran envirnomental activist but also a newcomer to the party, to be the strong favourite to win the race against party stalwart Chernushenko.