Key Derangement Syndrome strikes
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What is the basis for according priority to entry of the red zone in the Christchurch central business district?
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) : The priority that the national controller accords is safety first, and needs second.
Hon Maryan Street: How many business owners and residents are still unable to access their offices and homes in the red zone?
Hon JOHN CARTER: I do not have that information to hand. The member can put the question in writing if she wishes to find out that information.
Hon Maryan Street: How many business owners could have been given access to equipment and records that are vital to restarting their businesses, if time and resources had not been diverted to escorting the Prime Minister through the red zone on repeated occasions?
If Labour thinks they will win the election by complaining that the Prime Minister is allowed access to a restricted area, they really are deranged.
I actually have great sympathy for local business owners who are frustrated at being unable to access their businesses. But to try and blame this on the fact the PM has had access is sad and rather pathethic.
In case it needs to be stated, the Prime Minister is the person who will primarily make the major decisions on the earthquake recovery. He decided to call a state of national emergency, he decided on relief packages for employers and employees, he will make decisions on many things related to the earthquake. No one can seriously think he should not be able to see the earthquake damage first hand.
If Labour wanted to complain about people being shown around the earthquake zone, who shouldn’t have been, I’ve got a name for them the stupid hypocrites. Helen Clark.
I actually had resisted criticising Clark’s private tour around the earthquake zone up until now, because I think her request was made with good motives. But for fuck’s sake if Labour is going to attack the PM for being given access, then Clark’s visit is fair game.
As I said, I think Clark’s private visit was asked for in good faith. Rather than merely give her a private visit, what I would have suggested in response was that all the former PMs visit together – Palmer, Moore, Bolger, Shipley and Clark. That would have been a really nice symbol of unity – as Clinton and Bush 41 were in the US.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:11 am
I think it is vile that politicians are trying to score political points over the Christchurch Earthquake. Mind you the Sychophant Street is yesterday’s fish and chip wrapper.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Poor Labour. They are reduced to arguing against the very authoritarianism that marks all of their other politics. I am hardly comforted though if National’s winning strategy is to be more Labour than Labour.
I am pleased business owners are speaking out. What is happening is outrageous. The planners in Christchurch are going to make a lot of mistakes like this. As with all centralised control, power is transferred without information, and this produces one of two outcomes: big mistakes if action is taken, or gridlock, in which no official can make a decision. Both are the product of taking decisionmaking out of the hands of the many and concentrating it in the few, and occurs regardless of how well meaning officials are. They are simply handed an impossible task.
Does anybody doubt that business owners and citizens would not just muck in and get the job done if government lifted every restriction on individuals tomorrow and limited itself to providing public goods: portaloos, law enforcement, the justice system? Please government, get out of the way in Canterbury.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:13 am
I’ve also blogged on this – the link is on the GD thread. Interestingly, I received a message on Facebook from someone in the media whom I will not name who said that Phil Goff had been being escorted around the Red Zone while he was there among the media pack.
This is a massive blunder by Mayan Street. I can only conclude that she has decided that this is the time to show her hand for a future tilt at the Labour leadership. All I can say to that is “bring it on”!
March 18th, 2011 at 10:18 am
I don’t have any problem with Key, Goff, or any MPs being inside the cordon in Christchurch. It is a necessary part of their jobs. But I wonder why William Windsor, Russell Crowe, and Phil Keoghan all seem to have priority over Christchurch business owners trying to avoid bankruptcy and being thrown on the dole queue.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:20 am
I thought the whole exchange demeaned her ( and doesn’t she look old! What has been happening in her life to make her look so lined and gaunt?).
Even she should realise the PM must be seen there. Just look how the Japanese PM is being lambasted for not appearing. Key has been to the inner city, he has been round the suburbs, he has given more than leadership – he has actually brought some good cheer to help raise morale. The taxpayer has been landed with a huge bill but few of us begrudge it because of the clear info from the PM, Brownlee, the Mayor and Civil Defence.
I can understand the frustration of property and business owners but just imagine the outcry if a building collapsed on them while they rummaged through the rubble. As Carter said to that silly Maryan Street, “Safety first’. It is hard for sensible people to argue with that.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Vile questions from a vile woman.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Partisan Politics aside, it is revolting to see those who contribute such as business owners denied access to their property, while disgusting spongers such as the PM and other pollies, as well as HRH given access.
Symbolism doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:30 am
John Carter should be complimented on his tempered response. It would have been easy for him to take Street’s head off, given the pressure that he has been under in the last few weeks, but he was polite, concise and measured in his response. More than anything, that made Street’s attempt to smear the PM seem even worse.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:32 am
“I can understand the frustration of property and business owners but just imagine the outcry if a building collapsed on them while they rummaged through the rubble”
Many of these business owners are prepared to take that risk. After all just starting up a business is a risk.
The time has come to allow these guys to get on with it. Streets question is valid – Busienss owner are sick of being told what they CANT do.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Red Rater has a sort of point, much as I hate to admit it. I don’t agree that PM and relevant ministers shouldn’t be there – they have a high-level contribution to make and need to assess the situation first hand to be able to do so. There is also an argument that Phill Goff should have access in order to help keep the government honest.
However, Helen Clark and Prince William are superflous. Helen Clark is doing a rather ghoulish Chris Carter-style disaster tourist act and Prince William’s visit is unnecessary and just sucks up time and resources.
And why aren’t business owners and others allowed access to their premises? The health-and-safety excuse seems rather out of control and to question its validity is dismissed as irresponsible. We seem to have a zero-risk policy in place for access which runs counter to our tolerance for risk-taking in areas such as recreation. The police and Civil Defence’s officiousness seems to be a little out of control.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:48 am
I understand the frustration of the business owners, I would hate to think how I would cope if I could not gain access to my office and records etc etc.
But to the subject in hand, ergo.. Streets absolute desperate question to Hone Carter, all I can say is ….Groan…
How weak, how desperate, how pathetic.
Yet again the present lot of labour MP’s confirms my decision to never give them my vote again.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:52 am
the right of a free individual is to be allowed to take whatever risks they want, as long as it does not directly endanger anyone else.
If a business owner wants to go into their own property, and risk death, thats their call, no one elses.
I hate this ‘safety first’ excuse, simply becuase its someone else deciding for you what safety level you are allowed for yourself. if they say, go for it, but no one is coming to help as its too risky, then its my call if i proceed.
The rights of private property owners are being trounced by a sea of clipboards down in chch. and i suspect that even the people with business interruption cover did not take into account death by 1000 bureucrats when they factored in obstacles to trading.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:54 am
That’s all good in theory Grendel, but wait until the shit hits the fan if someone goes in under their own steam to retrieve stuff and gets killed or injured by falling bricks in an aftershock.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Thanks Annie, but it’s Bed Rater, as in a spoonerism on the name of everyone’s favourite crazy geriatric.
March 18th, 2011 at 10:59 am
BeaB
As Carter said to that silly Maryan Street, “Safety first’. It is hard for sensible people to argue with that.
I’ll argue it. Yes, safety is important. But it isn’t the only thing. And everybody trades off safety and other things in life at different rates. It isn’t clear why it is helpful to have authorities substitute their preference for safety for mine. About the only argument is that if I need saving, they have to spend resources doing it, and even that’s pretty ropey. But then what about the business owner who had his own rescue team organised, and still couldn’t get access?
March 18th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Although I’m sympathetic to the business owners trying to retrieve what remains of their property the issue sheets home the problems with “zero risk” OSH regulations. If any of these business people were hurt or killed in their endeavours anyone who permitted their actions would have their arse on the line for not eliminating the risk.
Regrettably the general public think that risk has to be managed or minimised but the zealots enforcing OSH regulations demand the complete absence of danger.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Inv2 – That is their risk to take. I know business owners who are perfectly willing to take it as well.
Their businesses are going down the toilet and the one party that should be standing up for them is sitting on its hands
Yesterday we had the unusal sight of business owners marching on the CD hq and Brownlee not prepared to give them any answers.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:08 am
the only shit hitting the fac IV2 would be people making sure thier own ass is covered. if the free individual says to his mates, i am going in, don;t come and get me if the building collaspes on me, then the grey ones are covered.
However its not liek the shit is not hitting the fan now with the business owners being not allowed on to their own private property by the gray ones who are covering their own ass in advance.
There is no difference except the individual is not allowed not make their own choices without approval from the grey ones.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Nice to see the quasi-communists standing up for business owners.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Why isn’t Labour damning Helen Clark, Phil Goff, and Prince Willie? What about Russell Crowe, and Phil Keoghan?
They should hold a press conference immediately to correct the imbalance.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:21 am
William was there to represent our head of state. Aside from giving a sense of support for those on the ground he is also able to raise the profile of the event internationally which will increase the donations made, i.e. direct financial gain for the relief effort.
Helen Clark is a private citizen and should not have been permitted in the area like any other looter or other peoples property.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Again it is poor communication. Some buildings need to be pulled down but why are civil defence not letting the business owners know before hand. As the area is cordoned off there is little safety risk to people (except the chosen few who are allowed access and really if any of Goff, Key, William or Crowe got injured would we really care?)
Explain the situation to the business owners before hand.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:25 am
There’s been a string of unfortunate statements by Labour on the earthquake recently. It could be just a conincidence or it be what’s in store now Mallard has a greater role in Labour’s campaign strategy.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:30 am
One day a member of the National govt might actually do something scandalous enough for Labour to have a point. But until then they are just pathetic.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:33 am
@Inky
Awww
Poor old Russell, he might be clown off screen but he stars in good movies. Give Russell a free pass at least.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Lofty: “I can understand the frustration of property and business owners but just imagine the outcry if a building collapsed on them while they rummaged through the rubble”
Inventory2: “That’s all good in theory Grendel, but wait until the shit hits the fan if someone goes in under their own steam to retrieve stuff and gets killed or injured by falling bricks in an aftershock”
Translation: …..what about all the resulting bad publicity for the grey ones
The livelihoods of property owners, businesses and their employees are at stake. The violation of property rights means that they are denied the opportunity to pay for their own means of safely accessing their private property
March 18th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Poor old Russell, he might be clown off screen but he stars in good movies.
Really? which ones? Gladiator was pretty good but I’m struggling to think of anymore?
March 18th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Hey Miritu I never said that!
I said
“I understand the frustration of the business owners, I would hate to think how I would cope if I could not gain access to my office and records etc etc.”
And for the record I honestly believe that owners should be allowed in at their own risk if they so desire.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Given that a lot of the businesses are still to be secured properly isn’t there a security aspect to all of this as well?
March 18th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Russel was pretty good in the Commander
March 18th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Miritu @ 11.36am
The jobsworths with the clipboards are doing what they have been told by their grey masters at a local level who in turn have been made responsible for safety by our servants in parliament. You are referring to people with limited ability to think for themselves who if faced with a problem will race for the book containing legislation forbidding the action.
In the case of CHCH it is too late to change the regulations but they are the same ones that prevent a lot of work that generates employment being undertaken in NZ. The key part of the regulations is the onus to identify risks & eliminate them.
Crap like this is what these business owners have to battle with.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:56 am
The Insider
A beautiful mind
A good year (watched that last night)
March 18th, 2011 at 11:57 am
@ redeye
After Gladiator he also did A Beautiful Mind which was pretty decent.
March 18th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
“Does anybody doubt that business owners and citizens would not just muck in and get the job done if government lifted every restriction on individuals tomorrow and limited itself to providing public goods: portaloos, law enforcement, the justice system? Please government, get out of the way in Canterbury.”
..I agree. Govt and busy body do-gooders get outa the f***** way..you are stifling things..we need to all get in there and start moving things along..truck and trailers at the ready…stuff this wrap ‘em all in cotton wool shite…we gota start moving again.
March 18th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Yeah I forgot about A Beautiful Mind. My wife thinks that was pretty good.:-) But she also said A Good Year was crap.
I watched Insider and thought that was awful.
Other crap rusty movies
Robin Hood.
State of Play
Body of Lies
Tenderness
Proof of Life
I could go on…
March 18th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
This business related case in Stuff yesterday is disturbing. If the report is accurate then a business owner was denied access to his business because of the danger, but some soldiers had entered the building before it was demolished and retrieved furniture for them to sit on. Either the building is too dangerous to enter or it isn’t. If anyone takes items from buildings, whether demolition crews, army, or others then those items remain the property of the owner and must be returned to them rather than converted to some other use. There are reports coming out that demolition companies are claiming salvage rights for property inside buildings they’re knocking down and that just isn’t right.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/4777110/Memorabilia-salvage-hopes-in-ruins
March 18th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
I understand that the primary point of contact on all properties is to the Owner, not the Tenant, and it is the Owners responsibility to liaise with their tenants.
The Demolition services/Council only deal with property owners.
March 18th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
@redeye
Disagree about a Good Year
Agree with the others on your list being crap. Thats why I didn’t put them down.
March 18th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Note that demolition has now become ‘deconstruction’; another perversion of our beautiful language for political purposes.
March 18th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
But it’s never at their own risk. USAR, police etc can be put to more danger and then there are the possible costs to the taxpayer like ACC etc.
I have no doubt there are examples of too much caution but let’s leave to Civil Defence and the rest of the teams to use their expertise. It’s a bit like those hotheads who wanted to dash into the Pike River mine.
Can you imagine someone supposedly taking full responsibility for their own safety and then being pinned under a collapse and shouting out, “Go away. Don’t rescue me”. Absurd.
March 18th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
BeaB
Can you imagine someone supposedly taking full responsibility for their own safety and then being pinned under a collapse and shouting out, “Go away. Don’t rescue me”. Absurd.
No I can’t, but what has that got to do with denying people access when they have organised their own rescue teams?
March 18th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
the fact that ACC will pay for wilfully putting yourself at risk is a problem with ACC not someone wanting to make decisions in their own life.
the police, USAR etc can be told to not rescue someone going into a dangerous house. if however they or the persons mates choose to, once again thats their call as free indivduals to make with thier own lives. Rescue people are not meant to go anywhere that puts them at risk, but a lot of them do it anyway.
This is not like Pike River where its on fire and there are gasses building up. this is a building that the owner is being told they cannot access because of ‘safety’. Also btw, if people had wanted to rush into pike river and risk (and likely lose) thier lives, its their call. The point of being a free individual is being allowed to choose how you live and die. If you want risk your life for a server and are aware of what could happen to you, then you should have the right to do it, not have to ask some grey person with a clipboard if you can live your life and use your own property.
What makes you think the grey people have any expertise? all they are experts in is saying no and cowering behind bullshit and bureacracy (but i repeat myself)
March 18th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
redeye 11:49am. You forgot Master and Commander.
March 18th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
lofty (716) Says:
March 18th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Hey Miritu I never said that!
And for the record I honestly believe that owners should be allowed in at their own risk if they so desire.
Can’t agree with that simply because should a collapse occur other poor bastards (the ones being lambasted in places for grabbing chairs from on or near the outside of the buildings) would be required to risk their lives digging the bastards out.
Second thing you’ve said today that was wrong – Crowe has never been good in anything.
March 18th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
nasska 11:54am. It’s just another of the down sides of eighty years of socialisim and relativisim.
cheers
David Prosser
March 18th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
LA Confidential: Officer Wendel “Bud” White.
Don’t tell me Crowe was crap in that role.
March 18th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
So get them to sign a carefully worded disclaimer. It works for other areas of life, why not this one?
As Grendel says (like the name btw), the clipboards-and-hats are out of control in some respects, high on the suspension of civil liberties.
My father-in-law’s house was half canned, with the brick veneer half down on all sides. His family got in real quick to knock out the rest of the bricks and secure the structure before assessors could arrive and condemn it. It wouldn’t have been permitted otherwise
March 18th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Master and Commander ,excellent. The series of books are even better. Author Patrick O’Brien.
Crowe said he was a NZer on this trip, I thought he said some years ago that he was an Aussie. Anyway wearing someone else’s decoration in those circumstances was naff.
March 18th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Kowtow – I agree the books are even better. Author’s name is spelt O’Brian not O’Brien.
March 18th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Trout – I also winced when I heard “deconstruction”. The radio interviewer (I forget who it was) clearly did too and asked what it meant. Apparently, it means something different from demolition as it involves carefully removing the collapsed elements of a building to ensure the best chance of recovering items on the way. It still doesn’t mean the word isn’t another perversion of a beautiful language though.
March 18th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
And more to the point of the original post – so what if Klark’s tour was asked for in good faith? A well-reasoned comment from DPF wouldn’t have gone amiss. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who felt she should have kept well away.
March 18th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
It still doesn’t mean the word isn’t another perversion of a beautiful language though.
I can’t remember the last time I heard English described as beautiful. But agree this use of language is a classic symptom of bureaucracy. Orwell’s line is apt:
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder [or demolition] respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”
March 18th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Heard that the other day in the house. Is it that desperation that brings out hypocracy. And I just read some comments on The Standard about todays service in ChCh. I cant understand the negative nastyness that I read.My niece and nephew are up here from the disaster zone and they loved the service, we all cried when Haley sang. I thought Robin Hood was pretty good.
March 18th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
It’s an emergency situation – that means that decisions have to be made, and now. They aren’t going to always be ones that get the thumbs up from everyone concerned.
March 18th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Speaking of odious females….I notice in the clip of Prince William walking around Sumner that Ruth (the drunk) Dyson is in the background.
I wonder if anybody gave the evil woman directions to Sumner?, the whole time I lived there she never so much as set foot in the place, invitations to school prize givings were never replied to, fairs and the like was not something she would bother with either.
But, when a chance comes along to get her less than pretty face on the TV she is as keen as mustard.
March 18th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
I think Ruth has just completed the Dip Photo-Op from J.Key School of Smile and Wave
Looking forward to the Melissa Lee post tomorrow, in the interests of balance of course.
March 18th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Why do we need to get excited about it? I’m quite relaxed. If Liarbore are mind-bogglingly dumb enough to think this is going to get any traction whatsoever they’re mental.
Evidently, they are.
To me this is an encouraging sign come November.
March 18th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
From Stuff via Imperator Fish:
‘Cosgrove said Civil Defence national controller John Hamilton did not seem to know how many buildings were being demolished without consultation with the owners. Cosgrove said he had asked for a one or two day moratorium on the demolition of commercial buildings in the CBD and an urgent conversation with Hamilton over the issue. But Hamilton had not been available because he was tied up with the visit of Prince William.’
Welcome to CHCH, democracy has been suspended, unelected officials are making major decisions affecting people livelihoods and property and there is no ability to challenge these decisions. Or and by the way the people making these decisions are too busy to discuss them because they are busy with VIP visitors.
It’s not acceptable, not even fucken close.
March 18th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I think Street screwed up with her attack given Klarke and even Goff have been in there but the background point is valid.
What the hell is Prince William, bus loads of journalists, Julia Gillard, Russell Crowe and god knows who else getting these tours while the business owners who pay the rates and taxes and need to access their premises to help keep their staff employed are denied?
I know that there has been some but it seems too little too late. If we are in recovery phase now this should be a major part of it.
[DPF: i think it is worth noting that there is a world of difference between being given access to the red zone and actually going inside buildings that are deemed at risk of collapse.]
March 18th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
YWD they said on Morning Report there is a suspension pending reconsideration. I agree it’s not acceptable, it’s overhanded and it should not have happened.
I’ve noticed authority figures sometimes allow this sort of stuff to happen and I’ve always wondered why for it’s not cause they want it to happen, they’re not idiots and they’re not evil, quite the contrary.
It’s an interesting question.
What the hell is Prince William, bus loads of journalists, Julia Gillard, Russell Crowe and god knows who else getting these tours while the business owners who pay the rates and taxes and need to access their premises to help keep their staff employed are denied?
Louie let’s hope that whole entourage just spent a shitload in Canterbury and particularly in Christchurch.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Louie let’s hope that whole entourage just spent a shitload in Canterbury and particularly in Christchurch.
Apparently Keynes will never die.
March 18th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
No that’s Hayeckian.
March 20th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Until I read the heading I wasn’t aware Key was deranged. Tells a lot.