Last night on 3 News they interviewed a couple of staff working at the Port of Tauranga. What a stark difference it was to the Ports of Auckland. They talked of a culture of getting the job done, and even pride about increasing efficiency.  An extract:

Throughout the Auckland dispute, the Port Of Tauranga has been held up as an example of how Auckland could operate – profits are at a record high, and the port seems to have a contented workforce which gets the job done quickly and efficiently.

David Hone has worked at the port for 18 years and, like 90 percent of employees, is a shareholder in the company.

He says “working in a place that you’re part owner [of]” means he’s more invested in the success of the business.

It’s one of the key reasons the port is so successful, according to chief executive Mark Cairns.

“If you have a stake in a company your behaviour changes when you’re an employee,” he says.

I’m a huge fan of employees being shareholders, and POT seem to be a great example of how well this can work. It is such a shame that Mike Lee a few years back deprived POAL employees of this opportunity.

Profits and efficiency do not need to be the enemy of having a happy workforce. It is just when dinosaur unions get in the way, that it does not happen. Look what has happened at POAL since the unionised staff went off the job:

Ports of Auckland chairman Richard Pearson says flexible rosters increase productivity and the 50 non-union workers have proved that.

“We’re operating at a 25 percent production improvement on what we were achieving 3 or 4 weeks ago before the strike,” he says.

“They don’t want to go slow so they can get another shift, they just want to work.”

Imagine the incentive at the moment. If you can delay a ship for another 90 minutes, then you get an extra eight hours pay.

There’s a lot of focus at the moment on the possible expansion of the Port into the harbour more. POAL makes the point that if they can lift labour productivity by a conservative 20% it would give them the equivalent of two new berths, allowing the Port to accommodate five extra ship calls each week.

The Dom Post reports:

A quick bite of chocolate cake and a glass of champagne was all National MP Tau Henare had time for as he headed straight back to work after marrying his partner at Parliament yesterday.

The list MP sprang a surprise on the House, which is sitting extended hours this week, by marrying Ngaire Brown in the former Maori affairs select committee room during the dinner break.

West Coast-Tasman MP Chris Auchinvole acted as celebrant and Social Development Minister Paula Bennett gave a speech on behalf of friends and colleagues.

Congrats Tau.

About 30 National MPs attended the ceremony, along with members of the Labour, NZ First and Maori parties. Labour Maori Affairs spokesman Parekura Horomia gave a mihi, or formal speech. …

Waitaki MP Jacqui Dean described the service as beautiful, although she reserved special praise for Ms Bennett’s speech.

“Her speech was more about farting than anything else.”

The mind boggles.

Got sent a copy of some software which turns your webcam into a home security camera. The designer is actually a Kiwiblog reader.

The software is Spycam-Watcher. It works with around 50 different brands of webcams, including the built in one on my Sony Vaio. It would take up a lot of space to be recording all the time, but you can use motion detection, have it send you an e-mail with a frame shot, and can even have a virtual tripwire where for example you aim your computer camera at your driveway, draw a “tripwire” line across the image on your screen, and it will alert you when any vehicle crosses the line and start recording.

It costs only US$30, but for just an additional $5 you can get a remote interface from your iPad or iPhone. Yes, you can view your home camera from anywhere in the world if the motion detector is set off. you can turn it on and off, and can view video already made. It’s simple as pie to use also.

I think it a seriously good system, Kiwi made, and really affordable. As someone who travels a lot I’ll be having it installed on one of my old laptops, so it can monitor my door.

All it really needs is the extra option of firing a taser at intruders.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key is shrugging off plans for a referendum on the government’s controversial asset sales plan, saying the issue has already been debated  on the campaign trail.

Labour, the Greens and NZ First are expected to join forces with groups led by Grey Power in launching a petition this week calling for a Citizens Initiated Referendum on partial asset sales.

Labour and Greens presumably think the results of the any referendum should trump the results of the election and that National should ditch the policy it got elected on, in favour of the referendum result.

Now that is a valid view (not one I agree with though), but if that is their view then why have they not announced  that they will be implementing the results of the anti-smacking referendum which voted 87% for a smack as part of good parental correction not to be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Perhaps someone in the media could ask them how they can advocate a referendum on asset sales, yet they ignore the last referendum result we had?

Asked about the plans for a referendum today, Mr Key said: “We’ve had that, it was called an election.”

He said National had openly campaigned on the issue and won the election decisively.

“It was a one year election campaign strategy we ran….it was the sole focus of the election campaign, Labour spent all of their advertising dollars opposed to it and we debated it in every single public forum we had.  And National’s [vote] went up in office. It is only the third time a government in 123 years has done that.

This wasn’t some  minor obscure policy. As the PM says, Labour focused almost every advertisement on it. It was an issue in every leader’s debate, and I suspect at every MTC meeting held up and down New Zealand.

Jane Clifton reports from the House yesterday:

Prime Minister John Key hit on a cute method of deflating the Opposition’s ambush question strategy yesterday – though he probably won’t try it again.

Asked by Labour leader David Shearer whether he stood by his recent statements – one of those mystery questions that can lead to follow-up questions on just about anything – Mr Key grinned and said, “Yes, specially the one I said to my wife when I told her I loved her.”

This temporarily took the wind out of Mr Shearer’s sails because it’s hard to ask tough questions in a menacing fashion when you’re laughing.

General laughter was prolonged, including applause from Mr Key’s colleagues, and Speaker Lockwood Smith had trouble restoring order.

When finally he got a word in, he said, “Members would be wise to remember that if they include material in their answers, they can be questioned on it.”

“Yes,” cried Labour’s Annette King. “What did she say?”

The PM may be lucky that Labour didn’t ask supplementary questions about Bronagh 🙂

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the performance of the public service?
3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement about asset sales that it was the Governments intention that “every New Zealander who wants shares gets them”?
4. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress has been made in expanding the Youth Guarantee Scheme to provide more 16 and 17 year-olds with fees-free tertiary training this year?
5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement that “the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes were not projected in any of those forecasts”?
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Local Government:Has he been in communication with the Auckland Council over financial management issues, and if so, on what occasions this year?
7. MIKE SABIN to the Minister for Social Development: How will the Government’s recently announced changes target young people not in education, employment or training?
8. DENISE ROCHE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his comment that the Government has a “sinking lid policy” for pokie machines?
9. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf in answer to Oral Question No 1 on 1 March 2012, that “I do know what is in the coalition agreement” and, if so, does he agree that the United Future-National confidence and supply agreement does not require United Future to vote for the Government’s asset sales legislation?
10. TODD McCLAY to the Associate Minister of Conservation: What benefits will the Game Animal Council Bill bring for recreational hunters?
11. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: What response has he received to the “Smarter. Faster. Fairer” tenancy service which provides an 0800 phone customer service centre response to people with housing needs?
12. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister for ACC: What initiatives are underway to help raise awareness about falls in the home?

Today there are five questions from National, four questions from Labour, two from the Greens and one from NZ First.

Patsy of the day goes to Q12 – What initiatives are underway to help raise awareness about falls in the home?

Labour are asking about PM standing by statements, financial projections, United Future on asset sales, and Housing NZ.

Greens are on asset sales and pokies.

NZ First is again on confidence in the financial management of the Auckland Council.

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Financial Markets Conduct Bill – first reading continued
2. Building Amendment Bill (No 3) – third reading
3. Search and Surveillance Bill – committee stage
4. Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill – committee stage
5. Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill – third reading

The Financial Markets Conduct Bill was introduced in October 2011. It aims to to provide an enduring financial market conduct regulatory regime that promotes confident and informed participation in New Zealand’s financial markets. Labour and NZ First have indicated they will vote for it at first reading, and Greens will vote against.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 3) was introduced in October 2010 and aims to implement policy decisions from the 2009 Building Act review. It was passed on a voice vote at first reading but at second reading Labour, Greens, NZ First and Mana voted against.

The Search and Surveillance Bill was introduced in July 2009 and aims to implement the Government’s decisions on the legislative reform of search and surveillance powers”, based on the Law Commission’s report, “Search and Surveillance Powers”. It amends 69 different Acts and was supported at first reading by all parties except the Green Party.

The select committee did an interim report in August 2010 and a final report in November 2010. There was considerable opposition to the bill as originally drafted, such as by Tech Liberty.  Significant changes were made by the select committee with the Greens noting “They generally restrict search and surveillance powers more than the original bill, and improve accountability provisions”.  However they still oppose the bill, especially the provisions for Examination and Production Orders. Labour also opposes those two provisions.

At second reading Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori and Mana voted against. An SoP will be considered at committee stage, which may be supported by Labour.

The Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill was introduced in December 2010 and aims to replace the land valuation basis for setting rents for pastoral leases with a property-earning-capacity basis for setting rents for pastoral leases. It was supported at first reading by National, Greens, ACT, Maori and United and opposed by Labour.  Labour opposed the bill at select committee saying it “severely compromises the property rights of the land owner, the Crown, to negotiate a fair return on the full value of the land”.

The Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill was introduced in October 2010 and seeks to to reform the tax treatment of gains of New Zealand residents from income interests in overseas entities and gains of foreign residents from interests in New Zealand companies. It passed its first and second readings on a voice vote but at committee stage Labour and Greens voted against Part 3.

Nicholas Jones in the Herald reports:

Circumcision reduces the risk of infections, cancer and other painful conditions and should be routinely carried out on newborn boys, a study claims.

About 10 per cent of New Zealand’s male babies are circumcised, but the Government pays for the procedure only for medical reasons, such as frequent infections.

But recent research by 12 medical experts, led by Sydney University professor of medicine Brian Morris, claimed evidence in favour of infant circumcision was overwhelming. …

How long until someone wants to make it compulsory. I say leave our foreskins alone!

After weeks and months of strikes, and a growing loss of business to other ports, it was inevitable that Ports of Auckland would go down the only viable path left to them, which is contracting out.

The Herald reports:

Ports of Auckland said the decision to introduce “competitive stevedoring ” was partly the result of the impact of long running industrial action on its business.

Redundancies would begin later next week, with striking staff encouraged to apply for new positions, he said.

“This decision has not been made lightly, but we believe it is vital to ensuring a successful and sustainable future for the Port, including protecting jobs over the long term,” he said.

Ports of Auckland Chairman Richard Pearson said the company’s priority was to win back lost business.

“This decision will reassure the wider market and customers that we plan to achieve a sustainable lift in the port’s competitiveness as soon as possible.

One can’t continue with a situation where you get paid for 43 hours and only actually work 28.

Another guest post from Peter Freedman:

Queensland politics is different from those anywhere else in the world.

First they produced Joh Bjelke Petersen, probably the only interesting human being ever to come out of Dannevirke.

Joh was a crook, no two ways about it. When the law finally caught up with him and he was charged with perjury, Sir Joh beat the wrap by somehow smuggling one of his most fervent supporters on to the jury. The young man obediently refused to accept the plethora of evidence against his idol and caused a hung jury.

The authorities somehow managed to find Sir Joh was too gaga to stand trial a seconed time, so the crookest polly in Australian history died without a stain on his black character.

But Joh wasn’t alone. One of his Ministers, a man mountain named Russ Hinze. was once stopped for speeding. He pulled out a map of Queensland from the glove box, pointed to some spot in the middle of the state amd inquired of the cowering cop: “Now, sonny, how would you like to be transported to THERE?”

Hinze’s favourite saying was “never conduct an enquiry until you know for sure what the outcome will be”. Like his mentor he died just soon enough to avoid going to prison.

Sir Joh, whose wife Flo was famous for her scones but little else, also had his share of saws. Conducting press conferences was “feeding the chooks” and his consistent reply to any awkward question was: “Don’t you worry about that…….”

He also once told the London Spectator Queensland would be far better off it banned the media. That way, he declared “No-one would know anything”. Hard to argue with his logic, anyway,

Queenslanders go to the polls again on March 24, but even that isn’t certain. There’s a cat amongst the pigeons – a Katter to be precise.

Only Queensland could produce a man like Bob Katter, a mixture of Joh and Winston Peters in a ten-gallon hat.

Katter may single handedly delay the election because after registering his party as the Australian Party, he humbly changed his mind and decided it should be called the Katter Party. So he toddled off to court demanding that 2,000,000 voting papers be destroyed so the correct party name could be included in the new ones. Australians are a nation of gamblers, with more racecourses than any other nation, but the odds on Bob aren’t good.

The chances of a change in Government are, however. Labor is trying to win its ninth consecutive election, which must be some sort of record everywhere but in Singapore, so the “let’s give the other mob a go” syndrome is well and truly at work. But the other mob are not in great shape.

They had so much faith in their Parliamentary leader that they dumped him shortly before the election and replaced him with someone who wasn’t even an MP!So exit Jon Paul Whatsisname and enter stage right Campbell “Can Do” Newman, Lord Mayor of Brisbane, surely the only Parliamentary leader in the world who has to watch the proceedings of the House from the public gallery and cannot utter a word without being evicted.

The move was understandable. The Labor Premier, Anna Bligh, great-great-great-greatgranddaughter of William Bligh of the Bounty, is every bit as stubborn as her illustrious predecessor and equally liable to flog her underlings if they don’t perform.

But she inherited a mess from Peter Beattie, including a ticking time bomb called the Queensland Health payroll which is such a dog’s breakfast it overpaid some workers up to $300,000 and now wants its money back.

But “Can Do” also has his problems, it seems that if anything crooked can be done in business “Can Do” has already done it. Dodgy little tricks like his family setting up a company to flog flood protection software just a few days after South East Queensland was inundated (as it was US software, the FBI is showing an interest) or helping a property developer gain permission to build two high risers on the Gold Coast in return for seven donations to his election coffers, under seven different names. This could only have been leaked by someone within the LNP, probably one of the current Liberal MPs, all of whom refused to give up their seats to allow Newman to slip into Parliament by byelection.

So Newman is standing in the Labor-held seat of Ashgrove in Brisbane, and he has a fight on his hands against the popular Kathy Jones. His party could win, but Newman could be defeated, giving Jon Paul Whatsisname a chance to return in triumph.

Current Premier Anaa Bligh is very impressive and gave such a stellar performance during the floods that, albeit briefly, her party gained in the polls. It has since fallen back, and defeat looks very likely.

Somehow, down there in the bowels of Hell where he belongs, I can hear sir Joh saying with a grin: “Now, don’t you worry about that……..”

I love the description of Bob Katter – it’s perfect.

Phillips, through their PR person, gave me a Docking Speaker for purposes of review. I’m very glad they did.

My first test of new equipment is how easy it is to set up. Well, this is unpackage it, and plug it into the wall. Could not be easier.

Second test is how easily does stuff plug into it. One neat thing about this product is that you can plug in your iPod, iPhone or iPad to it. So if you are using your iPhone and/or iPad, you can run your music off the iPod.

I did find one thing out the hard way though. If you plug your iPhone into it, and someone calls you – well lets just say the phone rings really really loudly!

It has a handy remote control for volume etc.

But even cooler, is it has bluetooth. That means you don’t even have to plug your iPhone or iPad into it. Just push play on your iPhone and the music comes out on the other side of the room through the speaker. That is nice. And no, if your phone rings while bluetoothed to it, that doesn’t go over the speaker.

I watch the odd movie on my iPad. Will be great to have it bluetooth to a proper speaker.

So a very cool toy I have to say. My thanks to Phillips for it. I may end up buying one also as a Christmas present for a deserving relative.

They also gave me these headphones, called The Stretch to try out. Super comfortable and flexible. Not going to wear them to the gym, but they are great if your flatmate is at home, and you want to listen to music or movies without disturbing them. Air NZ should give these out to their frequent flyers, rather than invent new ways to screw them over instead!

As most readers will know, TVNZ7 ends in June. The funding given to it by Labour was for an initial period (was never made permanent), in order for it to become self-funding, and National has not decided to give TVNZ a subsidy to keep it going.

I don’t think the channel itself matters, as we have dozens of channels in NZ, and the value associated with a channel is becoming much less in the Internet age. I do think though there were some programmes on TVNZ7 which it would be good to have continue on. The three which I associate with being public broadcasting are the Court Report, Media 7 and Backbenchers. Important issues get discussed in a reasoned way (well on two of them anyway!).

Most of the other shows on TVNZ7 are imported or the hourly news bulletins, which are hardly essential. So my focus is on the three programmes above. There is also The Good Word.

Now to have a sensible discussion on their future, we need to know how many people were watching them, and how much they cost.

Neilsen have not been contracted to report ratings for TVNZ7. I think this is disgraceful considering the $15m a year that was spent on it. It should be a requirement of any use of taxpayer funds for broadcasting that the viewer data be made publicly available.

However we can get some idea of ratings. TVNZ7 is included in an “other” category. This excludes Channels 1 to 4, Prime, MTS, Box and Sky channels. Now last week “other” during the time Media7 was on got 0.6% AUD%, which is around 24,000 viewers. This means the number of viewers was somewhere between 0 and 24,000.

These level of viewers makes it hard to justify taxpayer investment. Public broadcasting is not expected to rate like Shortland Street as it is not commercial. But it is expected to at least rate. You should be achieving at least 1% of the population. It is quite possible no show on TVNZ7 has ever achieved even a 1% audience. I don’t blame the shows for this – I think the three shows mentioned are well produced and very worthwhile. If anything I blame TVNZ for not promoting them on other channels. TVNZ use their 6 pm new slot to often promote Q+A. They didn’t do this for any of the stuff on TVNZ7. How often did a story on TVNZ7 get picked up on TVNZ news the next day? I can think of many that should have been (such as Jim Farmer QC’s comments on the Supreme Court on the Court Report). So TVNZ failed to promote TVNZ7 programmes enough.

Next you consider how much these programmes cost. Someone out there may know, and I would hope it is public information as they are taxpayer funded. NZ on Air publishes funding details of the programmes they fund. We should be able to easily look up what the TVNZ7 programmes cost.

But someone in the industry has estimated for me that those programmes would probably cost $10,000/hr to produce or $5,000 an episode. So that is $250,000 a year. *If* those prices are correct, that is not an unaffordable amount of money. Now NZ on Air allocates $80m a year of contestable funding towards NZ TV programmes. It is not impossible to imagine that they could find $750,000 a year to keep Media 7, Court Report and Backbenches on our screens. However the real problem is finding the broadcaster to agree to host them.

TVNZ is refusing (so far) to apply to NZ on Air to keep any of those programmes going. Why? Well they don’t want to screen them on TV1 or TV2 during a weeknight, as they would lose advertising revenue. I can understand that, but I don’t see why they couldn’t apply for them to be shown on a Saturday or Sunday?

But lets assume for now TVNZ won’t agree to broadcast them. What about other broadcasters? Well this could be an opportunity for Sky. They could apply for NZ on Air funding to show it on Prime or on Sky News. Politically it could be useful for Sky also to be doing more public good broadcasting (they also did election debates etc), as their future in a converged broadcasting and telecommunications market is scrutinised. Sky would also have the ability to promote the shows to get more viewers.

Another possibility is to make (for example) the Court Report an Internet broadcast. NZ on Air already fund some stuff over the Internet. The sort of people who watch the Court Report will tend to be Internet savvy, and many would happily subscribe to it and watch on their iPads or PCs.

So the issues are much much wider than just funding for TVNZ7. It is a complicated challenge. I’ve always been of the view that TVNZ can not be asked to be both a commercial broadcaster and a public service broadcaster. However that does leave opportunities for others.

Mr Walker shows his anti-semitism proudly.

In terms of the issue facebooked about, I would have thought that it is pretty obvious why demand for childcare has soared in recent years. It is because the subsidies have also soared. We now spend more per child per year on early childhood education than we do on primary school education.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Bureaucrats are biting back, with plans under way to march against any further state sector cuts.

Beleaguered public servants are anxiously awaiting Prime Minister John Key’s plans for the state sector, expected to be announced in a keynote address next week.

If the reform involves further privatisation and job cuts – more than 2500 jobs have been slashed in the past three years – it is likely protest marches and rallies will follow.

Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott said the “mood has changed” among public servants, who were now talking about action and taking to social media.

A march would have echoes of mass protests in 1988 against the State Sector Act, which reshaped the public service, she said. “Public servants are starting to bite back – finally – after three years of cuts.

“People have been a bit resigned but now patience is wearing out. The mood has changed. People are now talking about opposing further cuts.

It is a tough time for the PSA. They are one of the more rational unions, in my experience. And having a shrinking state sector is hard for those impacted.

But I think it is worth stressing the fiscal environment we are in. The deficit has been running at around $10b a year. That is several times larger than the cost of the entire civil service. There is a path back to surplus over the next three years, but it is a fragile one.

One just has to look at the UK, Ireland, Greece etc to see what will happen to the public sector if there is not an end to deficits and growing debt.

Of course the Government could scrap high cost programmes such as Working for Families, subsidized childcare or interest free student loans, to reduce the deficit. But I suspect the PSA and its members would not be too keen on that either.

Some of course will advocate that we try and tax our way back to surplus. Apart from the fact that increased taxes will lessen economic growth, I’d point out that overall tax revenues are basically on the track announced by Labour in its 2008 budget. The tax changes since then have over a four year period been broadly fiscally neutral. National actually cancelled two stages of its planned tax cuts due to the deficit, so it has been quite balanced – both canceling tax cuts and reducing spending.

Also we have to allow for efficiency gains from technology. If a new computer system for IRD means it needs 1,500 fewer jobs, then that is something that will be good to do – even it is tough on those affected.

The Australian Kangaroo Court blogs on what is proposed in Australia:

 “If a publisher distributes more than 3000 copies of print per issue or a news internet site has a minimum of 15 000 hits per annum it should be subject to the jurisdiction of the News Media Council, but not otherwise. These numbers are arbitrary, but a line must be drawn somewhere.” (15,000 hits a year is just under 300 hits a week which is almost every blogger who posts at least twice a month. Whether he means page views or unique browsers I do not know but it does not make much difference at the end of the day. It is a very low number and would even capture high school children who have a blog)

If the report author has referred to hits he is technically illiterate. You get a hit for every item on a page. One page view can generate 3o hits. And the idea of blogs being forced into this new regulatory body is a huge threat to bloggers in Australia.

There should be a legal requirement that if a regulated media outlet refuses to comply with a News Media Council determination the News Media Council or the complainant should have the right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order compelling compliance. Any failure to comply with the court order should be a contempt of court and punishable in the usual way.

And so this News Media Council could force bloggers to remove content, without any trial or proof of defamation etc.

I’m glad the proposals in NZ from the Law Commission are so much more sensible (while not perfect), than what is proposed in Australia.

Submissions on the Law Commission’s preliminary proposals on media regulation can be made at http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/project/review-regulatory-gaps-and-new-media?quicktabs_=issues_paper. Submissions close on March 12 2012.

Fran O’Sullivan facebooks:

Just a note to say that Owen McShane died suddenly today. He had a major heart operation a year or so ago. Was a contributor to NBR in recent years but long time commentator on Auckland planning issues and RMA.

Owen contributed a huge amount to public policy in New Zealand ranging from being a commentator here at one end of the scale to having done a ministerial reviews of the RMA. He was a wealth of knowledge on planning issues, and a consistent voice for less regulation and centralised control.

He was a fine New Zealander, and will be missed my many,

My thoughts go out to his family and close friends.

At Stuff I blog on another issue in the MMP review, namely should List MPs be able to stand in by-elections.

My conclusion:

However I am firmly of the view that List MPs should not be able to stand in by-elections. I think the results of elections should be transparent, and someone from Dunedin should not suddenly become a List MP because of how the voters in Mana voted. The average voter won’t get to grips with the details of how a list MP becoming an electorate MP means a new List MP enters Parliament, and won’t be making an informed vote.

You can comment at Stuff, or here.

A guest post by John Stringer:

I’m no architect, but I know a bit about art and culture and was born and bred in Christchurch. I grafted my young children here from Kapiti so they too could be ‘Cantabs’ under this sprawling big sky. I adore Christchurch and have made considerable sacrifices to remain here, and  was a parliamentary candidate for Christchurch Central in the late nineties. The confused demolition of the classic Sydenham Heritage Church (1878) a southern gateway to inner Christchurch (on Colombo & Brougham Streets) has pained me on top of all the other complex emotions of 22/2.

Heritage takes perhaps 100 years to set. Simply bowling Christchurch over and starting again will dislocate us from cultural anchoring points intrinsic to our being and history. Retention and restoration are important to healing and recovery –seeing familiarity restored, like an amputee receiving an artificial limb. Who would not restore the toppled statues of Godley and Scott?  Why then, not iconic buildings? While there is an exciting opportunity to rebuild with fresh vision, we must retain the core of what Christchurch is, architecturally.

Cultural iconography has to be a selected snap shot of time (for us mid-nineteenth century neo-gothic Victorian) otherwise cities are an unfocussed mash of everything and nothing. 
Tourists come to take pictures of the Arts Centre and the Christ Church cathedral, not the Forsyth Barr building.  We have trams, Avon punts, Christ’s College –all icons of identity and heritage.  Restoration is vital.

Perhaps our best exemplar is Dresden’s Frauenkirche, the iconic “Church of Our Lady” at the center of their city obliterated in WWII.  This building was lovingly restored from almost nothing, as the architectural heart of Dresden. This was an obvious – and no doubt expensive – piece of cultural healing and identification; holding on to an element of the past to anchor the future.  Human beings do not do well in cultural vacuums. We need reference points.

Many of our old buildings survived: the Jubilee Clock Tower on Victoria Street, much of the Arts Centre, the Museum, many of our old churches (St Albans Union at Merivale; St Mary’s a few blocks down; the Catholic Basilica on Barbadoes St– perhaps out most attractive building) and many did not. Restoration is achievable, but so is fusion. As with Kirkaldie & Stains’ fascade in Lambton Quay, Wellington. Restoration along with faked facades behind which safe modern buildings are constructed, might be a symbiosis pleasing to most: Christ Church cathedral and the Chalice – traditional and contemporary side-by-side, like grandparent and grandchild supporting each other. Eradicate the one, and the other is lessoned, a lesson to us all.

It is not simply an issue of safety.  Older buildings can be strengthened and made safe. My alma mater the red brick Christchurch Boys’ High School was largely unaffected in the quake due to strengthening.

It need not be an argument between traditionalist and progressive. Fusion is the key.  We should restore, strengthen as much of our heritage as we can preserve, and in the grey areas, retain facades at street level with modern buildings behind.

Change, however, is inevitable, and perhaps it is time to review emphases in different parts of the city.  My own thoughts are: that the eastern suburbs (Parklands, Bexley) could be thinned by natural attrition (no one should be forced away) and perhaps this area of Christchurch refocused as recreational serving city-wide sports needs with centralized hockey, cricket, rugby and soccer fields and mountain biking (already an emphasis at Bottle Lake).  Large grassed fields slotted in amongst retained housing would be well served by the existing ring roads to these areas, such as QEII Drive. It would also lesson traffic congestion around Hagley Park and Harper & Deans Avenues. The obvious beach, and attractive wetlands, already lends itself as an enhanced recreational and leisure focus nestled naturally amongst less residential intensity.  This reduces risk to human life in the event of more earthquakes, floods or tsunami.

Rather than rebuild, I would thin the CBD out (especially Cathedral Square) with small parks to set tall buildings back astride grassed areas with fountains and people friendly contexts.  New York has done this very successfully. This creates more natural space and light, for cafes, tourism, open air events like the Buskers’ festival (why jam these into Cathedral Square and the Arts Centre?).

I would extend the CBD into Sydenham-Addington with central government-subsidized commercial rentals to help re-establish small businesses lost in the CBD, and to grow new enterprises.  This area is already bisected by the railway line and rail station. Shouldn’t this be a natural hub for the city?  The trams could easily extend into this part of town traversing the new parks named after significant Canterbury events or personages, enhancing our sense of heritage as done with Latimer & Cranmer Squares reflecting our Anglican heritage. These new parks might be named: “4 Sept,” “22 Feb,”  “Crusader,” or perhaps after historic battlefields where the 1^st and 20^th Canterbury Battalions played decisive roles: “Suvla Bay,” “Messines,” etc. (as the French have done in Paris with “Bir Hacheim” metro station).  Our CBD would then be defined between Rolleston Ave (which I would extend across the river by the hospital into Antigua Street, renamed Rolleston Ave South), Brougham St, Fitzgerald Ave and Bealey Ave.

I would push Deans Ave south to Hazeldean St and into Lincoln Rd to create a second ‘Moorhouse’ lateral into the expanded Addington-Sydenham CBD.  This area is already flanked by Hagley Park, and is zoned commercial with little residential. It has an existing major west-east arterial motorway creating a rapid egress from the city to the south as well as the railway.  These suburbs are also traditionally lower socio-economic. What better a commemoration of the earthquake than to re-create this part of Christchurch as a new economic boon sector reflective of Merivale and Fendalton their counterparts on the other side of the Park.

There are huge opportunities.  The challenge is not to become bogged down in reactionary arguments (the Moore sheep sculpture on the Port Hills; the Chalice; the Millennium Bridge; or inter-suburban parochialism). Rather, to have a wide creative response that fuses a breadth of aesthetic opinion and culture reflective of Christchurch’s diversity while retaining our intrinsic raison d’être – the architectural vision of our city’s Victorian founders. 

 

John Stringer is an ex-Anglican pastor of the Christchurch Dioceses under license to the Bishop. He is an international author who lost everything at Mt Pleasant on 22/2 (house, business, car and job) and now lives in rental accommodation in St Albans with his wife Laurie.

Demolished after 144 years. St Albans Methodist Sunday School (behind the late nineteenth-century church) at Merivale, corner Papanui Rd and Rugby St, 1902 rebuilt after the 1868 fire. Damaged 4 Sept 2010 and 22 Feb. 2011 and finally demolished Jan. 2012.  Photos: John Stringer.

Dresden’s Frauenkirche basilica before and after restoration (the black blocks in the left image are original). Photos: public domain.

Hayden Donnell reports at NZ Herald:

Air New Zealand is being accused of driving away its most loyal customers with a recent overhaul of its air points rewards system.

In changes set to kick in on May 30, frequent flyers using their Airpoints to book flights on the national carrier will have to bid against each other to get seat upgrades.

Bids can only be placed a week or more out from a flight, with the airline telling people whether their offer has been accepted between three and seven days before departure.

Under the airline’s previous system, Airpoints users could a get an upgrade if they paid a fixed price before a flight and a seat was available.

The changes have sparked outrage among frequent flyers, with many threatening to shift their support to rival airlines.

And I am one of them. This is the last straw. I spend a huge amount flying with Air New Zealand – both domestically and internationally. Due to their loyalty programme, I always try to book Air NZ – even if not the cheapest option. Hence I have been Gold Elite or Gold for the last decade or so.

Over that time Air NZ has continually downgraded the value of their airpoints and loyalty programme. Time after time after time they have degraded it. However there was one aspect left that made it worth staying on for – long haul upgrades.

I can not afford to pay more higher than economy class to travel overseas. However I regularly use airpoints to purchase upgrades so that I can escape cattle class.  Now Air NZ is destroying the benefits of having gold status with them.

I’m a member of Qantas also, but at the lowest tier level. I’m now going to make Qantas my priority airline for bookings, unless Air NZ gives frequent flyers an incentive to use them. Business class travel is quite simply unaffordable for people who pay for their own travel (unless very well off), and frequent flyer points have been the only way that it becomes affordable.

Despite that, entrepreneur Ben Kepes said Australian airline Qantas could capitalise on the discontent created by the changes to spark an exodus of Air New Zealand frequent flyers.

The self-described “Air New Zealand evangelist” said the way the OneUp system had been implemented diminished his view of the carrier.

“It’s definitely left a bad taste in my mouth.

“It’s a bad look when people are starting to say ‘what are my options with other airlines?’…I would be surprised if there wasn’t a mass exodus from Air New Zealand.”

Mr Kepes said the bidding system would add unnecessary stress to frequent flyers’ seat upgrade applications.

He claimed the changes compromised Air New Zealand’s reputation for great service to high value customers.

It is a pity. The staff are great, and are excellent ambassadors for the airline. It is the company letting them down.

The Herald reports:

A Christchurch City Councillor has called for a televised debate on whether the cathedral should be pulled down.

Councillor Aaron Keown, representing the Shirley-Papanui ward, has argued the Anglican Church is not being transparent about the reasons for not demolishing the cathedral.

“You’ve got a building in the centre of Christchurch that has more value to the city and the people of Christchurch than it does to the church.

Tough. It belongs to the Anglican Church. The public don’t get a vote on this.

Mr Keown said the costs and upkeep of the cathedral should be transferred to the city.

“It would still be the Anglican Cathedral, I would like to see them semi hand over the ownership. Kind of like how there have partnerships with iwi, we’ve got to do the same with the church. The church just don’t have the money they once had.”

You want to spend ratepayers money on buying a cathedral??? No. And the Church has an insurance policy.

He said he will bring up the possibility of council leading legal action against the church at the next meeting.

What part of private property rights is hard to understand? Also what part of unsafe is hard to fathom.

I’m not saying the Anglican Church has made the right decision. I’m saying it is their decision. If you don’t like it, then join the Church and roll the bishop or something – if that is possible.

Stuff reports:

The National Library is defending the appointment of a retired electrical engineer as official photographer of the Christchurch earthquakes, and says his appointment had nothing to do with him being the husband of the parliamentary librarian.

This is irrelevant, and shouldn’t even be part of the story. The National Library and Parliamentary Library are totally separate organisations. The National Library is headed by the National Librarian, appointed by the SSC. The Parliamentary Library is part of The Parliamentary Service and the Parliamentary Librarian is appointed by the PS General Manager.

Anyone suggesting a link, is being malicious. It is like saying that someone got a photo job for the Red Cross because their wife works for Save the Children.

I think this is just sour grapes from those who missed out.

The second reading of the Search and Surveillance Bill saw some rare praise from a Labour MP:

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I want to begin my remarks today by acknowledging the new Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins, and wishing her well in her justice portfolio. I also want to recognise the consultative approach that she has adopted early on in her stewardship of the portfolio, and I think it is appropriate to acknowledge also that she has a herculean task ahead of her in trying to rationalise the workload that she has inherited. …

It is clear that this is a much better bill. There are significant modifications to the proposed surveillance device regime, better regulation of the more intrusive forms of surveillance that were originally proposed, a reduction in the warrantless surveillance period, better rules over the retention of data, stronger reporting requirements for surveillance device warrants, and better controls over examination and production orders. So it is absolutely the case that Parliament did what it is expected to do via the select committee process on this measure. It did look at the detail. The parties worked together and they did produce a better bill.

David Parker praises the select committee for its role:

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : For a start, can I repeat the thanks that have been expressed by my colleague Charles Chauvel for the way in which the National Party conducted itself at the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee was chaired by Chester Borrows. The Search and Surveillance Bill is one of the most complex and difficult pieces of legislation that I have considered in any select committee since I have been in Parliament. It is one in which the select committee took very seriously the proper balance between the protection of civil liberties and the necessary powers to be afforded to State agencies to investigate criminal conduct.

Chauvel says:

The Minister and I met yesterday. She wrote to me today, and I accept her good-faith attempt to try to resolve these problems, and in passing I should say that, in respect of at least two other measures I can think of, I appreciate the approach she has already shown in this portfolio. She is willing to stand back and take a look at whether a measure is really necessary and whether or not it really commands stakeholder support, and if it does not she is willing to give it another look, and that is something that ought to be said for the record.

Labour asked for the SOP to be made available 48 hours before it is considered. The Minister released it yesterday and it will not be debated until Wednesday or Thursday, which is good.

The Minister also released a detailed Q+A on the bill and SOP, which I recommend as a useful backgrounder. One or two media initally took the SOP to be giving authorities new powers over revealing sources, but as far as I can ascertain (and based on a Twitter conversation with Graeme Edgeler), it actually provides greater protection to the media by having any documents seized held by the Court, not the Police or other agency.

I’m not sure if this means Labour will now support the bill. But regardless I thought it worth highlighting that Parliament isn’t just about question time, and mindless opposition. On important issues, parties do sometimes work together in good faith – and they improve the law, even if at the end of the day they still agree to disagree on some issues.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the sale of State-owned assets?
3. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: How much funding has the Government committed to the Fresh Start for Fresh Water clean-up fund for the projects announced at the Bluegreens Forum at the weekend for the Manawatu River and the Wairarapa, Wainono and Waituna Lagoons?
4. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his recent statements?
5. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will the Review of New Zealand Minerals Royalty Rates ensure that royalties are paid on all mines in New Zealand?
6. COLIN KING to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What progress has been made to improve access to broadband in New Zealand schools?
7. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Why is there no provision in the Government’s asset sales legislation to ensure preferential treatment for individual New Zealand buyers despite the Prime Minister’s promise that “Kiwi mums and dads will be at the front of the queue”?
8. TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister for the Environment: Have Iwi Māori raised any issues with him about the proposals in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill; if so, what?
9. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Why is the Government requiring the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to find operating savings and make cuts of $40 million a year?
10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Local Government: Does he have confidence in the financial management of the Auckland Council?
11. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: How is Government working with the Auckland Council and the Auckland Chamber of Commerce to support young Aucklanders into employment opportunities?
12. KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is it correct that “Police bosses are considering laying off staff and closing some stations in an effort to save $360 million over the next three years” as reported in the NZ Herald?

Today there are four questions from National, five questions from Labour, one from the Greens, one from the Maori Party and one from NZ First.

Patsy of the day goes to Q6 – What progress has been made to improve access to broadband in New Zealand schools?

Labour are asking about asset sales, PM standing by statements, MFAT cuts, and Police funding

Greens are on mine royalties. That might be one area I agree with them. There is an arguable case for higher royalties.

NZ First is again on confidence in the financial management of the Auckland Council. It didn’t get anywhere last week but may this week.

The Maori Party is asking on EEZ consultation.

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – committee stage continued
2. Building Amendment Bill (No 3) – committee stage
3. Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill – second reading
4. Defence Amendment Bill – first reading
5. Financial Markets Conduct Bill – first reading

The Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was introduced in September 2010 and seeks to enable border agencies to share information, change the thresholds and processes for administrative and petty offence provisions of the Customs and Excise Act. It passed its first and second reading on voice votes.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 3) was introduced in October 2010 and aims to implement policy decisions from the 2009 Building Act review. It was passed on a voice vote at first reading but the select committee reports that Labour and Greens will now oppose the bill as they see the building reforms as being done piecemeal.

The Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill was introduced in December 2010 and aims to replace the land valuation basis for setting rents for pastoral leases with a property-earning-capacity basis for setting rents for pastoral leases. It was supported at first reading by National, Greens, ACT, Maori and United and opposed by Labour.  Labour opposed the bill at select committee saying it “severely compromises the property rights of the land owner, the Crown, to negotiate a fair return on the full value of the land”.

The Defence Amendment Bill was introduced in October 2011. It aims to amend the Defence Act 1990 to implement government policy as set out in the Defence White Paper 2010, including capability management; information sharing; appointment, removal, and performance management of Chief of Defence Force; Senior New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) appointments and accountabilities; civilianisation; Reserves and Territorial Forces, and the Defence Advisory Board.

The Financial Markets Conduct Bill was introduced in October 2011. It aims to to provide an enduring financial market conduct regulatory regime that promotes confident and informed participation in New Zealand’s financial markets.