letter to the Press that was sent and never run

In his letter to the paper on February 23 G Oudemans says that Labour closed 280 schools in it’s nine years in government. It would be a convenient argument – if only it were true. In response to a written question from Green MP Catherine Delahunty, Hekia Parata said that there were not 281 school closures in that time, but 205. Of these 205, 90 were voluntary closures (a decision made by the Board, not the Minister), which means that only 115 were forced. This works out at around a dozen schools a year. It should also be noted that these closures were spread across the whole country, not focussed in on one city that had just suffered through the most devastating natural disaster in modern New Zealand history. 

This 281 figure was repeated by the Prime Minister, first on his twitter account, and then in the House. It shows that this government’s desire to play fast and loose with the facts around school closures comes right from the top.

The Christchurch rebuild is not a branding exercise

I’ve let this blog sit, festering, gathering dust. I’m not good at maintaining regular postings. But it’s still here, and I’m still here, and I’m getting more and more despondent about the way the “rebuild” of Christchurch is going. I’m off work for medical reasons at the moment, so have a bit more time to write and rant. In this week, the lead up the the second anniversary of the February quake, I’m hoping to have a blog post up most days. In my head, I’ll cover schools, the central city, the local body elections and the media – but that could change when I start writing.

I have commended the Press for their reporting in Christchurch since the quakes started. They have done a great job reporting stories on a daily basis, and following that up with more in-depth reporting from the likes of John McCrone and Philip Matthews in the Mainlander section. Their reporting has held the council, EQC, insurance companies and especially the government to account – to the point where Gerry Brownlee called the paper “the enemy of the recovery“. 

“We’re getting into the sort of zone of, frankly, The Press again being the enemy of recovery. Happy for you to put that in the paper because I know a lot of people think it.”

So I was in equal parts surprised and disgusted by Michael Wright’s front page opinion piece on Saturday. He effectively writes what Gerry Brownlee wants him to say, not because it’s true, but because Gerry wishes it to be so.

“Christchurch’s central city red zone will henceforth be known as the ‘rebuild zone’, the minister said, and thus it was so”

There wasn’t any particular evidence to support this bold claim, though Wright insists that “Brownlee got the rhetoric just right”. Perhaps the truest words he writes are that “perception is reality”. Well, yes. And the Press is the main organ for the transmission of that perception. If they are just going to drop any pretence of critical thought and instead regurgitate the government’s talking points without questioning, then we are in for a tough time.

Perhaps the giveaway was in the second sentence: ”a captive audience of more than 40 local and international journalists were on hand”. I don’t want our journalists to be captive. I want them to think about, to critically evaluate the statements coming from this man. This man, who has unparalleled powers in modern New Zealand political history. Who has increasingly made Christchurch his personal fiefdom. The one thing we have left to stop him is a free press – and I hope that in the run up to this week’s anniversary, we can trust them to do that.

There are echoes of the government’s attempts to redefine the word “rejuvenate” during the Schools closure announcements last year. This bizarre, Orwellian tendency to mangle the mother tongue has two very different exponents in Hekia Parata and Gerry Brownlee. One attempts to re-appropriate words through utter confusion, the other through flat-bat bullying. There is nothing rejuvenating about closing a school. Similarly, stating that we are now are “rebuild zone” does not actually build buildings; it doesn’t fix toilets or re-house people who have already been without adequate accommodation for two years or more now.

This is a transparent attempt to change the narrative around what has been both a natural and a political disaster in Christchurch, just in time for the PM to parachute in on Friday and steal the plaudits. As someone with huge concerns about the way the decisions in this city are being made, I am alarmed by this development. I want to see action, not cynical attempts at rebranding. I realise that people from outside of Christchurch are tired of what is going on down here, and that they’re probably keen on hearing that we’ve moved on from Red Zone to Rebuild Zone. It’s just a shame that it’s not true.

C Newman from Strowan can suck a big one

There are two far-right people writing letters to the this morning’s Press, claiming the Government package is too generous, and that they have no obligation to buy land (the letters editor has given them the titles “Government Generous” and “Too Generous”). The two letter writers listed their suburbs as “Upper Riccarton” (the unaffected west) and “Strowan” (the word prats from Merivale use to make themselves feel even more elitist). C Newman of Strowan said:

“The Government has been over generous with taxpayers’ money towards the householders of Christchurch, maintaining the myth that the state is there to protect the citizen from nature.”

He goes on to spout some deplorable neoliberal drivel that only someone who had undergone a complete empathy lobotomy could think. If C Newman of Strowan weren’t so clearly prejudiced, he might like to do some research before he puts his bucolic pen to paper. Confident that he* wont bother to do so, I’ll refute some of that crap here.

The second part of his statement above – “maintaining the myth that the state is there to protect the citizen from nature” – has he heard of EQC? It was not set up to literally protect the individual from the effects of nature, but it can do the next best thing. From the Earthquake Commission Act of 1993:

The functions of the Commission are—

(a) to administer the insurance against natural disaster damage provided under this Act

EQC, which is a body that is set up and run soley by the Government of New Zealand, for the people of New Zealand, lists it’s primary function as providing insurance against natural disaster damage. That’s not a myth. It’s in legislation. Publicly available legislation that people like C Newman of Strowan could investigate, if they had the innate curiosity that bigots of the far-right clearly lack. Though I do wonder whether C Newman of Strowan might not qualify as far-right - even those on the hard right would generally agree that if the state is to have any role in the lives of it’s citizens, it is to try and protect them.

David Weusten, of Upper Riccarton writes:

“I applaud the Government on its offer to purchase red-zoned preoperties, as it was under no obligation to do so and has helped minimise the equity destruction that those in the zone face.”

This letter, and that of C Newman of Strowan, imply that the Government has been overly generous, that they are just handing out money willy nilly, bundles of notes to all these undeserving, unhoused people. Again, this is about as far from reality as C Newman of Strowan is. I hate to be a bore, and keep citing the same source, but in this case, the legislation does seem like an appropriate thing to take the time to read. Clause 19, Residential Land:

Subject to any regulations made under this Act and to Schedule 3, where a residential building is deemed to be insured under this Act against natural disaster damage, the residential land on which that building is situated shall, while that insurance of the residential building is in force, be deemed to be insured under this Act against natural disaster damage to the amount (exclusive of goods and services tax) which is the sum of, in the case of any particular damage,—

(a) the value, at the site of the damage, of—

(i) if there is a district plan operative in respect of the residential land, an area of land equal to the minimum area allowable under the district plan for land used for the same purpose that the residential land was being used at the time of the damage; or

(ii) an area of land of 4 000 square metres; or

(iii) the area of land that is actually lost or damaged—

whichever is the smallest; and

(b) the indemnity value of any property referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the definition of the term residential land in section 2(1) that is lost or damaged.

Now, I know there are quite a few words there, and that C Newman of Strowan and others of that persuasion might have trouble getting through them all, so I will summarise it: EQC covers the land under a house. You say “generous”, I say “obligation as defined by law”**. So all this shit about the government being generous, or too generous, is some of the most offensive crap I have ever heard. Ever since the 4th of September, we have been waiting for a land package. We knew that the EQC would pay for land. That’s why we were waiting for a land package. Then, somewhere around the time of the June 13th aftershocks, people seem to have forgotten about this. Then, Generous John Key strolls in to town, offers to buy people’s land, doesn’t bother to remind people that the government was always going to buy the land, and people think he’s the most charitable guy since Allan Hubbard. The Government – whether intentionally or not – has used the word “generous” with regards to their clearly flawed land package offer so frequently that it has now become attached. It’s either very smart, or very cynical, to successfully rebrand your obligations as generosity.

I’m not going to go into all the ways that the package is anything but generous right here – I’m getting angry enough to write another blog about that soon. Suffice it to say that contrary to what C Newman of Strowan thinks, this package will see a large number of people – people from some of our poorest and most vulnerable areas – struggling to re-house themselves in Christchurch. The sad fact of the government response is that the good, hardworking people of the East may end up having to move out of Christchurch, leaving us with a city over-represented by detestable cunts like C Newman of Strowan.

* Halfway through writing this, I realised that C Newman could actually be a woman. I guess I just assumed that someone with such misguided, hateful thoughts could only be an aging, spite-filled man who has little to look forward to in life but the thrill he gets from yelling at his neighbour’s yappy novelty dog. I guess that I have encountered fewer female hard-right nutters in my times. I could be wrong on this.

** I guess you could argue that the legislation doesn’t explicitly state that the EQC will “buy” the land, but it clearly states that the EQC will pay for the cost of it.

Column Inches

Though I haven’t seen a hard copy yet, I wrote a column for this week’s Mail. I think it will be a weekly, or at least fortnightly thing. Here’s what it said.

I’ve just got back from a weekend in Wellington. Getting out of Christchurch reminds you (if you need any reminding) just how serious the challenge to rebuild Christchurch will be. The central city was bustling, filled with all sorts of shops and the colourful characters that make them vibrant places to be. 

However, it’s not all good. I went out for a friend’s birthday on Saturday, to a bar on Courtenay Place (it’s like the Strip, but longer.) I left around midnight, and the scene was quite alarming. Hundreds of mainly young, mainly drunk, people all through the centre of Wellington.

The scary thing is, a number of people seem to think that the economic salvation of Christchurch lies at the bottom of a pint glass. Prominent central-city property owner Anthony Gough has argued publicly that his bars on the Strip should be opened as fast as possible, complaining about delays he sees as caused by the authorities. Now I am by no means a prude, (though my favourite bar in town was the now-destroyed Christchurch Temperance Society) but I think that we should be having a discussion – at the city, suburb and  community level – about the role which alcohol plays in our rebuilt city. 

Christchurch – amongst other New Zealand towns – has a serious problem with young people and alcohol. As someone who lived right in the heart of town, it was apparent to me, multiple nights a week. Alcohol is a wider societal problem for the whole country, but as we look to rebuild a better urban environment, we should be thinking about how we can integrate pubs and bars into a framework that allows people to enjoy themselves, whilst also minimising the harm that drinking causes.

ALSO: on that note – council has just approved a temporary entertainment hub, in tents, in Hagley Park.

Can’t Move On

When I saw the headline on the front of Saturday’s Mainlander, “Life Inside the Red Zone”, I thought that the media were finally going to turn their attention to the plight of those who called the centre of Christchurch home. You can imagine how disappointed I was to find that it was a piece that was more about the journalist himself than the people who live(d) in the red zone. It is coming up to 70 days since the quake, and for the many of the people who lived in the red zone, that means 70 days since they last went home, last saw their house, got their favourite possessions. Many of the places we lived in are so badly damaged that property won’t be retrievable; further more, some may never be lived in again. However, lives are in limbo, as we cannot get in to assess the damage, to proceed with claims to EQC and insurance companies. We don’t know how long it will be before we can move on from these places, and what used to be our lives. 

The story of the residents displaced from the red zone is a desperately sad one, but surely more compelling than the one that Keith Lynch told on Saturday.

This is a letter I had published in the paper this morning. The heading was given by the letters editor, not me.

Make way for the Tsar

A witty, thoughtful piece from Joe Bennett that makes the strong case for an earthquake Tsar. One with a plan, me thinks.

A tip for Mr Parker

I’m not generally one to offer Bob Parker advice. As you might have gathered, I’m running for community board in Hagley Ferrymead, and while that doesn’t put me in direct competition for Bob’s chains, I am part of 2021 / the Labour Party machine which have lined up against him. I sorry if that disappoints anyone – though I’m proud of my associations, and happy to make sure that my allegiances are out in the open. I’m not sure whether anyone remembers about 5 weeks ago, when Bob was behind in the polls, that he was forced to admit that the National Party was backing him after the ‘endorsement that wasn’t actually an endorsement’. I could go into the ins and outs of how the National Party have both supported Bob whilst marginalising local Labour MP’s and left-wing councillors, but I will save it for another day. When I’m particularly angry.

No, what got my confused today was an interview Bob Parker did with RDU’s Breakfast with Spanky this morning, which you can listen to here. The first couples of minutes are typical Bob, smarmy patter about how down with the kids and the common people he is (FYI Bob, Holly Smith was cool about 4 years ago, today the kids are into Dane and the Rumbles) before some platitudes about how Bexley isn’t the councils fault etc etc. About 5 minutes in, Spanky says “So you’ve appointed Ian Athfield as …” and Bob comes in super quick to say “No no, I didn’t.” This is the problem with both the Athfield appointment, and the legacy of Bob’s first term. It’s called process. I don’t think Mr Parker has ever met Senor Process.

I went to the press conference where Bob presented Ian Athfield to the media, at with my cynical hat on (I wear it most of the time) it was clear to see that this was his attempt to dissipate some of the anger about the loss of heritage buildings in the first week of the quake. He was effectively saying “Here is Ian Athfield. See, I do care about old buildings. Ian is going to go away and come back with a plan, conveniently sometime after the election. That way, I don’t have to commit to doing anything that people might not like, but I maintain the pretense of caring.” My problem with the appointment from day dot was that Athfield had been given no clear mandate from the council – it hadn’t gone through council, and now, according to Bob, it’s got nothing to do with him. According to Bob this morning, the NZIA appointed him, he’s working for free, and it has nothing to do with council. He’s just a dude, sitting in an office for 6-8 weeks, coming up with ideas. So if that’s true, why did Bob then spend an hour wheeling Athfield out in front of the nation’s media, when he could have been paying more attention to the situation in Avonside or Bexley?

I feel a bit sorry for Athfield really, who has been caught up in the middle of all of this. There was a piece on him in the Press at the weekend, which was quite good – though Athfield himself wouldn’t be interviewed for it. I have tried to find a way of getting in touch with him – I’d like to invite him to some of the meetings that Save Christchurch Historic Buildings are organising, but there is no reference to him over at the city council page. The architects, art critics and general people in the know that I’ve talked to about him all say he’s the right guy, and one said that he’s unlikely to get caught up in the politics of the whole thing.I hope that he doesn’t, and I hope that the incoming council and whoever the mayor is, find some way of utilising his skills. However, the confusion, emotion and anger that has surrounded this appointment make me worry about how it’s going to work. I think it is totally justified to ask questions about the process, though the editor of the Press disagreed in a frightening final comment in the editorial of September 16:

Complaints about Parker’s alleged failure to follow proper procedure to help bring this about are spectacularly beside the point.

One wonders whether “the point” that complainers like me are “spectacularly beside” is the Press’s campaign to get Bob re-elected.