I, for one, do not welcome our new overlords

[rainman]

So we now live in an effective dictatorship:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0215/latest/DLM3233004.html
http://publicaddress.net/default,6846,he-is-henry-the-eighth-he-is.sm
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/09/no-democracy-on-the-honour-system/

I'm sure we can trust Gerry..... yeah right.

So, when's the march up Queen St? Democracy under attack? Anyone? Or are there different rules for National?

[Grumph]

Yes and no on this one....

Yes it's a tool to kick our local bunch of disorganised fuckwits into action - or bypass them altogether which is not a bad thing - I've moaned enough elsewhere about Selwyn Council by now.

No in that any appeal processes seem to have got left out...Gerry's minions know better than you the home owner. This definitely does not appeal.
No in that it's being run by the Nats - which out here effecively means Fed Farmers who couldn't give a shit for anyone who chooses to live in the country but isn't a farmer...

[scissorhands]

The torys are like a pack of dogs fighting over a carcass called 'the people',

Its been like that for ages, pre industrial or around then it really took off.

Free your mind and your ass will follow

[Jantar]

I don't understand how it is undemocratic to repair Christchurch as soon as possible. :wait:
Wait a minute, now I understand. Its because it is Christchurch and not Auckland. :slap:

[admenk]

It will be interesting to see how keen they are to hand these emergency powers back once the immediate crisis is over. I'm guessing they'll find all sorts of excuses to hang on to them...or am I just cynical?

[Jantar]

It will be interesting to see how keen they are to hand these emergency powers back once the immediate crisis is over. I'm guessing they'll find all sorts of excuses to hang on to them...or am I just cynical?

There is an expiry date, which may be earlier than that stated.

Section 15:
Term of office of appointed commissioners
(1) The term of office of an appointed commissioner ends when the commissioner vacates office or on a date no later than 1 April 2012, whichever occurs first.

Section 21:
Expiry and revocation
This Act expires, and any Order in Council made under section 6 is revoked, on the date that sections 6 to 16 cease to apply.

[admenk]

[QUOTE=Jantar;1129860091]There is an expiry date, which may be earlier than that stated.

Let's just hope they stick to it. I'm all in favour of decisive action when when it's needed (like now), I'm just a little bit distrusting of politicians (can't think why?)

[Scuba_Steve]

So we now live in an effective dictatorship:
Democracy under attack?

We always have, its always been a party led dictatorship, "democracy" is just a word they use to make you think you have some sort of power, but when was the last time you had a say? I know I didn't want this anti-smacking bullshit, or ETS, or policies from the Maori party or Green party, I did't want to have ACC money extorted from me either etc. etc. etc.

So you would have to have a democracy before it could be under attack.

[Banditbandit]

I don't understand how it is undemocratic to repair Christchurch as soon as possible.

No problem at alll ...



Wait a minute, now I understand. Its because it is Christchurch and not Auckland. :slap:

Wrong ... it's a Government ceasing more power for itself ... nothing wrong with the stated reason why ... there usually isn't (See Adolf Hitler's reasons for ceasing power ) ... what's wrong is the late-night under-urgency seizing of a range of powers well outside the norm ... and as has been said .. will they give them up ?

I'm cycnical enough to think No .. but Idealistic enough to hope Yes ... so I worry about a Government ceasing extraordinary power for itself ...

[mashman]

Pfff, April Fools day 2012 snigger... Does that mean the Nats could claim that because the country is in a State of Emergency, that they will postpone the election? An amnesty for the looters and slimey fucks that went to get theirs?

That's one hell of a scarey bill indeed. Ah well, we'll get used to it...

[rustic101]

There are a lot of individuals in NZ with a huge chip on their shoulders.

This morning watching GoodMorning, one correspondent to the show stated that the PM; John Key was useless as all he did was visit ChCh, that he should have picked up a shovel and helped. What a misguided and ignorant knob the writer was.

JK has shown fantastic Leadership during this recent and past situations. I don't agree with all of their decisions but I'm not a single issue voter.

IMO - All Politicians are as much use as tits on a bull, will say one thing and do the other, promise the earth and deliver nothing. Much like a companies IT department lol.

[MisterD]

That's one hell of a scarey bill indeed.

But the Greens and the Labour party voted for it...

I'm not worried in the slightest about conspiratorial abuse of the powers contained in the bill. The potential for complete cock-ups on the other hand...

[onearmedbandit]

Arrrgghh the sky is falling the sky is falling the sky is falling!

[onearmedbandit]

Although I'd like to add, being referred to as an 'overlord' sounds to me like the best reason so far for being a politician.

[Swoop]

Its because it is Christchurch and not Auckland. :slap:
Thinking about how Auckland would cope after similar events to which Canterbury has suffered makes me wonder how typical jaffas would react, even though we live on an area riddled with volcanoes.
Certainly the infrastructure would be hit hard. I hate to think about the number of houselolds that might be affected.

[Grumph]

If it had been Auckland you would have been shooting the marauding packs coming from Mangere wouldn't you ? Or am I wrong ?

[SPman]

JK has shown fantastic Leadership during this recent and past situations.:rofl:

.....................

[rainman]

I don't understand how it is undemocratic to repair Christchurch as soon as possible. :wait:
Wait a minute, now I understand. Its because it is Christchurch and not Auckland. :slap:

Nothing to do with the problem. Everything to do with the (typical lazy tory) solution. If you think this is the best way to deal with Chch's issues you are dumb, deranged, or completely one-eyed.


There is an expiry date, which may be earlier than that stated.

Tinfoil hat on.. I understand that clause can be revoked, but will check when I get a chance to read the legislation.


But the Greens and the Labour party voted for it...

I've already slapped the Greens about this (as have many of their supporters. This miscalculation will cost them dearly. Unfortunate but true.

Just because I generally vote Green does not mean my always-rightness rubs off on them, more's the pity. :cool:


:rofl:

+1. "Leadership"doesn't mean showing up for photo ops. or does it mean making Gerry Fucking Brownlee the dictator of all things. In fact, I'd suggest that is the antithesis of leadership...

And, all those people who went on about Democracy being Under Attack before are complete and utter... hypocrites.

[porky]

Put me out of my misery and explain what the problem is.



Read the Act and............ oh fuck never mind, time to go find a more interesting thread.

[Jantar]

.....Tinfoil hat on.. I understand that clause can be revoked, but will check when I get a chance to read the legislation.....
:rofl: So you posted the link to the legislation, commented on it, and didn't even read it? :wacko:

[rainman]

:rofl: So you posted the link to the legislation, commented on it, and didn't even read it? :wacko:

No, I read it. But that was yesterday, rather late as it happens, and since then I have had a happy day of wage slavery (or dependent contractorship, or something), so I no longer recall the specifics of whether the clause setting the date can be varied or is excluded. Much though I loathe to admit it, I am merely human. In short, my brain is full. Perhaps I could have been more explicit about reading it again.

Knowing full well that, had I posted a definite statement regarding same (rather than the qualified version that I did) I would instantly be pounced on by a bunch of hypocritical hypocrites about being wrong - as a smokescreen agin my primary point (being the flagrant hypocrisy which I may have mentioned) - I thought it wise to check first. Which I will do, right after I write some plans and reports, in order that my dependent contractorship is not unduly foreshortened.

Did I mention the real issue here is the hypocrisy of those who see no problem with National bending our very democracy over and rooting it silly, yet marched and complained when Labour fiddled with some election funding laws?

Or perhaps we are all distracted by that nasty hypocritical Mr Garrett instead? (I suppose he had to serve some purpose).

[puddytat]

I fucking hate Jerry Brownlee,he's always in the background with a smug smile on his fat face....

:ar15: him someone please.

[rainman]

Put me out of my misery and explain what the problem is.

Gerry Fucking Brownlee has just been given power to change almost any law on the books.

Not only that, but most changes made can not be challenged in a court of law*.

Not to say he will, of course. But if you think it's a good idea to give ANY politician nearly unbridled power, you have rocks in your head. Risking Godwin's Law for a minute, Google "Enabling Act of 1933"...

Where are the local neolibs on this? You guys should be screaming about excessive state powers, not to mention libertee.

* IANAL, and there are some fine legal arguments out there about whether this really means that all OICs can't be challenged. But no-one can be held liable for something done under, or retrospectively authorised by, and OIC. And Gerry stays dictator until after the election...

[Jantar]

I know, the correct way to do this would have been to introduce the bill to Parliament; send it to a select comittee for submissions; bring it back to house for discussion; then pass it 12 months later.

Rebuilding Christchurch would then begin in late 2012. Personally I prefer the idea of le'ts get the job done and give out the brickbats or bouquets later.

[rainman]

I know, the correct way to do this would have been to introduce the bill to Parliament; send it to a select comittee for submissions; bring it back to house for discussion; then pass it 12 months later.

Rebuilding Christchurch would then begin in late 2012. Personally I prefer the idea of le'ts get the job done and give out the brickbats or bouquets later.

Are you really too stupid to find a workable alternative that doesn't completely roger our democracy, or are you being partisan and dishonest?

[Jantar]

So which of these regulations and or legislations refer to our right to democracy?

Section 6

4) An Order in Council made under subsection (1) may grant an exemption from, or modify, or extend any provision of any enactment, including (but not limited to)—

(a) the Building Act 2004:

(b) the Cadastral Survey Act 2002:

(c) the Commerce Act 1986:

(d) the Earthquake Commission Act 1993:

(e) the Health Act 1956:

(f) the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001:

(g) the Historic Places Act 1993:

(h) the Land Transport Act 1998:

(i) the Land Transport Management Act 2003:

(j) the Local Government Act 1974:

(k) the Local Government Act 2002:

(l) the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987:

(m) the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002:

(n) the Public Works Act 1981:

(o) the Rating Valuations Act 1998:

(p) the Reserves Act 1977:

(q) the Resource Management Act 1991:

(r) the Road User Charges Act 1977:

(s) the Social Security Act 1964:

(t) the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941:

(u) the Transport Act 1962:

(v) the Waste Minimisation Act 2008

[rainman]

So which of these regulations and or legislations refer to our right to democracy?

So, it's stupid, then. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Woodman]

Don't see a problem here. Just fix the place up as quickly as possible. Good practical thing to do.

Even the Greens who have objections still voted for it because it is lthe logical thing to do. If rebuilding canterbury was left to the usual over complianced rules it would never get rebuilt.

[Jantar]

So, it's stupid, then. Thanks for clearing that up.

That comment doesn't answer the question. Which of those regulations and/or legislations have any bearing on our right to vote, our right to stand for parliament or our right to a an election? ie Democracy.

[Banditbandit]

I know, the correct way to do this would have been to introduce the bill to Parliament; send it to a select comittee for submissions; bring it back to house for discussion; then pass it 12 months later.

Rebuilding Christchurch would then begin in late 2012. Personally I prefer the idea of le'ts get the job done and give out the brickbats or bouquets later.

Rebuilding Chch is about getting out there and doing it .. since when did that require an Act of Parliament that gives authority to overturn any law on the books to Jerry Brownlee ? How does words on a piece of paper get ChCh rebuilt? Maybe to circumvent SOME - such as the resource consent act, but not all ...

It could be argued that large groups of people congregating in public buildings is unsafe and therefore should be declared unlawfull ... so large groups of people will need to congregate in public buildings to vote in next year 's(2011) general election and therefore the election must be postponed ... the nats stay in Goverment until the bill lapses or is revoked - and if ChCh is not completely rebuilt they could extent the act ... and extend the act ...

Will the Nats do that ? It's possible under this law ... Who trusts them ? In 1984 a Nat Prime Minuster (Piggy) deliberately screwed our country's economy because he lost an election. He refused to hand over power to the Labour winners and nearly fatally sabotaged the economy ...

Conspiracy theories or not - it's too much power in the hands of a fat power hungry dickhead ...

[HenryDorsetCase]

blah blah blah:

here is an apt quote from Peter Townshend: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

in fact: here is the u toob of it.

Rp6-wG5LLqE

ruined by use in a terrible TV show but what a song.

[admenk]

I fucking hate Jerry Brownlee,he's always in the background with a smug smile on his fat face....

:ar15: him someone please.

Hey, I've got a fat face......

[mashman]

The potential for complete cock-ups on the other hand...

heh, at least they've got the get out of jail free card now :) they can fuck up as much as they like and get away with it...



Rebuilding Chch is about getting out there and doing it .. since when did that require an Act of Parliament that gives authority to overturn any law on the books to Jerry Brownlee ? How does words on a piece of paper get ChCh rebuilt? Maybe to circumvent SOME - such as the resource consent act, but not all ...

crossed my mind too... Guys, you're the government, answerable to noone, you've made that painfully clear since ages ago... why not just do the fuckin job and stop "mitigating" the potential fallout for when you fuck people over... No accountability WTF! My house fell down and you gave it a green sticker... response: TOUGH SHIT, you can't touch this, STOP Hammer time...

[oldrider]

So we now live in an effective dictatorship:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0215/latest/DLM3233004.html
http://publicaddress.net/default,6846,he-is-henry-the-eighth-he-is.sm
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/09/no-democracy-on-the-honour-system/

I'm sure we can trust Gerry..... yeah right.

So, when's the march up Queen St? Democracy under attack? Anyone? Or are there different rules for National?

This country is moving so far to the left that it's gone the whole circle and in real danger of disappearing up it's own arse! :wings: :rolleyes:

[Shadows]

Title should read I, for one, am a fucking cock.

[Banditbandit]

This country is moving so far to the right that it's gone the whole circle and in real danger of disappearing up it's own arse! :2guns: :rolleyes:

There .. that's better ...

[oldrider]

There .. that's better ...

Whatever! :mellow: The direction of rotation may change from time to time but the result remains constant! :wacko:

[tamarillo]

So we now live in an effective dictatorship:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0215/latest/DLM3233004.html
http://publicaddress.net/default,6846,he-is-henry-the-eighth-he-is.sm
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/09/no-democracy-on-the-honour-system/

I'm sure we can trust Gerry..... yeah right.

So, when's the march up Queen St? Democracy under attack? Anyone? Or are there different rules for National?

What is your complaint? What would you suggest they do instead? Sit on arses?
I have never voted National but admire anyone in power with guts to just do something when it needs doing quickly.
Yes maybe they are not to be trusted with such a loose tool but under the circumstances that is surely what is needed?

[tamarillo]

you're the government, answerable to noone, ...

since when? Don't you bother voting? Stop talking bullshit.

[mashman]

since when? Don't you bother voting? Stop talking bullshit.

since forever! Nope, I refuse to vote because it changes nothing! abofuckinlutelyfuckall... Bullshit is pretending that your "vote" actually means something (80%ish said no to anti-smacking, what happened????)

[admenk]

Title should read I, for one, am a fucking cock.

Don't be so hard on yourself...

[HenryDorsetCase]

since forever! Nope, I refuse to vote because it changes nothing! abofuckinlutelyfuckall... Bullshit is pretending that your "vote" actually means something (80%ish said no to anti-smacking, what happened????)

a lot of people continued to beat their children?

my old man says "If you dont vote you're not allowed to talk about politics"

[mashman]

a lot of people continued to beat their children?

my old man says "If you dont vote you're not allowed to talk about politics"

that was going on anyway :shit:... but they also introduced the legislation which most didn't want

i'm typing :shifty:

[rainman]

Title should read I, for one, am a fucking cock.

Better than being a fucking idiot.


What is your complaint? What would you suggest they do instead? Sit on arses?
I have never voted National but admire anyone in power with guts to just do something when it needs doing quickly.
Yes maybe they are not to be trusted with such a loose tool but under the circumstances that is surely what is needed?

Certainly there is work to be done in Christchurch, and certainly the situation there is difficult - but if giving Gerry Brownlee total executive power, with limited court oversight at best, until after the next election, etc is the answer, then you have failed to understand the question.

It's a completely false dichotomy to think that the only alternative was to do nothing. There are about a million better way to solve the Christchurch issue than "enabling" Darth Fatso. Giving (any) politician unbridled power should make every respectable libertarian want to vomit. Or at least take up arms and overthrow the fuckers, or something.

What's most disquieting about this shameful episode in our history is the relatively small number of people here who have concerns about fundamental concepts like rule of law, democracy etc. I'm not a Kiwi by birth but I've been here for a long time, and have taken great pains to assimilate. NZ is home. So it's always been pretty offensive to me when the expat talk at the bbq turns to how stupid NZers are (as it farily often does, across different groups of expats even). But I am beginning to fear they're right. A country of 4 and a bit million sheeple, indeed.

[BAD DAD]

I can't think of anything more democratic than removing obsticles ( albeit temporarily ) to property and business owners to allow them to get back on their feet as soon as possible without unnessesary hoop jumping and fee paying.
Give me the overlords instead of the gits from the council.
Oh and seeing as I am having a knee-jerk moment, if an earthquake or such happened in Auckland on the same scale, making people endure the pointless delays and beauracracy that we normally tolerate would require the installation of marshall law I am sure .

[Jantar]

........
It's a completely false dichotomy to think that the only alternative was to do nothing. There are about a million better way to solve the Christchurch issue than "enabling" Darth Fatso. ......
Despite all your ranting about is being done, you have yet to suggest a viable alternatlive.

[puddytat]

Hey, I've got a fat face......

Yeah watch out man, theres that guilt by association law;)

[rainman]

Despite all your ranting about is being done, you have yet to suggest a viable alternatlive.

That is correct, mainly because I foolishly thought at least a few improvements would be glaringly obvious to anyone with an IQ in 2 digits. A good starting point would be pretty much all of the changes proposed by the Greens:
- Court review of OICs should be possible
- OICs published to parliament within 24 hours
- Majority of elected Cantabrians on the recovery committee (assuming there are any elected Cantabs left after the last Nat assault on democracy). Not more "jobs for the boys" from this corrupt lot.
- Limit the laws that can be affected to those listed. No blanket provisions.
- 6 month sunset clause, with provisions for 6 month extensions. Remember the Nats originally asked for 5 years of this - is the rebuild going to take that long? If it is, then this law isn't being terribly effective; if it isn't then what's their agenda for seizing executive power for so long? They also originally didn't want OICs subject to the Official Information Act, basically not wanting to be held to account.
- Explicitly restrict the changes made to directly relate to the ChCh incident.
- By all means relax some of the reconstruction red tape (I've dealt with my share of obstructive and petty consent issues before) but not too far: remember one reason we had no fatalities is because we have well-enforced building regs.
Rebuilding should be building better, not just quickly.
- Fixing clause 19 so that they can't just retrospectively legalise whatever crazy crap they get up to

We have not needed this level of executive override before, despite the many crises we have faced as a nation. They managed to pass this pile of crap under urgency - why could they not have simply raised and passed a more limited form, then if they came across further justifiable obstacles, gone back under urgency to pass new legislation to address these?

My challenge to you is to explain what is wrong with the existing crisis legislation and parliamentary process (noting the amount of legislation passed under urgency so far this term alone) that would have stopped Christchurch being rebuilt?

[Winston001]

"General policy statement

The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the Government has adequate statutory power to assist with the response to the Canterbury earthquake.
The Bill creates an Order in Council mechanism that—


enables the relaxation or suspension of some statutory requirements that may divert resources away from the effort to efficiently respond to the damage caused by the Canterbury earthquake and to minimise further damage, or that may not be capable of being complied with, or complied with fully, owing to the circumstances resulting from the Canterbury earthquake; and
facilitates the gathering of information about any structure or any infrastructure affected by the Canterbury earthquake that is relevant to understanding how to minimise the damage caused by earthquakes.

The Bill establishes the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission to advise Ministers with respect to any Orders in Council that may be required, and how resources might be prioritised and funding allocated, for the response to the Canterbury earthquake.
The Bill also provides protection from liability for certain acts or omissions and provides that the Bill does not create a right to compensation."

[rainman]

"General policy statement...

Yes, and? What's your point?

[Jantar]

So let's see just what the difference is.


.....- Court review of OICs should be possible.
So one person didn't like their neighbour's house anyway. A perfect opportunity to stop it being rebuilt by challenging the change to RMA in the court. Everyone's rebuild is held up until the court hearing is settled.

- OICs published to parliament within 24 hours
OICs are published in the Gazette which is a parliamentary document, so this is already achieved.
-
Majority of elected Cantabrians on the recovery committee (assuming there are any elected Cantabs left after the last Nat assault on democracy). Not more "jobs for the boys" from this corrupt lot.
Time required for elections? Lets just delay the rebuild by 3 months to be sure.

- Limit the laws that can be affected to those listed. No blanket provisions.
Fine. Until one of the laws that needs to be altered has a clause referring to another act that isn't included. Too bad that parliament may be in recess, so we'll just delay the rebuild another 3 months.

- 6 month sunset clause, with provisions for 6 month extensions. Remember the Nats originally asked for 5 years of this - is the rebuild going to take that long? If it is, then this law isn't being terribly effective; if it isn't then what's their agenda for seizing executive power for so long? They also originally didn't want OICs subject to the Official Information Act, basically not wanting to be held to account.
There is a sunset clause, so this point is moot.

- Explicitly restrict the changes made to directly relate to the ChCh incident.
That is the case through the General policy Statement.

- By all means relax some of the reconstruction red tape (I've dealt with my share of obstructive and petty consent issues before) but not too far: remember one reason we had no fatalities is because we have well-enforced building regs.
Rebuilding should be building better, not just quickly.
Do you really believe that anyone who has had their property destroyed by an earthquake would accept anything of a lower standard in the rebuild?

- Fixing clause 19 so that they can't just retrospectively legalise whatever crazy crap they get up to Good idea. Until they discover that a report required under some other act has not been completed. Too bad, we'll just pull down everything that has been done and start again. Or maybe, just maybe, some common sense should prevail and say lets just get on with the job and sort out the administrative details later.


We have not needed this level of executive override before, despite the many crises we have faced as a nation. They managed to pass this pile of crap under urgency - why could they not have simply raised and passed a more limited form, then if they came across further justifiable obstacles, gone back under urgency to pass new legislation to address these?
Because parliament may not be in session when the new urgent legislation is required.

My challenge to you is to explain what is wrong with the existing crisis legislation and parliamentary process (noting the amount of legislation passed under urgency so far this term alone) that would have stopped Christchurch being rebuilt
Challenge met.

[rainman]

A perfect opportunity to stop it being rebuilt by challenging the change to RMA in the court. Everyone's rebuild is held up until the court hearing is settled.

So you can't see any middle ground between lawsuit gridlock and complete inability to challenge any decisions in court? You're not an engineer, by any chance, are you?

Inconceivable that Gerry and his men could make a mistake? No? What recourse should there be if he does? What if someone's property rights are unjustly impinged by a decision - should court-arbitrated recompense be available?


OICs are published in the Gazette which is a parliamentary document, so this is already achieved.

I think they meant having them reviewed in parliament before execution. Nats didn't even want them OIA-able. Transparent and accountable? Pah.


Time required for elections? Lets just delay the rebuild by 3 months to be sure.

Or just appoint people who have already been elected (*) rather than Gerry and John's mates. More jobs for the boys.

* some are.


There is a sunset clause, so this point is moot.

So 5 years would also be fine by you then?


That is the case through the General policy Statement.

Which doesn't limit the laws changed. And no-one can challenge their decisions anyway.


Good idea. Until they discover that a report required under some other act has not been completed. Too bad, we'll just pull down everything that has been done and start again.

Strawman.


Fine. Until one of the laws that needs to be altered has a clause referring to another act that isn't included. Too bad that parliament may be in recess, so we'll just delay the rebuild another 3 months.


Because parliament may not be in session when the new urgent legislation is required.

How long do you think it would take to identify the actual laws and changes required to actually address the issue? This is lazy and dangerous legislation.


Challenge met.

Hardly. You didn't answer my question. I'll try again:
Pretend we had politicians who cared about the law, democracy, and doing their actual jobs. What laws, pre-CERRA, would stop them reconstructing Chch, and what is the minimum set of changes they could make to circumvent these?

[Winston001]

.

Pretend we had politicians who cared about the law, democracy, and doing their actual jobs. What laws, pre-CERRA, would stop them reconstructing Chch, and what is the minimum set of changes they could make to circumvent these?

OK. Members of Parliament are elected by New Zealanders to represent the interests of the total community.

The community suffers a catastrophe. People look to the political leaders for help and reassurance.

MPs want to help people recover from the disaster and suffer as little as possible. Homes have been lost or damaged. Places where people work and earn a living have also been damaged and closed. Jobs are lost.

Normally reconstruction would proceed under our new building laws in an orderly manner. Unhappily much of the damaged property cannot be repaired to the new standards which are much more stringent than when the property was originally built.

So - the scale of the disaster requires an extraordinary and temporary response to enable buildings etc to be returned to safe functionality - but not to the new standards. Its a compromise but it is also rational and acceptable. We're not talking about martial law, just rebuilding. Hardly the stuff of revolution.

Peoples lives, life's savings, their jobs, their families, are at stake here. What politician could ignore that?

[Banditbandit]

O

Normally reconstruction would proceed under our new building laws in an orderly manner. Unhappily much of the damaged property cannot be repaired to the new standards which are much more stringent than when the property was originally built.

So - the scale of the disaster requires an extraordinary and temporary response to enable buildings etc to be returned to safe functionality - but not to the new standards. Its a compromise but it is also rational and acceptable. We're not talking about martial law, just rebuilding. Hardly the stuff of revolution.



Hmmm ... maybe the new standards are there as minimum standards for safety in such a disasterous event as a large earthquake. It's only the time this one struck that stopped people getting killed in falling buildings ...

Your rational and acceptable compromise may well mean that rebuilt buildings will fall down again fi there's another quake of the same magnitude ... and people get killed. How long is your "temporary response" to last? If a building is made "safe" under a "compromise" when will the owners be required to make it really safe by complying with the new standards?

Many people are now thinking of selling their homes because they don't feel safe - will they be able to find buyers for a "compromise" fix ? What will happen to property values and people's capital tied up in their homes? Would you buy a "compromise fix" house?

We see short term fixes after earthquakes overseas in the places like Pakistan and the Middle East - and a couple of years later see the same damage and deaths when it all falls down again .. do we really want to live ina country with third world building standards when we live in a seismically active set of islands ?

[Jantar]

So you can't see any middle ground between lawsuit gridlock and complete inability to challenge any decisions in court? You're not an engineer, by any chance, are you?.......?
Not really, but I guess I could be classed in that field. I'm a Dispatch/Trader with specialties in Hydrology and Climatology.


Hardly. You didn't answer my question. I'll try again:
Pretend we had politicians who cared about the law, democracy, and doing their actual jobs. What laws, pre-CERRA, would stop them reconstructing Chch, and what is the minimum set of changes they could make to circumvent these?
So you are now changing the challenge? OK, I'll pretend we had politicians who cared about the law, democracy, and doing their actual jobs. That's easy, because in general that accounts for over half the members of parliament. The ones that sit on the Speaker's right.

The minimum set of changes? That's a bit harder. I guess I could go and read through every bit of legislation and draw up a matrix of every law or regulation that would require change. Give me a couple of years to work on it. Or maybe a very simple law, that will allow the building to go ahead without requiring an ammendment to almost every law in the land.

[Winston001]

Hmmm ... maybe the new standards are there as minimum standards for safety in such a disasterous event as a large earthquake. It's only the time this one struck that stopped people getting killed in falling buildings ...

Your rational and acceptable compromise may well mean that rebuilt buildings will fall down again fi there's another quake of the same magnitude ... and people get killed. How long is your "temporary response" to last? If a building is made "safe" under a "compromise" when will the owners be required to make it really safe by complying with the new standards?

We see short term fixes after earthquakes overseas in the places like Pakistan and the Middle East - and a couple of years later see the same damage and deaths when it all falls down again .. do we really want to live ina country with third world building standards when we live in a seismically active set of islands ?

You make very good points and I regret that there are no easy answers. But I'll try. :D

Firstly before we become too excited at the idea of unsafe homes being reconstructed on a wing and a prayer, it is important to realise that most of us already live and work in buildings which do not comply with 2010 building regulations. If it were otherwise then every house and building would have to be changed each time the rules were updated. No society could function like that.

Secondly the law has required for some years that public buildings be strengthened against earthquakes. That has been done as evidenced by the relatively small numbers of shops and public buildings which were destroyed. There is no suggestion that this type of reinstated building will not have earthquake strengthening.

Thirdly, peoples homes will either be repairable - or not. That is being assessed by engineers and insurance inspectors right now. If repairable I doubt that anyone would expect mandatory steel beams be inserted. The insurers won't pay, the owners can't pay, and I doubt central government and the council can pay either.

So houses will be repaired to a slightly higher standard than their original specs, but not to 2010 and beyond specs. To me that makes sense. After all, if one house survives completely but the neighbour has cracks, why should the neighbour get Fort Knox to replace their 50 yr brick home? (unless its a write-off in which case replacement insurance would provide this and fair enough).

As for Pakistan etc......well, it comes down to money and resources. These are poor countries of tens of millions of people. If they could build like we do, they would. They can't. Plus they don't have the knowledge although there are charities such as Habitat For Humanity which try to help.

[rainman]

So - the scale of the disaster requires an extraordinary and temporary response to enable buildings etc to be returned to safe functionality - but not to the new standards. Its a compromise but it is also rational and acceptable. We're not talking about martial law, just rebuilding. Hardly the stuff of revolution.

No argument that "something had to be done". Or even that some laws needed to be overridden to get said something to be done in a reasonable timeframe (though the "high building standards + luck = no deaths" argument is a compelling one. The "design for energy efficiency now that you have the chance", is a good'un too but that's not the point under discussion here).


What politician could ignore that?

Exactly. They are so keen to look like "they're strong leaders, doing something" and motivated by such populist considerations that they don't mind destroying rule of law while they're at it.

The sad thing is the general populace is too fick to see the issue here, so their strategy works. You really do get the government you deserve. Then again, you've hardly had experience of a decent one for the last generation.


The ones that sit on the Speaker's right.

Just a bit one-eyed, perhaps? I don't think there's a decent one of 'em, left right or centre, at the moment.


Give me a couple of years to work on it. Or maybe a very simple law, that will allow the building to go ahead without requiring an ammendment to almost every law in the land.

You overstate the problem (and, you're being lazy, like your idols in parliament). Firstly, this shit should be anticipated and there should be a decent disaster plan including legal implications, no urgency required. Failing people actually doing their jobs though, a couple of smart policy analyst-y types around a table for one day max could get a workable first pass in place. No it wouldn't be perfect, and yes there would probably need to be mods over time, but approached with openness and respect for law there would be no real obstacles. Everyone does actually want to rebuild Chch, 'know.

Starting by saying:
- no recourse
- retrospective validation
- any law
- for 5 years
- no OIA
etc. (and the fact that the opposition did a terrible job of helping fix this) shows more about the desires, character and competence of the fuckers there in Wellington that I cared to know - not that I am hugely surprised to be fair. If you're happy to trust them with absolute power, just because they are "your team", you're almost too idiotic to vote.

If this was not such an outrage, I'd find it hilarious that I'm arguing the libertarian case here. Shows how little you lot understand about freedoms and the protection thereof, actually. I'll say it again: if the answer is giving Gerry Fucking Brownlee supreme executive power, you have failed to comprehend the question. ALL politicians should be kept on a tight leash.

[Winston001]

The sad thing is the general populace is too fick to see the issue here...

....(and, you're being lazy, like your idols in parliament). Firstly, this shit....

....the fuckers there in Wellington that I cared to know

.....you're almost too idiotic to vote.

...Shows how little you lot understand about freedoms and the protection thereof, actually......Gerry Fucking Brownlee supreme executive power......

If you want anyone to take you seriously - because you do have a reasonable argument - avoid ad hominen attacks. And abusive language. It's unnecessary and distracts from the issues.

Indeed the overwhelming impression is not that you care deeply, but you have an anger problem.

[rainman]

Indeed the overwhelming impression is not that you care deeply, but you have an anger problem.

If you cannot get angry over the abuse of power on a scale such as this then what is worth getting angry over? I'm actually a very laid back peaceful person most of the time.

Besides, they mostly aren't ad homs - I'm making a case for (almost) all of them. e.g. If you're OK about this but complained about the EFA, then you're a hypocrite. Argumentum, but not ad hominem, see.

Exceptions are "Nats are lazy" and "politicians can't be trusted" but I'd suggest those are empirical assessments beyond a great deal of dispute :)

[Jantar]

....The sad thing is the general populace is too fick to see the issue here, so their strategy works. You really do get the government you deserve. Then again, you've hardly had experience of a decent one for the last generation. ......
The real issue is that Christchurch needs to be rebuilt and quickly. The fact that you wish to include other issues is irrellevent.

The remainder of your staements also give away your true agenda. My respect for your opinions has just dropped further.

[rainman]

The real issue is that Christchurch needs to be rebuilt and quickly. The fact that you wish to include other issues is irrellevent.

No, it isn't. And it is my thread, so I should know.
Besides, comprehension fail. I agree that Christchurch needs to be rebuilt, and quickly.


The remainder of your staements also give away your true agenda. My respect for your opinions has just dropped further.

Now Jantar, be honest, you don't actually have any respect for my opinions. In fact I'd suggest you are rather wedded to your own, no matter what reasonable arguments may be brought to counter them. Then again, aren't you the card-carrying science denier? I'm sure that takes a certain.... persistence.

And what, pray tell, do you think is my "true agenda"?

[Max Preload]

So, when's the march up Queen St? Democracy under attack?Can't someone else do it?:devil2:

[SPman]

So, Gerry Brownlee has exercised his dictatorial powers to make it legal for overweight and over-dimension trucks to drive on any road in the country, given police emergency powers for the next year, and removed requirements on councils to consider the consequences of their decisions.

But he hasn’t got the loos working, for Christchurch’s citizens.........

[admenk]

So, Gerry Brownlee has exercised his dictatorial powers to make it legal for overweight and over-dimension trucks to drive on any road in the country, given police emergency powers for the next year, and removed requirements on councils to consider the consequences of their decisions.

.......apart from that, he's a great bloke ! :msn-wink:

[puddytat]

Well it seems like Rainmans concerns are shared by many others.....I watched "Court Report" last night & the concerns raised there are what Rainmans been on about.:niceone:
Also heard on Nat Rad today that a commission or such like is being set up by concerned academics & lawyers as they see the legislation as being "very dangerous"....:corn:
One of the main concerns is that the politicians who ok anything under this legislation are not liable, nor the companies involved & any contractors....

[SPman]

But business likes it.......

The Government’s response to the Canterbury earthquake is not only a welcome relief to local businesses, it also provides a model for the kind of legislative environment businesses want across the country, according the latest MYOB Business Monitor.Shows you where business stands on democratic rights........

[puddytat]

Yup, legalized rape & pillage....if they deem it in our best interests.
God, Ive become such a skeptic.

[Winston001]

Well it seems like Rainmans concerns are shared by many others.....I watched "Court Report" last night & the concerns raised there are what Rainmans been on about....:niceone:


Actually I agree that Rainman's essential point (suspension of legal rules by Regulation) is well made and deserves to be argued. However what has happened in this thread (and tends to happen in NZ society) is that the argument immediately changes to abuse of the politicians. The immediate reaction is blue/green/red sides are drawn up and the central issue is forgotten.

[puddytat]

And I agree with what youre saying to Winston,but its the seeming abuse of power by politicians that often brings it out in us...

[Winston001]

And I agree with what youre saying to Winston,but its the seeming abuse of power by politicians that often brings it out in us...

Its tempting to agree but I think the problem is deeper. Lets be realistic: NZ is a tiny place, not much larger population than Sydney. Our politicians aren't obviously corrupt or dishonest. They make stupid human mistakes but the stuff they have to deal with is complex and seldom easy. Consider the "anti-smacking" debate which at its core was over an insignificant piece of law to make assaulting children more difficult to explain. Yet it consumed months of discussion and a lot of anger.

And that is only one little bit of law which MPs had to deal with.

I certainly think we should all be wary of going to sleep and trusting politicians to get it right. They won't. However we are protected by a vigorous Opposition in Parliament and I do trust our system. Besides, in this case Labour supported the Government which suggests they didn't see any immediate terrors.

[Delerium]

Its tempting to agree but I think the problem is deeper. Lets be realistic: NZ is a tiny place, not much larger population than Sydney. Our politicians aren't obviously corrupt or dishonest. They make stupid human mistakes but the stuff they have to deal with is complex and seldom easy. Consider the "anti-smacking" debate which at its core was over an insignificant piece of law to make assaulting children more difficult to explain. Yet it consumed months of discussion and a lot of anger.

And that is only one little bit of law which MPs had to deal with.

I certainly think we should all be wary of going to sleep and trusting politicians to get it right. They won't. However we are protected by a vigorous Opposition in Parliament and I do trust our system. Besides, in this case Labour supported the Government which suggests they didn't see any immediate terrors.

and they STILL didnt listen to what the country wanted.