I, for one, do not welcome our new overlords

[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.

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.