Monthly Archives: Sep 2015

New Zealand railway safety lacking

Posted on by
1

Every time I see a train coming, I am in awe at the impressive power of the locomotive hauling what might be several thousand tons of goods. I am in awe of this marvellous machine, and the service it is doing for New Zealand. Unfortunately every time I see a freight train coming, I also wonder if anyone is going to be dumb enough to play tag with it. Too often I see people, not prepared to wait a couple of minutes and watch the aforementioned spectacle going past try to run the gauntlet. The lights might flashing, the barrier arms might be lowering and cars in the opposite lane might be stopped on their side of the crossing, but someone might try the railway version of Russian roulette anyway.

My old Primary School has a railway line next to it. Before a cycleway was installed in the late 1990s it was all too easy to climb over the fence and play on the railway tracks, doing dangerous things such as putting stones on the rails, but also seeing what effect a train would have on a coin. I also saw children throwing stones at trains, which on occasion were stopped whilst the driver checked for damage.

There are several aspects of railway safety that concern me. Part of the problem is an attitudinal issue, caused in part by ignorance, but also an idea that no harm will come. I have seen people playing chicken on railway tracks whose signal lights were green, meaning a train is expected. When challenged, they simply said that they were having just a bit of harmless fun. I asked them if they were aware that the signal lights were green and their reaction was one of “so?”.

When I look at New Zealand’s railway crossings, although I am encouraged by the increased number that have warning markings, far too many have insufficient safety mechanisms. Even quite close to the outskirts of built up areas, there are level crossings that have no or inadequate warning features. Contrast this with Japan, where even the most simple level crossings are very well marked.

Japanese crossings have features not widespread in New Zealand, that include:

  • Directional arrows showing the direction that the train is going
  • Four barrier arms instead of two to stop people entering a crossing that has been activated
  • A car is required to come to a complete stop before going over a level crossing

As an advocate for New Zealand railways and taking what we reasonably can off the roads, I accept that an increase in freight volumes is going to increase the probability of crashes. However the safety features that would need to be added, would pay for themselves in time by saving lives, saving Police, Fire Service and St John ambulance. A matching education campaign and changes to requirements for approaching level crossings will all go some way towards bringing an unwelcome statistic in our annual fatalities down.

The problem is, who in this Government would be interested in assisting such a plan?

Ngati Kahu protest a sign Treaty tensions still exist

Posted on by
1

Over the past 48 hours one of the more interesting dramas of the Treaty of Waitangi settlements process played out at Kaitaia airport. Despite significant progress being made with Treaty of Waitangi negotiations over the seven years of this Government, it is a sign that tensions still exist and that the Crown still has some way to go towards resolving the intricacies of individual claims.

It started when a local Iwi, Ngati Kahu occupied the Kaitaia airport. They gave terminal staff five minutes to leave and began to erect temporary structures. The Police were called by the aiport management to move the protesters on. However, they dug in and stayed overnight. This afternoon, after a flight with medical supplies needed around the far north was delayed by protest action, the Police issued trespass orders and told the protesters to move or be arrested. Most moved, but five were arrested and will shortly face trespass charges in court.

The recent court decision follows the passage of the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill through to its third reading, which if successful would make it law. This would resolve all remaining Treaty of Waitangi grievances in the far north of New Zealand, except for Ngati Kahu, who seek to have their case heard again by the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal. Ngati Kahu claim that the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson has ignored a decision by the Court to grant a second hearing.

Behind the claim is an old lease of airport land to the Government during World War 2, with the promise that it would be returned at the end of the war. That ended 70 years ago, and the land has not been returned. Half of the land is now on offer to Ngati Takoto, a neighbouring Iwi. Mr Finlayson says that the Iwi have agreed to a 50/50 split between them of the land. Ngati Kahu deny this. It is further exacerbated by a warning from Mr Finlayson that should no deal between Ngati Kahu and the Crown be reached by 2018, Ngati Takoto shall have sole claim to the land.

The Court ruling should stand. Mr Finlayson should give Ngati Kahu the rehearing that was promised. Otherwise the more militant wing of Ngati Takoto might try to reoccupy Kaitaia airport at the expense of the larger community.

Climate change all too real for Pacific Islands

Posted on by
2

Whilst the world’s attention is focused on the refugee crisis, another crisis, decades in the making is unfolding. The climate change crisis facing Pacific Island nations such as Kiribati, Niue, and other atoll islands is slow in motion by human standards, but unrelenting in its literal erosion of these nations into the sea. Perhaps a debate more literally about death or survival than most currently happening, the Pacific Island nations know they face a grim future, but getting larger nations to acknowledge it is another thing altogether.

Every year it grows more urgent. Every year, the little atoll nations of the central Indian and Pacific Oceans are a few millimetres closer to being permanently flooded by sea water. Every year there is the risk that a typhoon or tropical cyclone will do so much damage that there is no point in trying to recover because the total cost of repairs outweighs their economic worth.

Recently the President of the United States visited Alaska. Whilst on that tour he spoke about the effects of climate change on Alaska and why and how the United States needs to act. Imagine for a moment if the President of the United States swapped places with his Kiribati counterpart. What a lift for these nations it would be if someone in a real position of power were to visit these nations. Whilst President Barak Obama has to be applauded for his efforts on climate change, it would bring them into perspective in a way that few can understand from afar if he were to visit some of these little island nations for whom the tide – something that rises every twelve hours – is literally eroding their future, bit by bit.

Right now the Pacific Island Forum is on in Papua New Guinea. These little island nations whose future is in question are threatening to walk from the conference or ask Australia to leave if they are made to compromise on the reduction goals for climate emissions. As much as I encourage them to make a stand, walking from the conference will probably not help much since it just frees up the attention of larger nations such as Australia and New Zealand to focus on things that they consider more important than a bunch of sand piles surrounded by beautiful coral in the middle of the Pacific. It is a harsh assessment to make, but I think that this is probably the view of the New Zealand and Australian Governments.

I hope it is not in my time that a visibly upset Pacific island leader has to front at the United Nations and tell them that ____________ (name a Pacific atoll nation), no longer exists because erosion has caught up with it. But I fear it will be.

 

Censorship of book nothing to do with family values

Posted on by
1

I am all for free speech. In fact, after life itself, it is my next dearest human right. I am therefore a bit of a libertarian – a word I normally shy away from using – to describe my view that what people chose to read is within certain limits entirely up to them. Thus one can imagine my surprise and disgust when I heard that a book that teenagers love, and is a best seller, has been subject to a ban.

Why?

Because Family First, a conservative lobby group with Christian values, says that it is profoundly wrong for children to be reading this sort of book. The book, which is called Into the River and is written by Ted Dawe is subject to a ban whose breach is punishable by fines between $3,000 and $10,000.

It has caused significant outrage amongst school and community librarians, who say that more graphic material is being accepted. It has been the subject of significant and heated debate on the internet (see the comments at the bottom of the article), and the Film and Literature Board of Review has a lengthy item on its website explaining the ban.

Now, not having read the book myself, you might ask how am I qualified to comment. The answer is simple. New Zealand is an open society, where within certain limits generally for good reason there is nothing one should not be able to watch/read/listen/do. The fact that librarians, who are likely to have a pretty good knowledge of what is popular and what is not, are saying that there is more explicit material already on shelves that has not been censored to this degree, suggests to me a knee jerk reaction by Family First. Did they or their predecessors try to ban computer games like Postal, and Duke Nukem, in the 1990s. Did they try to take that most immature programme called South Park off the air? I never heard them complain about the R18 film Wild Things, which a number of my friends tried to slip into underage?

Family First need to be careful about crossing the border from genuine concern about what is suitable for various age groups, into open censorship. And in this particular case, I think they have crossed that border.

Polls hide National’s third term blues

Posted on by
Reply

Effectively one year has now passed since National was re-elected for a third term by New Zealanders. The election was seen by the electorate as a catastrophe for Labour, an outstanding night to be a National party member and – with the exception of New Zealand First – a decidedly average night for everybody elses political fortunes. A year later, how is a party that looked like being set for a fourth term before they had even started their third, getting on?

The answer by the historical record is, decidedly par for the course of third term Governments. Most of the achievements of this Government happened in its first few years, and although the individual Ministers of the Crown still have occasional success, the Cabinet of Prime Minister John Key is looking:

  • Seriously bereft of original ideas
  • Increasingly out of tune with New Zealanders on a range of issues, especially with the refugee crisis in Europe where even the Young Nats (the youth wing of the National Party)are telling the Prime Minister to increase the quota
  • In serious danger of terminally harming their fourth term chances with a flag changing exercise that anywhere between 60-80% of New Zealanders do not want

Of course the mainstream media, dominated as they are by National-supporting corporates, do not show this in their polls. The New Zealand Herald Digi Poll showed National still enjoying 50%+ support with the Prime Minister at a historic third term high of 64% support.

But how high would it have been if the media had?

  1. Reported that the business community thinks Mr Key needs to consider stepping down – the “Key Brand” is no longer weaving its magic with the economy
  2. Done serious journalistic research on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement – either the corporate media supports the deal or they have been gagged, but the silence over something that is drawing increasingly alarmed responses from the public, should show a few red flags

And I am having trouble believing that Labour’s low polling is entirely their fault. For the first time in six years, their caucus looks like it is working together. For the first time in six years they look like a party with a purpose, even if they are not quite sure what it is. For the first time in six years simply saying Labour’s polling reflects their performance will not suffice any longer.

But the Opposition rarely win elections. Normally the Government loses them. This seems like a double Dutch statement, but it is not, for at the end of the day in democratic countries, the people eventually decide it is time to give the other side of the House of Representatives a turn at holding office. The challenge for the Government of the day is to make that goodwill last as long as possible.

This Government is not.