Monthly Archives: Nov 2016

Bowen House row has parties missing the point

Posted on by
1

By now you might have seen that New Zealand First has opposed the latest proposal to build a new building to house Members of Parliament, Ministers and the Parliamentary Service.

This is the latest – and probably final round – of a spat dating back to the 1990’s, when a $94 million plan to build a new building was scuppered because it was seen as a “Parliamentary Palace”. At the time, there was a vote to sell Bowen House by the then National Government. New Zealand First opposed it then and was right to do so.  And in the current squabble it is rather rich of the Speaker of the House, David Carter to be harping on about national sovereignty when he was one of the elected representatives in the 1990’s to support the flogging off, of Bowen House.

However, the ground has metaphorically shifted since then. In a metaphorical sense, the political grounds on which New Zealand First rightfully stood against the rehousing of Members of Parliament, Ministers of the Crown and their staff as well the Parliamentary Service, in the 1990’s is not the same as that which it is trying to stand on now. It is also irrelevant to be injecting the politics of housing into an issue about having a work environment that is safe in an earthquake. In a physical sense the ground has also shifted. destruction wrought in Christchurch on 22 February 2011 where most of the deaths were in two buildings with design flaws. One was so badly flawed that a moderate aftershock on 26 December 2010 rendered it unsafe and it should have been evacuated then and there. The other suffered damage, but was able to continue functioning as a place of work – it was peak ground acceleration that even the 1986 standard was probably insufficient for.

After the August 2013 earthquake sequence, Parliament was inspected for quake damage. Assessments were done on all buildings including Bowen House which at the time had an 85% rating, which made it quite safe. However this was downgraded to between 55-65%, after an assessment of the soil the building sits on. And we also know for certain that the Parliamentary Press Gallery is NOT safe. At 15-20% we know that the level of the seismic code to which that part of Parliament is built would have failed in Christchurch, possibly catastrophically with potentially large loss of life. We also know like the places in Christchurch that failed catastrophically, these are places of work, not living, as New Zealand First irrelevantly points out. These are buildings that should be designed to be designed to stay standing in an earthquake and then safely release their occupants. A Parliamentary Press Gallery that only meets 15-20% of the seismic code is not safe and that yellow sticker warning on the door is there for a good reason.

For these reasons, I part ways with N.Z.F on this issue.

When geomorphology and human existence collide

Posted on by
Reply

As a natural hazards postgraduate, and one with a natural interest in geomorophological processes, I have been talking to people about their perceptions of the changes wrought by the Waiau earthquake of 14 November 2016. It has been a topic of conversation that people have generally readily participated in.

From these conversations I have deduced that a lot of people – both elected officials trying to sound positive in the face of adversity, and people not really understanding the hidden geomorphological process – do not understand the scale of the changes wrought. There are perceptions that somehow the road and railways will reopen again shortly. There are perceptions that the landslide dam hazard will last only a few weeks and then everything will be back to normal, that rivers will flow like they had before the earthquakes. Unfortunately that is not going to be the case.

One of the numerous effects that the landslide damming of these rivers will have is to change the ecology of them. Some of the smaller landslides will not affect the rivers in the long term, as the river will carve out a channel around the toe of the landslide, which in turn will be washed away or stabilize as a permanent feature. Larger landslides however may semi-permanently dam the rivers whose catchment they occurred in, so that the ecology downstream and how people use the river as a resource change too. The largest landslides will completely dam rivers, leading to one of two outcomes:

  1. The river stablizes, and water is able to safely drain into the river without undermining the dam
  2. A potentially catastrophic dam burst event where the dam fails and a large volume of water potentially in the 000’s m³s-¹ occurs

Following and during the latter outcome, a large amount of sediment will be deposited in a very short time, which will completely relay the layout of the riverbed channels. With channels that were occupied now suddenly buried, that means the water may start flowing down old channels that might not have been occupied since before European settlement. Rivers in Kaikoura and Hurunui Districts are affected by landslides, a list of which can be seen on the Environment Canterbury website:

ecan-flood-and-landslide-dam-warning

In the short term with summer coming on and these rivers being popular for fishing, canoeing/kayaking, boating, but also supplying irrigation water to farms and drinking water to a number of small towns, the availability of water could be severely impaired because of the reduced flows. In many small towns where rivers provide recreational opportunities that are the livelihoods of local businesses, the combination of severe flash flood hazards from landslide dams and river levels being too low for jet boat tours, and so forth a lean summer might await. There is also a risk that some of the smaller dams may fail in this time causing short sharp flash flood events where anyone and any property on the affected river bed would be in immediate danger.

In the medium term consents for water takes might change as the long term effects of the landslide dams starts to become clear. Rivers that might have had 15-20 cubic metres per second of flow during summer and be able to allow small takes of water for irrigation might not be able to supply that water any longer. Rivers that have landslide dams on them that are stable, may cease to flow or be reduced so much that any remaining water has to remain in the river just to enable it to perform its ecological and geomorphological functions. In the medium term it will also become clear which rivers will now start to rearrange their floodplains as the volumes of landslide debris that fell into the catchments now starts to get flushed out by floods. Heavy rainfall events causing slips and future earthquakes triggering fresh landslides will happen, potentially causing unforeseen aggradation and avulsion events to start.

The long term will see District and Regional Councils reviewing how they manage landslide dam hazards within their boundaries. They will be forced to examine the legal issues that go with land titles suddenly ending up in a river bed when, under the influence of large volumes of sediment being reworked through their systems, a river begins to avulse to a new course, possibly cutting across properties and livelihoods. Ultimately it will be councils and the central Government talking about how to fund remediation works.

The aftershock sequences might be quieter and the slow quakes in progress under New Zealand might be relieving the faults of accumulated stress. However the geomorphological changes that are coming in the next few years and even decades will affect communities and individuals alike.

Overhauling sentencing laws in New Zealand

Posted on by
Reply

The spate of violent offences across New Zealand in the last year continued today with the armed hold up of a supermarket in Ilam, Christchurch, by a man wielding a knife. And as I read the article on the internet about it, I wondered how we can change the sentencing laws in New Zealand not only to better tackle serious offending, but insofar as punishing them goes, getting judges to hand down proper sentences in the first place.

For me in part, it is not the actual sentencing laws that are the problem but the reluctance of the New Zealand judicial system to use the full array of sentences available to it. There is no real point unless the sentences themselves are grossly impaired in making significant changes unless the sentencing judge will arrive at a conclusion that makes a sound case for a heavy sentencing. Right now I have the impression that the sentencing judges are using the wrong reasoning when handing down sentences, but that in handing the sentences down they clearly think the punishments are appropriate.

Another part of the problem is that there is not enough focus on responsibility borne by accused. There will always be a small number of people that no matter how grave the crime, how justified the sentencing judge might be in handing down a heavy sentence, they will always believe themselves to somehow be the victim and blame everyone else. In saying that, and this might be a societal thing as much as an issue of context in the law. This may be exacerbated by the perceptions that certain sections of society believe they are somehow above the law – i.e. a promising rugby player who has assaulted someone might have the Rugby Union come to their defence, saying the player is just a person who needs a bit of guidance and does not know how to handle societal pressure.

Except that by the time one plays representative sport, they should know damn well the difference between societal rights and wrongs. They should know that assaulting a person is a serious offence and that this is the type of offence that gets noticed by customs officials verifying your suitability to enter another country. There should be no defending what happened.

Past posts here have referred to the use of targetted sentencing that hands down sentences appropriate to the crimes permitted – e.g. commit passport fraud, don’t get another passport issued. But how much consideration has been given to the weighting of sentences handed down in court – are the current sentences high enough; at what point should an indefinite sentence be handed down; is it time to reform the Parole Board?

That brings me to another point. The A.C.T Party introduced in 2009 a “Truth in Sentencing” Bill to Parliament that sought to ensure that sentences that get handed down in court are the ones that the offender ends up serving. I could understand the rationale of making sure the sentences imposed are the ones that the sentencing judge on the day intended to impose. But it also introduced a concept that has a very controversial history in the United States, called “Three Strikes”. The way this works is that the judge sends down sentences of increasing gravity, and when the third offence is committed, a minimum sentence of up to 25 years will be imposed.

This has many problems, not least the potential for hugely disproportionate sentences for the third offence that would have been appropriate for far worse crimes than what the accused committed. It also raises the risk, which has been realized in Washington State where the Three Strikes” law was first enabled, that criminals will see the justice system committing an injustice against them. That will not only not encourage them to reform in prison, but a person who went to jail for aggravated assault causing injury might now want to commit murder. No justice in that.

But we here in New Zealand need to have a debate about what sort of justice system we want. The one we currently have serves no one. Criminals are going to jail, but they are not reforming. Victims are losing confidence in the system and possibly not bothering to get justice because they have seen what happens and think it will happen to them. That is not good enough.

New Zealand turning blind eye to Saudi war crimes

Posted on by
Reply

The New Zealand Government led by Prime Minister John Key wishes to establish better trade relations with Saudi Arabia. Some would argue that trade should be with everyone and entangling alliances and commenting on other nations affairs should be stopped. Whilst agreeing so far as the alliances go – the current international framework of alliances in the West in particular is outmoded, and needs either a major overhaul or complete abandonment – the same cannot and should not be said for the cessation of condemning backward/improper acts in the domestic affairs of other nations.

At the start of 2015 Saudi Arabia began a military campaign in Yemen targetting Houthi rebels. Whilst the rebels should not be condoned for their campaign in Saudi Arabia which has killed about 40 Saudi’s, the Saudi Arabia response has been wholly disproportionate and continues to this day with the implicit support of the United States and Britain. both of these nations have been funding and arming Saudi Arabia and turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabian war crimes, which have documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations Special  Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Red Cross. The war crimes include, but are not limited to:

  1. A Saudi led attack on a funeral in Sanaa where over 100 people were killed and 500 were injured
  2. Multiple airstrikes (according to Human Rights Watch)that failed to distinguish between military and civilian targets in September and October 2015 killing 60 civilians
  3. Bombing a Medicin Sans Frontieres hospital where 15 people were killed

The New Zealand Government will be aware of the Saudi Arabian bombing campaign through intelligence shared among members of the Five Eyes network of American, British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand intelligence agencies. It will probably know about the atrocities being committed, and that the United States and Britain are supplying the munitions and delivery systems being used to deliver them to their targets.

So far we have heard nothing from Prime Minister John Key about this. This is quite disturbing for a Prime Minister who thinks the world of the United States and wants to be seen to be in support of “freedom and democracy”, yet turns a blind eye to allies supporting a dodgy mate giving its little neighbour the brutal thrash. It is also quite improper for a country that prides itself on being a country that stands up for the little guy (we stood up to the French and Americans on nuclear weapons in the Pacific, and won the respect of millions).

Making New Zealand great again would be to start standing up to larger nations as we have historically done and say “look, this is not right – we do not support it”. New Zealand should not turn a blind eye to the Saudi Arabian bombing campaign in Yemen. It should be telling Saudi Arabia that this is not okay, that war crimes are not acceptable conduct in the international community. We should be looking long and hard at the evidence Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have obtained and asking the United States and Britain why they support Saudi Arabia committing war crimes.

It is not okay, and you can say so yourself, here.

Another White Ribbon Day, but will we heed the messages?

Posted on by
Reply

“Police got called to 102,000 domestic violence incidents in 2015. 2/3 of which involved children” – Mark Solomon, former Kaiwhakahaere (Chairperson) Ngai Tahu 

Every White Ribbon Day I find myself in two minds about efforts to deal with domestic violence. It stems from a prolonged period of having heard the statistics and the speeches; heard the pledges to take action and been to the rallies against domestic violence.

Let me be clear. All are good and help to put things in perspective. I attend the rally such as the one in Cathedral Square yesterday. I go away, pleased that I had made the effort to show my support and pleased with the turnout and the array of speeches that get made. Dignitaries, the Police and White Ribbon bikers are all there and are acknowledged. All made good speeches.

But at the end of the day I cannot help but wonder whether the current approach is working. Generally speaking the domestic violence figures in New Zealand have not dropped significantly. Other social pressures such as unemployment, earthquake events and living costs have not helped either. And finally, a high rate of immigration that is not being properly planned for means additional pressures will be put on social welfare and support networks, without adequate resourcing and appropriate structuring being done.

I looked around today and I saw that there were organizations who were not there, but should have been. Sport clubs and high schools, where a lot of socializing through the act of having a social gathering after a match or other event, are vastly overlooked parts to a complex jig saw puzzle missing many pieces. So are workplaces – I wondered as I watched people walking through Cathedral Square on their way home how many knew at work that today is White Ribbon Day, and of those that did know, how many cared.

In the end my thoughts about White Ribbon Day in 2016 are dominated by two cases, one in New Zealand and another in Australia (both completely separate). Tony Veitch, a former sports broadcaster in New Zealand admitted one of six charges against him of domestic violence causing injury to his partner, who suffered two ruptured discs in her spine from being thrown down the stairs at their property. Mr Veitch paid his former partner $100,000 in return for not bringing the case to court. Despite paying the fine, doing the nine months supervision and the 300 hours of community service served on him, he has made unfortunate appearances in the media complaining about how his relations with women keep failing and apparently making light of his domestic violence history.

Contrast this totally with the case of Emma Husar (not least because she is the victim), an Australian Labor Member of Parliament who stood before the Australian Federal Parliament and gave a five minute speech about her own brushes with domestic violence. I normally try to be completely dispassionate when judging poltiicians speeches, but this was impossible not to be moved by. She told how her home became a place she was not not safe, how her mother would go back to her abusive husband time and again. She mentioned how she lived above a hotel where things got loud at night and reminded her of the foreign bed she slept in. She said that the last final incident of domestic violence in her life involved 13 police cars turning up. As Ms Husar spoke her hands were trembling. Her voice was breaking, but she stood there and managed to deliver one of the most unforgettable speeches I have seen from a politician of any stripe and certainly the most raw.

Emma Husar was my inspiration in 2016 to continue taking a stand against domestic violence.

Who is yours?