Posts by Sacha
-
I think it was TV1 news that pointed out this is just a test run of the changes to the national Building Code that this government is proposing - particularly around consent processes. Probably right about PPPs too, especially for public buildings like schools.
Those of us in other parts of the country should not think this is just Christchurch's problem.
-
Gordon Campbell isolates some interesting key wording in the quake Act.
The purpose clauses of the Act give some clue as to how this may play out..
They enable “the relaxation or suspension of provisions in enactments that may divert resources away from the effort to efficiently respond to the damage caused by the Canterbury earthquake, minimise further damage; or may not be reasonably capable of being complied with, or complied with fully, owing to the circumstances resulting from the Canterbury earthquake.”Note those words: “efficiency” and “may not reasonably be complied with, or complied with fully.” They go to the heart of whether or not costs related say, to strengthening and saving a building (or demolishing it) are pursued – reasonably, and with regard to economic efficiency. To repeat: a ministerial decree will resolve the matter, without any ability for recourse to the courts.
The clash between heritage imperatives and profitable development seems a reasonable fear.
However - alongside the Human Rights Act not being exempted from interference by Brownlee - to me it sounds like insisting on disability access to buildings could be spurned on the false grounds of it being 'too hard' or 'too expensive' to comply in any rebuilding. Sadly this could have been an opportunity for improvement in many publicly-used places.
Meanwhile trad left bloggers fantasise about Brownlee interfering with martial law or gay rights. Wrong target, folks. Look towards the Canterbury region's one in five disabled residents instead.
-
Garrett stuff on other thread
-
Labour MP Brendon Burns blogs his perspective on passing the new law.
There was little doubt Labour would support the bill. We all want to see a rapid reconstruction of Christchurch and wider Canterbury. That said, I voiced a sense of unease about legislation which provides sweeping powers to a government appointed commission and to the mayors of Christchurch, Waimakariri and Selwyn districts.
It is less than six short months since the Government introduced similar rapid-fire legislation dealing with a Canterbury local body and the ‘need’ to do away with usual processes.
...
I did challenge Gerry Brownlee in the chair in committee stages as Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery on a number of issues. This was, after all, the only chance for we MPs, as representatives of the wider public, to ask any questions.
-
Rob Hosking weighs in.
The way public issues are now played out in the media, with the emphasis on how people feel rather than on responses involving the critical engagement of the brain, has a lot to answer for.
Television news, in particular, seems to require everyone to respond like self-dramatising emotionally incontinent teenagers. It is one of the least healthy aspects of our age.
But we elect leaders to see beyond all that. We also elect them to have a sense of how decisions made now might be used and abused in the future.
There is an ugly history, both in this country and elsewhere, of laws granting sweeping powers like these for one reason being abused down the track.
-
Or a dogbox assembler :)
-
Garrett's previous scrappy tendencies brought this reassurance from Key:
"In the end the management of the people in the ACT party is the responsibility of (leader) Rodney Hide and certainly from what I've seen in the past is he's taken that responsibility seriously and acted promptly where he's had information."
Where "acting" obviously means something different than most of us expect. Oh, and h/t MeganWegan for that one.
-
I got nothin'
Naturally he's not consistent
-
I was talking about Steve's final sentence :)
-
In update to Herald story (scroll to bottom), Garth McVicar declares that Garrett is entitled to a second chance. And like Hide he knew full well about the convictions when brokering Garrett's entrance as an MP.
Whole lot of that 'taking public decisions into your own hands' stuff going around.