The year in which the Government must deliver


There is such a vast broad platform of policy on which this Labour-led Government is promising to deliver, that it is a bit difficult to know where to start. There are some Ministers holding substantial portfolio’s such as Social Welfare and smaller yet critical ones like Local Government who have yet to pop their heads above the parapet. Maybe they have significant work in progress that is simply not ready to face the harsh glare of the voting public, but it would be good to know that they are not “Missing In Action”.

This is a year in which Labour and its New Zealand First and Green Party cabinet colleagues will need start delivering significant policy. Reviews can only go for so long before they start to imply that the incumbent government is frozen on policy making.Such a freeze tends to send a clear signal to the voting public that the Government does not know what it is doing, which 18 months into its first term would be a really dangerous sign.

It has so far been a year where the major call has been to scrap a capital gains tax which will give attempts at equality reform the wobbles. This move will pile on the pressure in terms of expecting the minimum wage increases the state of a living wage to perform. It potentially locks away billions of dollars in tax that could be used to help fund projects that might now struggle to be seen or heard. And it is a move I am disappointed to see happen.

There are things that I am expecting the Government to deliver or start work on in this term:

  1. A comprehensive waste recycling programme that covers wood, paper, glass, plastics and aluminium – we have the know how, but do we have the will?
  2. Announcing how it will reform New Zealand’s schools 30 years after Tomorrow’s Schools, which was seen as a visionary programme in 1989, but is not so now
  3. Reform of Ministry of Social Development – I have mentioned in the past, the failings of this Ministry, which is straight jacketed by a legislative framework
  4. Reform of the justice system, which has lost the confidence of victims of crime and seems to be failing to address the reoffending of youth
  5. Sustainability – we might be phasing out oil and gas, but is electricity able to sustain New Zealand’s energy needs on its own; the reduction of carbon emissions affects the marine ecosystem; fresh water quality and usage is not sustainable
  6. Transport – a much larger investment in railways is needed; New Zealand also needs to look at a long term plan for the sea going merchant ships

Of course the terrorist attacks have overtaken all of this and we need to revisit how we gather and use state intelligence. We will need to revisit our constitutional arrangements sometime in the next decade or whenever the Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II passes on. And if that is not enough the West Coast flood event of 25-27 March 2019 raised some alarming questions about the readiness of the West Coast for a bigger disaster.

Much going on, but how is the Government going at delivering? Find out this year (and next).

Stand with Christchurch


Yesterday, Friday 15 March 2019, white supremacists committed acts of terrorism against multiple Mosques in Christchurch where people were peacefully going about their prayers. In the ensuing attacks, 49 people were murdered. Improvised explosive devices were found by Police near the scene of at least one attack.

This is NOT what Christchurch stands for. This is NOT what New Zealand stands for. We are horrified beyond belief that such utter cowardice could be perpetrated against people carrying out totally legitimate activities.

Because of that, Will New Zealand Be Right will not publish until Sunday 17 March 2019. Stay safe. Reach out to any any friends you have in ethnic communities. Give thanks to the Police for the magnificent job they are doing bringing these people to justice.

Arohanui.

I.A.G.’s insurance earthquake has implications for N.Z


I.A.G., owner of New Zealand Insurance, A.M.I. and State has announced that a more conservative approach will be taken in allowing customers to take out new insurance policies. The announcement from New Zealand’s largest insurance group means that insurance premiums are likely to increase as a result of a decision to turn some Wellingtonians away from new policies due to the high seismic risk in the area.

From I.A.G.’s perspective it might not be so surprising. As the largest player in the Wellington market, they have about 65% of all insurance customers, which leaves them spread rather thinly in terms of coverage and in an attempt to correct that exposure, perhaps we should not be so surprised.

And yet, I am sure many people will be. It was not a physical earthquake as such, but it might just as well have been as far as the wallet and insurance premiums are concerned. Despite two large earthquakes causing billions of dollars in claims, there are still complacent customers who have purchased insurance and probably locked the documents away thinking that they are all covered, as well as non-customers on a wing and a prayer hoping nothing of consequence happens in their life time.

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the E.Q.C. cap of $100,000 has not been raised in its existence and even though it is going up to $150,000 later this year, that is only really a half hearted increase. An ideal cap would be $300,000+ – or completely removed altogether.

So, where does all of this leave New Zealand and New Zealanders in the long run? Will it encourage other companies to have second thoughts about who they insure; whether they too, are over-exposed in the market; can they meet their obligations in an emergency? Is it possible that perhaps these insurance companies are trying to pay nice, and are really only doing this because big international insurers refuse to take on any more risk in New Zealand? These questions and others will be demanding answers that might not be to the public’s liking.

I do not know the answer to any of this. However I am aware that the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences discovered that the Wellington Fault, widely thought to be the highest risk fault in Wellington, is actually less frequently active than thought and that the last event on it was more recent than previously thought. The quake risk to Wellington, whilst still significant is from other faults such as the Hikurangi Trench, the Alpine Fault and whatever is lurking under Cook Strait.

I would like to see the methodology of how I.A.G. and other insurance companies calibrate their risk assessments. When doing the risk assessment for say a particular fault line, do they look at the entire known palaeoseismic record of the fault line or just a small part? When new research is released do they revise the risk component for that particular fault?

Is Nelson fire a sign of future


In the last several years there have been a number of increasingly damaging fires around New Zealand. Prolonged dry conditions, combined with excess vegetation growth that has not been checked, that is often quite flammable in nature can prove the perfect recipe for fires. The are a range of potential triggers ranging from sparks from trains going down railway tracks, farm machinery contacting stones whilst ploughing paddocks, burn offs gone wrong, not to mention human error or arson.

The Port Hills fire event of 2017 is the most destructive thus far in terms of property and lives lost with one person killed and 11 houses lost.

Following that event there was an inquiry into the fires and what could be learnt so as to prevent a repeat. Two years later with a much larger fire now threatening Wakefield, with a population of 2,500 near Nelson, three days after it started on a paddock in Pigeon Valley, how much have New Zealanders learnt and what has been done?

I asked this question a year ago in an earlier article. It found some basic problems with who was in charge when the fires started as they traversed numerous political boundaries. Depending on whose boundary it is in the nature of the likely response will change as different authorities will have different processes. There were also concerns with basic information flow between authorities and civilians, which meant some testy exchanges between the two parties.

Could a changing climate also have something to do with the potential danger posed by such fires? Whilst last year was very hot during summer, it was tempered by big and quite sudden swings to stormy weather with considerable rain in tow that kept the risk of drought and the subsequent risk of fire in check. In 2013 and 2017 when there were fire outbreaks that caused property loss, the damaging fires were caused by prolonged, intense dry warm weather with high sunshine hours. Coming out of a very wet 2018, few in November would have imagined that by the end of January parts of New Zealand would be a tinderbox, but that is what happened.

Questions around planning laws around what kind of vegetation should be permitted to grow were also raised. Around the Nelson and Tasman areas there is a range of temperate trees such as pinus radiata and eucalyptus, both of which have high natural oil content. At the time I mentioned that research into the suitability of different vegetation types had been conducted. For such vegetation to have a positive effect it needs to be planted on a large scale and not limited to a few homes. It might also be worthwhile having vegetation breaks where there are either no trees or vegetation or the vegetation is a belt of fire resistant species that are low in volatility when lit.

But the biggest concern was – and probably still is – how much planning pre-event has been done by regional, district or city councils to understand how this phenomena starts. Understanding it is but one aspect of the 4 R’s: Reduction, Readiness, Response, Recovery.

Putting that understanding to good effect by taking steps to mitigate the potential hazard is REDUCTION. Making sure emergency services and the authorities can be ready to move at short notice and encourage the public to have emergency survival plans and the necessary resources – food, water, medicine, clothes, transistor radio, torch with batteries and so forth – is READINESS. The execution of the plans and being able to adapt to circumstances on the day will determine the RESPONSE. Putting lives and communities back together and creating something approach as normal as possible is RECOVERY.

Pike River mine re-entry decision a victory for justice


Yesterday, nearly 8 years to the day since Pike River coal mine exploded, the decision was announced to re-enter the mine. The decision, which whilst a long time coming and delayed numerous times is a step in the right direction for the families of the dead and for New Zealand.

Pike River exploded on 19 November 2010 trapping 29 miners in the mine. Five days later anyone who had survived the first explosion in the mine would have been killed by a second significantly more powerful explosion. Since the explosion the decision whether or not to enter the mine has been fraught with difficulty and controversy.

The previous National-led Government believed it was too dangerous to try to re-enter the mine and opted for it to be sealed off with the deceased permanently entombed in it. They pointed to the high risk of another explosion if attempts were made to establish another entry point, or go down the existing drift.

Suggestions were made that a robot should be sent down the drift to see how far it is actually possible to go before determining whether or not humans can be sent down. Numerous robots were sent down and they had mixed results. Two army robots stopped working 800 metres into the tunnel and 1050 metres respectively. A video of a third robot going down was withheld by the police, and shows that the robot starts to overheat, but does not explode or catch fire because the atmosphere is inert – to have a flame there needs to be oxygen, and the fact that it fails to suggests it was 100% methane. The third robot got 1570 metres down the tunnel before stopping because its way was blocked by a loader that one of the miners had been operating when it exploded.

Despite the video, the then National led Government continued to insist that it was too dangerous, that the methane meant the risk of explosion is too high. This suggests to me either a deliberate ignorance of how explosions work.

For the families this wait would have been long, painful and mentally exhausting. For years now whilst politicians have fiddled over the Pike River mine they have had to go through life in some ways in a state of pause whilst they wait and hope for their men folk for whom this should have been just another day working in the mine. Instead it turned into New Zealand’s worst mining disaster since the Brunner Mine disaster where 65 miners were killed in March 1896, which was caused by a similar mechanism to that in the Pike River disaster.

So, I welcome the decision to go back into the mine and see if the recovery of the bodies is possible. I hope this makes people realize that unless experts say it is impracticable or physically impossible, that such events as this are explored as far as physically possible before anyone deceased as a result is written off as permanently missing.