Not united on bi-partisan approach

Phil Goff was very circumspect on Checkpoint last night when asked to comment on calls for a speedier resolution of which areas of Christchurch can’t be rebuilt.

He said Labour was trying to to be bi–partisan about it. (2:12 @17:39)

The party, doesn’t appear to be united on that approach, or at least one MP isn’t following her leader’s example.

 Lianne Dalziel got a lot of media exposure yesterday criticising the government about the time it is taking to resolve which areas will be abandoned.

Did someone forget to tell her about the bi-partisan approach or isn’t she listening?

As Bill English says:

. . .  the latest earthquakes had given the matter “extra urgency” but drip-feeding information or partial decisions would not help.

“These people are suffering the severe and psychological impact of another quake and they’re going to need some reasonably definitive answers, not half-baked ones.”

Thousands of people are living in limbo while dealing with continuing quakes and aftershocks and  insecure housing and infrastructure.

But giving them only part of the information they need to make decisions, or information which later turned out to be wrong would only make matters worse.

The Checkpoint interview showed both Goff and Green co-leader Metiria Turei appreciate this and the difference between advocacy and politicking. I’m not sure Dalziel does.

11 Responses to Not united on bi-partisan approach

  1. Pete says:

    Well, the problem people are getting frustrated is that bureaucrats are running the process so it will take ten times longer and be ten times less effective.

    It must be like bashing one’s head against a brick wall.

  2. leftrightout says:

    Perhaps the difference between Dalziel and the others is that she lives in the area, she is the electorate MP for the area and she is dealing with down trodden electors day after day after day.

    This began in Spetember, it was evident by October that large areas could not be rebuilt.

    All Brownlee had to say last night was “Blah Blah bloddy Blah Blah Blah”. he has sat on his fat arse for 9 months of inactivity.

    CERA has been given enormous powers and what have they done to date? Bought a red and black tent, had CERA embroidered on it and given it to jerry to wear on Campbell Live!

    The time for fiddling is long past, the time for action is NOW!

    The government needs to make an immediate payout so people can get on with their lives. The government can then assume the rights to all EQC and insurance payouts on those properties.

  3. Adolf Fiinkensein says:

    LRO

    You mean Gerry Brownlee is NOT the electorate MP for Ilam?

    Or is it now that Ilam is no longer in Christchurch?

    Or could it possibly be that you left your brains home today?

  4. homepaddock says:

    LRO – A payout might not be the best way – a landswap might be better.

    The matter is urgent, people have had more than enough, their frustration is justified but giving them incomplete or wrong information will make matters worse.

  5. bulaman says:

    Auction hunting permits for the big game at Orana park. Clean it out and rebuild out there. Provided the Waimak stop bank is reinforced this is the poorest stoniest land in Canterbury. Ideal!

  6. leftrightout says:

    HO, a landswap is fine, if the land is where people want to go.

    A cash payout puts the choice and control in individual hands.

    Say Bulman gets his way and Orana Park is used, should everyone just have to accept that? No choice? no taking in to account individual needs and wants?

    There will be those who, for all sorts of reasosn, no longer want to live in Christchurch. Should they be forced to stay?

  7. JC says:

    The Napier Earthquake is considered a good example of citizens, local and national govt cooperation in getting the town back on its feet and humming again.. and I’ve been keeping a watch on the timelines in Napier and Christchurch to see how they compare.

    The 1931 quake occurred on Feb3rd, in July they set up the Napier Reconstruction Committee and in early 1932 municipal reconstruction began. Bear in mind that Napier was less than 20,000 population in those days.

    From what I can see Christchurch has been doing pretty well in comparison to Napier.. and the above timelines show how ridiculous it is to expect too much inside a year.

    JC

  8. homepaddock says:

    LRO – People can’t make choices until all the options are clear. Some will want to leave Christchurch but many others won’t.

    No-one should be forced to stay or relocate to a specific area.

    I have no idea how the swap will work or even if there will be one, but if there is, those who don’t want to stay would be able to sell the property they got in the swap.

  9. leftrightout says:

    Jebus, you Nats love big government,and beauracracy, dontcha?

    Why should people be forced to take land in a “swap”? They have suffered a total loss, a loss that they have paid insurance tomitigate.

    Then, to blithely declare that those who don’t find the swapped alnd suitable for their needs can sell it is simply further insult. What markey may exist? What prices?

    I,and thousands of others have faithfully paid our premiums, we expect our policy to be honoured when we have a claim

    And as for the demented Adolf F– Yeah, I know Brownlee is MPfor Ilam (shame that), but how can you possibly compare the quake damage in the Ilam electorate to that in Christchurch East?

    This is the biggest problem – IDIOTS with no on the ground experience who think they know best for our needs simply becauser they are under the sway of Smile n Wave.

    How about walking in our shoes a while before you presume to know the effects of 9 months of limbo, 6919 and rising shocks, 9 months of shitting in the street.

  10. homepaddock says:

    LRO – see: http://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/53919/janine-starks-looks-eqc-fine-print-around-land-value-and-claims-coverage-cont about insurance.

    I’m not saying anyone will have to do anything.

    I don’t know what will happen, just saying that if someone is offered a land swap and doesn’t want to build there they COULD sell it.

    And what would happen to the market if thousands of property owners were told their suburbs could never be built on again without having everything sorted on what happens next?

    No-one who is not living through what you and your neighbours are can fully understand how awful it is, but giving only part of the information you’ll need to make decisions won’t help.

  11. bulaman says:

    The point I was trying to make is that any rebuild needs to be on the poorest quality land rather than on good farming or horticultural land. Stony drought prone is a good place to farm people!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: