Public Address - Southerly (Home)

In Case These Questions Crossed Your Mind | Mar 02, 2007 09:56

My recent post on Sue Bradford's proposed amendment to Section 59 of the Crimes Act has managed to offend almost everybody. I've been bombarded with angry and anguished emails from both sides of the debate, as well as some slightly peevish comments on the discussion thread at Public Address System.

So I've decided that it's time to steer away from controversy for a while. And what could be more uncontroversial, wholesome, and inoffensive than puppies?

Joanne Hammond is someone who knows a lot about puppies. She's an instructor at the Christchurch Dog Training Club, and has been teaching dog-owners how to train their dogs for twelve years. I asked her some questions that people have recently put to me.

You can't have a conversation with a dog, so how do you get it to obey you?

The secret is only to reward positive behaviour, and never to reward negative behaviour.

[For example] say that you're training a dog to walk on a lead. If the dog is pulling: you stop, you call the dog back to you, and you gently wind in the lead. When it's back into the right position you give it a reward of some kind.

The old methods of training used to be that you gave a jerk [on the lead], and the choker chain used to grab, and the dog would come back to you because it was hurt. But the technique that we use is to reward the dog with a pat, hug, food, or a toy. You want the dog to learn that if it's behaving it gets lots of rewards. So that it obeys you because it wants to -- not because its frightened of you.

With respect, Joanne, that sounds a little like political correctness to me. Don't you think that the tried-and-true method of physical punishment wouldn't deliver better results?

People only use harsh techniques because they don't know any better. [They think:] "That's how Dad did it, that's how Granddad did it -- so that's how it's done." Positive reinforcement techniques are better for both the owners and the dogs. And the training itself is more enjoyable for the owners. I have lots of people who say to me afterwards: "I really enjoyed that class."

Even in years gone by I think there were people [who] knew deep down inside that what they were doing was not the correct method. And you actually get more from your dog by positive reinforcement through reward. It may take a little longer, but in the long run your dog will actually work better for you.

Your dog will work better?

They'll work better for you because they want to. A dog who's working for you only because they don't want to be hurt isn't [as] reliable.

Do you ever advise anyone to hit their dogs?

No, we don't use those techniques at the Christchurch Dog Training Club. All our techniques are based on reward using praise, food, toys, or hugs. Definitely we don't use any harsh treatment whatsoever. As a club we've decided that we don't need it, and we frown very heavily upon anyone who does. They should come to us first and we'll show them the correct methods.

But don't you have to use physical punishment as a last resort? For example, if your dog runs at people and you need to give them a really hard message. Won't the fact you are advising people not to use physical punishment mean that the streets will be full of wild undisciplined dogs. Won't your approach -- over the long term -- result in a massive increase in dog attacks on innocent people?

Well, my response to that would be: if you use physical punishment then you're more likely to get dogs that are uncontrollable. If you get your puppy from an early age, and bring it up using positive reinforcement -- they don't ever turn nasty because they've never experienced harsh treatment. So that side of them never comes out.

Okay, if what you're saying is true then you've got the opposite problem. Since time began people have owned dogs, and all that time they'd been training them using physical punishment. Won't your methods breed a generation of 'girly-dogs' who will lack the killer instincts necessary to win at international dog trials?

Every dog from the time it's born to the time it dies wants to be leader. What we're doing is training you to assert your leadership over the dog -- but not in such a way that you actually are competing with the dog. Using the harsh techniques you are actually fighting the killer instinct and forcing it out. But if you can get your dog to work for you because it wants to -- because it respects you as the leader -- then you won't ever have problems.

Let's turn to the biblical argument against the sort of methods that you employ. I'm thinking of Proverbs 22:15 which I'll read to you: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a dog; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Don't you think that your methods for dog-training are actually going against God?

{Long pause}

I've never met anybody that's come to me with religious issues like that. I show people the correct techniques, and if they don't like them then they either don't come back, or they convert to my way of thinking. I do not allow anyone to use harsh techniques on dogs -- whether it's from religious beliefs or other reasons.

Do you think that your methods for training dogs without physical punishment could also be used successfully on children?

It's funny you say that because I train a lot of people who ask me: "Could you do that with my child?" I can't actually see why you have to use force on children -- but dogs and children are different, of course.

You can talk to a child and reason with it. You can't do that with a dog.

DISCUSS THIS POST on Hard News 'The Arguments' thread.

Digg this Scoopit!

More Arguments | Feb 26, 2007 21:45

Last week my esteemed whisky-drinking colleague, Russell Brown, posted an article on Hard News which discussed the debate surrounding Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Entitled 'The Arguments' this post has generated a phenomenal amount of discussion on Public Address System.

Along the way, my own very first Public Address post has also been in the firing line. 'A Modest Proposal' was an attempt to question our attitudes towards physical punishment of children in New Zealand, and it seems that least one person really didn't like it. Peter Cox has posted a nice summary of the article here, and a detailed analysis of the logic here.

One thing we can all agree on -- perhaps the only thing -- is that punishment of children is an emotive issue. Public opinion on the subject has changed considerably over recent years. A few decades ago physical punishment was employed in almost all pre-tertiary educational institutions. At the school I attended children were regularly beaten until they were severely bruised and (on at least one occasion) bleeding. This was seen as quite normal, and an entirely acceptable method of enforcing discipline.

But today -- for better or worse -- corporal punishment is no longer permitted in schools. And now, as we all know, Sue Bradford is proposing to abolish corporal punishment in all situations. She hopes to achieve this by amending Section 59 of the Crimes Act to give children the same legal protections against physical punishment as adults. Despite the thousands of words written on this subject, the actual text of the proposed amendment is rarely (if ever) quoted by the media.

Here is the original version of Section 59 of the Crimes Act:

1. Every parent of a child... is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
2. The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.

Here is Bradford's proposed amendment:

1. Every parent of a child... is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
   
   1. preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
   2. preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
   3. preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
   4. performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
2. Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
3. Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

The word 'correction' in this context means punishment intended to rectify behaviour. Bradford's amendment allows the use of force against children in the course of preventing harm, offensive behaviour, criminal acts, and so on -- but not for the administration of punishment.

To give an example: your four-year-old son runs onto a busy road. The amended Section 59 permits you to forcibly pick up your son (against his will) and remove him to a safe location. But it does not permit you to punish him with a good walloping afterwards.

The amended Section 59 effectively removes what some see as the parental 'right' to physically punish their child. Unsurprisingly, this has generated an enormous amount of controversy. Amidst all the emotional shouting it can be difficult to separate out the valid arguments from the dross.

As a starting point, however, it may be helpful to consider the issue as two separate debates. The first debate is about human rights and physical punishment. The second debate (which is only somewhat related to the first) is about Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Debate 1: Human Rights and Physical Punishment

The question in this debate is whether or not children have the same human rights as everyone else in terms of physical punishment (note: we are only talking about the specific case of human rights with respect to physical punishment -- we are not talking about all human rights). Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Rights states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Proponents of this argument would point out that we don't permit physical punishment of criminals. Our society has decided that it would be "cruel, inhuman or degrading" to beat or hit them. So why do we allow physical punishment of children? Sue Bradford obviously falls into this school of thought. She thinks that what is "cruel, inhuman or degrading" for an adult is also "cruel, inhuman or degrading" for a child.

Bradford's way of thinking has strong parallels to one of the arguments that saw corporal punishment removed from schools. The fact that teachers were in loco parentis had previously allowed them the right (under Section 59) to enact physical punishment upon children. However some people argued that children had certain human rights in terms of freedom from "cruel, inhuman or degrading" punishment. They maintained that the rights of the child trumped the rights of the teacher to fully enact the parental freedoms that they had previously enjoyed.

An important question in settling this argument is whether non-physical forms of punishment are truly effective in disciplining children. If they aren't effective, then children are in a special human rights category (with regard to punishment) that is different from adults. They must be physically punished for their own good. In other words, the harm they might experience from ineffective parental discipline is worse than the "cruel, inhuman or degrading" punishment.

It's worth noting that some people will say that they are "personally anti-smacking" but "pro-choice in terms of a parent's right to choose to smack". But, of course, this is indefensible if you subscribe to the idea that children have the same human rights (in terms of punishment) as an adult. It is nonsensical to say: "People should be allowed to choose whether or not they abuse someone else's human rights". That misses the whole point of human rights.

Debate 2: Problems with Section 59

The second debate is about perceived problems with Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Although it is related to children's rights it is actually a somewhat different issue. The question here is: does the "reasonable force" provision under Section 59 allow parents to get away with physical punishment that (most of us can agree) is genuinely abusive?

There are at least three possible viewpoints on this debate:

1. You favour the status quo because you think that Section 59 is already totally effective in protecting children.
2. You agree with Bradford's conclusion that children have ordinary human rights in terms of physical punishment. In this case you will think that Section 59 is inherently wrong because it does not prohibit the physical punishment of children.
3. You think that Section 59 is ineffective but disagree with Bradford's analysis, i.e. you think that children's rights are in a special category where physical punishment is permissible. In this case you will think that the issue can be resolved by explicitly defining what is reasonable physical punishment. This is the approach favoured by some members of the National Party, e.g. Chester Borrows. He thinks that bruises, welts or bleeding should be classed as abuse, as well as any punishment that involves an 'implement' -- but that physical punishment causing "transitory and trifling discomfort" should not.

It's worth noting that all three viewpoints involve the government legislating for external interference in the parent/child relationship. At one extreme to pass judgement on the limits of reasonable force; at the other extreme to ban physical punishment altogether.

Sorting out the various arguments can be very tricky. It's fair to say that proponents of all three viewpoints are guilty of clouding the issue with red-herring statements. It has been claimed that granting normal human rights (in terms of punishment) for children will reduce the murder rate. It has been claimed that un-smacked children will become criminals. It has been claimed that parents who don't employ physical punishment are going against the will of God. It has even been claimed that the abolition of physical punishment will result in a generation of 'girly-men' who will be unsuitable All Black material.

There's not much about this that's based on scientific fact. In fact, it's very difficult to get concrete proof on any of these topics.

Even evaluating the performance of Section 59 is tricky. Do I think that it has occasionally allowed people to get away with child abuse? Yes, I do. But that's just based on my own personal definition of "reasonable force". In other words, it's just my opinion.

But let's say that I'm right -- and, after all, every major New Zealand organization that works with children agrees -- what are the respective merits of the alternatives proposed by Bradford and Borrows?

Bradford's amendment makes the physical punishment of children into a crime. But she acknowledges that 'mild' smacking should not be a police matter. As stated in her bill: "We would not expect prosecutors to bring trifling matters [such as minor acts of physical punishment] before the court". In other words, minor acts of physical punishment would be considered in the same class as stealing a pen from work, or copying a DVD for a friend -- a crime so trivial that it would be unlikely to result in anything but a warning or caution.

Borrows's amendment makes most forms of physical punishment of children into a crime. The only exceptions would be punishments that cause only "transitory and trifling discomfort" and that do not involve implements. This would limit parental correction to 'mild' smacking and (presumably) 'mild' kicking and so forth.

If we are to take Bradford and Borrows at their word then in both cases the practical result is actually the same. The more forceful punishments that were previously allowed under Section 59 are no longer legal. Minor acts of physical punishment are effectively permitted.

What remains is a matter of principle. From Sue Bradford's perspective the principle is for the law to recognize that children have the same human rights as everyone else in terms of physical punishment. From Chester Borrows's perspective the principle is that the letter of the law does not criminalize parents who only engage in 'mild' smacking.

It is perhaps useful to make an analogy between physical punishment and the trivial crime of stealing a pen from work:
Bradford's principle: All stealing is wrong, but stealing a pen from work is too trivial to be prosecuted.
Burrows's principle: All stealing is wrong, except in the trivial case of stealing a pen from work.

I have considerable sympathy for Bradford's argument, and (for what it's worth) I think she has a point -- in theory. I understand why she thinks that Borrow's amendments are objectionable. But in practice the important thing is to protect children and lower the bar on what's currently permitted under Section 59.

The worst outcome would be for Bradford to throw a hissy fit and withdrew her bill in the event that Borrow's amendments are successful -- as she has threatened to do. In my opinion either of the proposed amendments to Section 59 would make this country better for children.

But that's just my opinion.

Acknowledgements

I'd like to acknowledge the comments made by Graeme Edgeler and Danyl Mclauchlan which have helped me form an opinion on some of this issues.

DISCUSS THIS POST on Hard News 'The Arguments' thread.

Digg this Scoopit!

Great moments in Prime Ministerial Speeches | Feb 18, 2007 19:07

There are certain moments when history is changed by the impetus of a truly great speech. Winston Churchill managed to achieve this on several occasions:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

John F. Kennedy (although not exactly a prime minister) had his moments too:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe -- to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Then there are the more run-of-the-mill speeches, such as this no-frills effort from Michael Joseph Savage when he announced that New Zealand would follow Britain into World War II:

Where she goes, we go. Where she stands, we stand.

And then there are the truly ordinary speeches such as this one:

I believe we can aspire to be carbon neutral in our economy and way of life...

"I believe we can aspire"? It's hard to imagine Winston Churchill employing this particular turn of phrase. Helen Clark's unassuming words are perhaps unfortunate -- because her proposal for New Zealand to become a carbon-neutral country is every bit as challenging as fighting a world war.

There are two possible pathways to carbon neutrality [1], and neither of them are easy. Both pathways necessarily involve a dramatic transformation of New Zealand's energy sector. This is because the vast majority of our man-made atmospheric carbon emissions are due to energy use: the coal we burn in industry, the natural gas we burn to generate (some of) our electricity, and the petrol and diesel we burn in cars and trucks. These carbon-emitting fossil fuels represent about 70 per cent of New Zealand's total energy consumption [2].

One possible pathway would be to continue the use of these fossil fuels, but to capture and sequester the carbon so that it does not enter the atmosphere. Unfortunately, there are a number of cost issues and practical difficulties associated with sequestration. Furthermore, the hydrogen fuel that results from this process is not compatible with our existing transportation infrastructure [3] (indeed a low-cost method for on-board storage of hydrogen in cars and trucks has not yet been developed). This represents a significant obstacle because transportation accounts for the majority of New Zealand's fossil fuel energy usage [2].

The other option would be to avoid burning fossil fuels altogether. This can't be done overnight, of course -- if most of New Zealand's energy supply were suddenly eliminated then our society and economy would be thrown into turmoil. But it's possible that the energy that we currently get from fossil fuels could be gradually replaced with energy from renewable carbon-neutral resources.

Which option is better? At the moment the option of renewable energy is the most technically feasible. This approach also has the advantage of eliminating New Zealand's dependence on unreliable energy imports [4], as well as offering protection from the future effects of a diminishing petroleum supply. The elimination of our fossil fuel consumption would not only make a small (but important) contribution towards the health of the planet [5] and our society [6], but would also prevent our trading partners from holding our carbon emissions against us -- as Helen Clark noted in her speech:

More than any other developed nation, New Zealand needs to go the extra mile to lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase sustainability.

In our high-value markets in Europe, we face increasing pressure on our trade and tourism, from competitors who are all too ready to use against us the distance our goods must travel to market, and the distance tourists must travel to us.

It sounds like a great idea -- but let's put the scale of her proposal into perspective. A carbon-neutral New Zealand would require tripling the energy that we currently produce from renewable resources [7]. That's the equivalent of two more Clyde dams, two more Manapouri hydro schemes, two more Wairakei geothermal stations -- two more of everything renewable that we've already got. And don't forget that our existing infrastructure has taken decades to build. Helen Clark is proposing a truly mammoth task.

Of course, no one expects it to happen overnight. And no-one expects too many more hydroelectric dams -- the new carbon-neutral energy would come primarily from wind, geothermal, marine, solar, and above all biofuels. New Zealand is fortunate to have vast resources of renewable energy. In fact, it has been estimated that the long-term potential of wind energy is 360 petajoules (100,000 gigawatt hours) per annum -- enough (on a net basis) to supplant all of our current fossil fuel consumption by itself [8].

So it's technically feasible -- but is it economically sensible? Well, surprisingly, perhaps yes. If carbon emission rights become successful as an internationally tradable commodity, and if energy prices continue to rise over the long term (as widely predicted), and if the implementation is carried out in a sensible manner over a reasonable timescale -- then the proposal may well be of net economic benefit to New Zealand.

Of course, that's a lot of 'if's, and comparison with Muldoon's 'Think Big' policies will be inevitable. But there are some important differences -- not least that 'Think Big' was based on the exploitation of a finite resource using borrowed money. A better comparison might be New Zealand's investment in the network of hydroelectric dams that were constructed in the first two-thirds of last century (and which continue to pay dividends today).

In fact, components of the proposed carbon-neutral energy infrastructure might even be attractive to the government's own superannuation fund as an alternative to investing in cigarettes and nuclear weapons. It's even possible that New Zealand industry might export the carbon-neutral technology and know-how that it develops. This certainly occurred when the Danish government made a similarly bold decision to exploit its wind energy resource -- and the clever Danes have now become the largest producers of wind turbines in the world.

So might Helen Clark's audacious proposal become a reality?

No... of course not.

Here's why: the development of energy infrastructure on this scale isn't a technical problem so much as a political one. It would take decades to implement, and in meantime two things will almost certainly happen.

Firstly, opposition parties will use any long-term energy plan -- however sensible -- as a stick to beat government. In fact, even minor parties within government will exploit this issue as a point of difference (witness the embarrassing temper-tantrum already thrown by Peter Dunne over the innocuous carbon-tax proposal). And both groups will promise to dismantle the plan when they are voted into power. In all likelihood even the timid and inoffensive proposals in the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy will meet this same fate.

Secondly, fear of voter backlash will prevent the government from implementing any policy that forces us to pay the true cost of energy use and carbon emissions. It will be too tempting to take the well-worn path of previous administrations: dither, do nothing, and let the next government deal with the problem. It hardly needs to be pointed out that over the last seven years -- despite its achievements in other areas -- the current government has only dealt with energy issues on a fire-fighting basis. And it is depressing to note that the next large energy scheme to come on-stream will be the carbon-emitting Huntly E3P project.

If carbon neutrality is a desirable goal then it will need to be delivered by some other mechanism than our three-year political cycle. A multi-party accord is an obvious approach, although a more successful option might be a referendum on a carbon-neutral New Zealand -- perhaps with the bicentenary of the Treaty of Waitangi (2040) as a completion date. This would send a clear message to future governments that they need to engage with the long-term plan to meet the country's energy needs in a sustainable manner.

But frankly, neither of these alternatives has much chance of coming to pass. Not unless our politicians manage to put aside their differences, and work together to achieve what's best for New Zealand in the long run, rather than what wins elections in the short term.

So Helen Clark was probably sensible to whisper her plans for a carbon-neutral country. In another few years they will be all but forgotten. The government of the day will still be passing hasty legislation to shore up our energy supply -- and New Zealand's carbon emissions will continue their relentless rise.

Notes:

[1] It is sometimes suggested that carbon neutrality can be achieved by absorbing an amount of carbon from the air that is equivalent to New Zealand's emissions. This sounds simple: we just plant trees. But the hitch is that the trees must remain as permanent forests -- because if we remove the forests then the stored carbon will be returned to the atmosphere. This approach is unsustainable in the long run, because if we keep planting new forests then eventually we simply run out of room.

[2] It is a little difficult to extract information for this reference: (i) Go to this URL (ii) Select "What fuel was used to generate the energy?" from the 'Questions' drop-down menu (iii) Select "PJ" from the 'Unit' drop-down menu (iv) Select "Delivered energy" from the 'Energy types' drop-down menu (v) Select all the energy sector boxes ('Agriculture', 'Household', 'Commerce', 'Industry', and 'Transport and Storage'). Click the 'submit' button.

[3] An alternative approach would be to sequester only a portion of the carbon, and to store energy for transportation applications in the form of low-carbon fuels such as ethanol or methanol. This would not decrease carbon emissions from petroleum-based fuels, but it would significantly reduce emissions from coal-based transportation fuels. This could theoretically enable New Zealand to replace oil imports with our indigenous coal resources without increasing our net carbon emissions.

[4] Exploitation of New Zealand's coal resource (in combination with full carbon sequestration) would have a similar effect on imports -- although most likely at a higher cost.

[5] According to the current scientific evidence.

[6] There is mounting evidence that the fossil fuel emissions have a significant impact on human health. Some researchers have claimed that air pollution from vehicles kills over 800 New Zealanders per year.

[7] This assumes the current amount of fossil fuel consumed by New Zealand. In fact, by reducing our nation's colossal wastage we can avoid having to produce anything like this quantity of renewable energy. To give one example: if most New Zealanders drove a car such as the Audi A2 5-door or the Volkswagen Lupo then we would immediately reduce our total energy consumption by more than 10 per cent.

[8] Wind energy would not, of course, be directly usable in New Zealand's current vehicle fleet.

PLEASE NOTE: DAVID HAYWOOD IS AN ENERGY ENGINEER & RESEARCH SCIENTIST. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE HIS OWN, AND DO NOT PURPORT TO REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF HIS EMPLOYER IN ANY WAY.

(62 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

The Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth | Feb 09, 2007 19:32

My Glaswegian anarchist grandfather would have enjoyed Kiwi Foo Camp. He thought you only needed the bare minimum of rules, and then everybody would magically co-operate for the common good. For technology geeks, at any rate, it turns out that he was absolutely right.

Kiwi Foo Camp was a triumph of applied anarchism, and one of the most enjoyable gatherings that I've ever attended. All of the seminars were excellent -- but the most excellent thing was that each and every seminar demonstrated the power of the new electronic age. From the international co-operation required to build Debian Linux to websites that allow greater participation in the democratic process, the anarchism of the internet is enabling society to interact and share ideas in radically new ways.

It was, as I burbled relentlessly to Karl von Randow and a group of his new friends, comparable to the influence of the printing press on the Reformation. Only after the conference had finished did I decode their polite but mystified silence. Errr... what I actually meant, guys, was the influence of the printing press on the Enlightenment. Funny how easily you can get those two confused.

One of the seminars was so inspiring that David Slack and I formed our own political lobby group. Operating under the snappy acronym ISODWOPA (International Society of Davids Working on Public Address) the aims of the group are fairly simple:

1. To gain greater political representation for people called David who work for Public Address.
2. To get off our arses and make a submission to the select committee dealing with the new copyright legislation.

Personally I thought that the 'I' in ISODWOPA should have stood for 'Intergalactic' -- but the other David was adamant that 'International' was sufficient. So it won't be my fault if Earth is contacted by an alien civilization, and we have to spend a fortune on re-branding.

Other enjoyable seminars were given by: Russell Brown, David Slack, and the multi-talented Mark Cubey on "Stories as the New Data"; the deep-thinking Don Christie on "The Importance of Open Infrastructure to our Economy"; and the remarkable Rob McKinnon on his project TheyWorkForYou.co.nz. As a bare minimum, Rob should have a statue erected in his honour for public service to New Zealand voters, and everyone should visit his website so that they can better track the shenanigans of their MPs.

Jen Hay's seminar on New Zealand English raised an interesting question. Is it just me, or do chicks who speak five languages, have an in-depth knowledge of UNIX, and can program a computer with one hand tied behind their back... well, you know, seem kind of hot? And, if it's not an even more inappropriate question: would marriage be a possibility?

Auckland City Councillor Richard Simpson's seminar had relevance to a recent Southerly post in which I made myself unpopular by saying:

Auckland's tragedy is not so much what it is -- a dysfunctional hotchpotch of suburbs with a lousy transportation system -- but, rather, that it falls so far short of the great metropolis that it could have been. Given Auckland's natural features it should be the most beautiful city in the world, but it's only mildly pretty at best.

As the chairman of Auckland City Council's Transport and Urban Linkages Committee, Richard Simpson intends to make me eat my words. Frankly, I'd be delighted to eat both my words and my laptop if his stunning plans become a reality for Auckland.

It's no exaggeration to describe Richard as a visionary genius -- his seminar had my mouth hanging open in admiration at his ideas. He is exactly the sort of local body politician that Auckland needs to reach its potential as an international city. His innovative solution for Auckland's sports stadium problem has already received positive coverage in the Herald, as well as a promised $200 million in investment from a consortium of private companies.

Richard explained that his solution involves a comparatively straightforward revamp of Carlaw park -- but the revolutionary concept is the way in which the stadium will become connected to the city. He proposes a travelator in the disused WW2 tunnel which runs under Albert park from the end of High street. The tunnel would be linked to the stadium via an "art bridge" which spans across Stanley street.

Above: Richard Simpson envisages an "art bridge" over Stanley street (perhaps similar to the Webb bridge in Melbourne).

The new stadium would also help relieve the congestion problems in Auckland city by providing 10,000 new parking spaces. Commuters would take the Stanley street motorway off-ramp to Carlaw park, and then catch the travelator directly into High street. The proposal has the added bonus of connecting the Auckland domain to the heart of the city -- meaning that lunch in the park is only a short travelator ride away.

Above: Richard Simpson envisages a travelator connecting Carlaw Stadium to High Street via the existing tunnel under Albert park.

I was amazed by some of the information that Richard presented in his seminar. Did you know that metal fatigue in the existing 'Nippon clip-on' means that the Auckland harbour bridge has only a decade or so of remaining life? Luckily for Aucklanders this is another problem to which he has found a brilliant solution.

Richard proposes a billion-dollar replacement bridge which will span the harbour from the Wynyard point 'Tank farm' to Onewa road. This frees up the land under the existing bridge on-ramps, and makes available for sale nearly one-and-a-half billion dollars worth of new real estate in St Mary's bay and Northcote point. The net result being that Auckland gets a new bridge without costing the ratepayers a cent.

Above: Richard Simpson envisages an 'iconic' Harbour bridge (perhaps similar to the El Alamillo bridge in Spain).

Richard explained the importance of developing an "iconic" bridge design, and suggested that the El Alamillo bridge in Spain might be a good starting point. He also stressed the need for the new bridge to cater for pedestrians, cyclists, and a light rail link (in addition to cars). I felt like cheering. Who would've thought a city councillor could contemplate such revolutionary thoughts?

According to Richard's plan, the majority of the new land in St Mary's bay will be zoned for high density housing -- but some will also be set aside for a waterfront park. This will provide a seamless greenway stretching from the central city through to Victoria park, the waterfront, and the Westhaven marina. Richard also proposes to develop a light rail link that runs from the Western bays to Ponsonby, and then along the waterfront to St. Heliers. Eventually he expects that the Northern Busway will be upgraded to light rail as well.

Above: Richard Simpson envisages an up-sized ferry fleet using New Zealand made vessels such as this Breeze Fatcat.

Are you stunned into silence yet? What about a rail link to the airport? Well, probably not, says Richard. He thinks a ferry link would be a better idea. In fact, he suggests up-sizing the current ferry network, and connecting it via a canal to the Manukau harbour. Sounds impossible? Well, it turns out that this type of canal has been planned since the 19th century.

Above: A 'canalized' Tamaki river links the Waitemata and Manukau harbours (M = Manukau Harbour; W = Waitemata Harbour; Tamaki river shown as dark blue; canal extension shown in red).

The proposed Waitemata-Manukau canal would make use of the Tamaki river, which only requires a couple of kilometres of new waterway to reach the Manukau. The 1966 Encyclopaedia of New Zealand describes a similar canal scheme in an article on the Manukau harbour (in which, curiously, it reports the construction proposal as a done deal).

Above: How the Waitemata-Manukau canal might look.

Richard's proposed ferry link would put the airport only twenty minutes away from the heart of the city. And, as he points out, it would also give visitors a unique "gateway experience" to Auckland. According to Richard, a canal would be no more expensive to construct and operate than a rail link. This is especially true if you consider the tidal potential between the two harbours, and the likely revenue from a tidal-to-electricity power station.

Above: Richard Simpson envisages tidal turbines on the new Waitemata-Manukau canal.

I left the seminar with my faith in the unimaginativeness of Auckland's town-planning severely shaken. In Richard's seminar it all seemed so possible, and as I drove back from Kiwi Foo Camp the landscape was overlaid with images of how fantastic Auckland might become in the future.

That night I visited my other (non-anarchist) grandfather, and told him about Richard Simpson's seminar. My grandfather listened with mounting scepticism. He then proceeded to pour cold water on my enthusiasm with a statement that began: "I went to a lot of trouble when I was in the air force to bring home a bomb..." and ended with the words "... and that's why Auckland will never have visionary town-planning or beautiful architecture. The council couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery!"

It seems to me that it's up to the council and citizens of Auckland to prove my grandfather wrong. For God's sake, Aucklanders, re-elect Richard Simpson! And what about nominating him for mayor? We could do with a Foo-camper in charge!

Acknowledgement:
I'd like to extend my thanks to Nat Torkington and Russell Brown for their kind invitation to Kiwi Foo Camp. May I say that Nat not only organizes a great conference, but that he (and his lovely wife, Jenine) are an enviably talented musical duo as well.

NOTE:
Any inadvertent errors in this article are doubtless my own, and should not be attributed to Cr. Richard Simpson (or any other attendee of Kiwi Foo Camp).

(36 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

At the Doctor | Feb 02, 2007 07:20

I am writing this from a doctor's waiting room, a place that I particularly loathe. Not only because (by definition) you always have to wait, but also because -- while waiting -- you are sure to catch an even worse disease than the one you already have.

My school once showed us an American health film from the 1950s. It was shot in black and white, and entitled 'Joe Spreads Hepatitis'. I've always suspected that the script was written by Howard Hughes. It made a big impression on me. The voice-over was particularly memorable: "Joe has hepatitis. He goes to the lavatory. On the way out he touches the door-handle. Now the door-handle has hepatitis. Now Pete comes into the lavatory. He touches the door-handle. Now Pete has hepatitis."

Joe, Pete, and the door-handle all pulsed with a sort of nuclear-radiation glow when they were infected. As a consequence of Joe and his hepatitis I have a deep-seated suspicion of all toilet door-handles. Although recent research suggests that I should have similar misgivings about light-switches, tap-handles, telephones, pens, and the remote control for the telly.

The trouble with a doctor's waiting room is that everything in it has been pawed by sick people with infectious diseases. This means that there is no object in the room that you can safely touch. This is especially true of the magazines, which will have become encrusted with multiple layers of deadly viruses and bacteria. These same magazines -- in an ironic twist -- are the only thing available to prevent you from going insane with boredom during the interminable hours of waiting.

Fortunately, on this particular visit, the receptionist has given me an exciting-looking form to read. Under the heading 'Help Us Help You Even Better' it contains the following slightly confusing message: "We want you to help us to help you even better so that we can give you the best possible service. If you have any suggestions to improve our facilities then please let us know!"

Here are my helpful suggestions for improving their waiting room:

1. Make other patients wait outside in the fresh air where they are less likely to spread diseases to me.

I wrote that 20 minutes ago. In the meantime I have lost my fear of infectious disease, and have begun to suspect that I will die of old age before my appointment becomes due. I am the first patient of the day. How is it even possible to be running this late without seeing a single patient? Unless -- it suddenly occurs to me -- my doctor is still treating people who have been waiting since yesterday.

I once witnessed a case of what I can only describe as 'waiting room rage' from a businessman in an expensive-looking suit. His doctor's appointment had been delayed for three-quarters of an hour. The businessman stood up and gave an impassioned speech to the other people in the waiting room, ending with the words: "My business would go bankrupt if it treated its customers like this". Then he walked out -- slamming the door for maximum dramatic effect. I now regret that I did not stand up and lead the room in a round of applause.

That was at my previous doctor. She was a fundamentalist Christian who -- from the word go -- had me sized up as a sexual degenerate. Frankly, in the words of Australia's most famous philosopher, I should be so lucky.

Regardless of the symptoms, she always diagnosed me with venereal disease. A few years back I had mysterious stomach pains. I hit upon a particularly cunning diagnostic approach which involved drawing a circle in indelible pen where it hurt, and writing the time and date in the middle of the circle.

After a week or so, I had a line of time-date circles that went up one side of my abdomen, crossed my body just above the navel, and then down the other side. I went to the medical library, and had a look at a cross-sectional drawing of a person. Bingo! The large intestine. Some sort of affliction of the colon, I thought.

Not so my old doctor. She had me tested for syphilis, gonorrhoea, and AIDS. "I know what you university students get up to," she said with a disapproving sniff. "Worse than the beasts in the field." She gave my circles short shrift. "And clean all that scribble off your stomach," she said. "It looks ridiculous."

It turned out to be vitamin B12 deficiency. The next year I had the same symptoms again. "Vitamin B12?" I suggested. "Hmmm," she said sceptically. "Do you have a burning sensation when you urinate? Any boils or warts where you shouldn't have them? I think we'll check you for venereal diseases just to be sure." She dismissed my protests with a wave of her hand. "No need to feel embarrassed, David. There's nothing to be ashamed about. Half the students in Canterbury have the clap as well. The campus is riddled with it."

In the end she prescribed a diet of raw vegetables to boost my B12 intake. As a consequence I spent months stuffing myself with salads. Unfortunately, as I was amused to discover some time later, vegetables are a food group which contains absolutely no vitamin B12 whatsoever.

From an comedy point of view my old doctor was brilliant, and if she hadn't left to join a religious commune in Texas I would still be one of her patients. I can only hope that my new doctor will be just as entertaining. After waiting for nearly an hour I should bloody well think so.

Digg this Scoopit!

Summer of The L.e.d.s | Jan 26, 2007 11:29

There is no doubt that -- musically speaking -- last summer belonged to Fat Freddy's Drop. Their album Based on a True Story provided the soundtrack for a seemingly endless succession of sweltering days. By the end of the season, Fat Freddy's Drop had become as evocative of summer as the rasp of cicadas, or the smell of tar melting on hot roads.

In Christchurch you simply couldn't escape Based on a True Story. Bikini-clad girls listened to it as they baked their bodies on New Brighton beach. Sullen teenagers played it on their iPods while slouching along footpaths shimmering with heat. The rhythms of Fat Freddy's Drop blasted from the sound systems of the cars cruising down Colombo street. And in the evening the smooth voice of Joe Dukie seemed to drift from the window of every house in the city.

This year on Midsummer's day the weather in Christchurch wasn't quite so pleasant. Sleet was falling from the sky, and listening to Fat Freddy's Drop seemed somehow unseasonable. I deleted Based on a True Story from my MP3-player, and uploaded We are the L.e.d.s.

If a mad scientist spliced together the genes of The B52s and Thomas Hardy they would produce a creature who makes a noise like The L.e.d.s. They are a band eminently suited to a sleety summer's day in Christchurch. Their wistful electronic songs tend towards melancholy, but with occasional bursts of optimism that feel like the sun coming out from behind clouds. The song Rumba (video here on YouTube) is -- for want of a better description -- positively rumba-matic.

The L.e.d.s stayed at the top of my playlist as we travelled north in search of warmer climes. In Wellington the rain fell horizontally, and my rumba-ness descended to a low ebb. But even in foul weather, Wellington is easily my favourite New Zealand city. I know it's crazy to situate a nation's capital on a fault line, foolish to balance houses on precarious hillsides, and utterly dippy to bung a gigantic concrete beehive in the middle of it all -- but I absolutely adore the place.

I love the staid bustle of Lambton Quay and the Wellington waterfront. I love the trolley buses, and the cable-car to the botanic gardens. I love the green belt that swaddles the city. And I love the commuter rail system -- public transport that actually works! Wellington feels like a proper city: the sort they have in other countries. In comparison, Christchurch and Dunedin are merely towns, and Auckland is just an oversized suburb.

The weather was dreadful in Auckland as well, of course. We got stuck in motorway traffic with rain battering down so hard that it bounced off the road. The L.e.d.s were playing on the car stereo, but my rumba-ness had nearly reached rock bottom.

The next morning the rain had dwindled to occasional showers, and we reacquainted ourselves with the city. Australians visiting Auckland often comment that it looks like an ugly version of Sydney. It's certainly true that Sydney's downtown and waterfront areas are handsome -- just as Auckland's are undeniably shabby. But does Sydney have anything that compares with Auckland's towering volcanic cones? Does Sydney have anything like Rangitoto, or the other sixty-two islands in the Hauraki gulf?

Sydney has a good-looking harbour, but Auckland has two good-looking harbours -- in different oceans! Sydney has beautiful beaches, but not in the same league as the black sands of Piha or Karekare. And Sydney has nothing that is remotely comparable to the spectacular rainforests of the Waitakere ranges.

I grew up in Auckland, and was always astonished by the way that foreign eyes saw the city. As a teenager, a German exchange student told me that visiting Auckland made her feel guilty. "I can see that it must have been badly bombed during the war," she explained seriously. In a similar vein, I once had a memorable conversation with a town-planner from Edinburgh, who was truly appalled by some of Auckland's housing developments. "But, of course, one can't really complain about the town planning in this city," he commented dryly, "because there obviously isn't any."

Having lived away from Auckland for more than a decade, I can now see the city through a foreigner's eyes. It's the bricks and mortar that distract from the inherent beauty of the place. Yes, there are some attractive areas such as Devonport or Titirangi -- but too much of it is simply shopping malls surrounded by dreary characterless suburbs. And, yes, I have to admit that parts do resemble those bombed-out European cities that were rebuilt too quickly and too cheaply after the war.

Auckland's tragedy is not so much what it is -- a dysfunctional hotchpotch of suburbs with a lousy transportation system -- but, rather, that it falls so far short of the great metropolis that it could have been. Given Auckland's natural features it should be the most beautiful city in the world, but it's only mildly pretty at best.

At any rate, at least Auckland's architecture has the virtue of making Christchurch look good by comparison. As we drove home from the airport I found myself pleasantly surprised by the attractiveness of my home city -- apart from the weather, of course.

Rain was falling in dismal sheets. We sat shivering inside our house with the soothing sound of The L.e.d.s, and the not-at-all-soothing squeak of our heat-pump. I contemplated all the outdoor jobs I had planned to do -- in particular, the repair of numerous leaks in our roof. Outside the willow trees dripped, and the swollen river threatened to overflow its banks.

We tried to cheer ourselves up by visiting the seaside suburb of Sumner. It bore an astonishing resemblance to Norman Garstin's painting The Rain it Raineth Every Day. In a brave move, Jennifer decided to make the most of her enforced idleness by learning the baritone concertina. Soon our house reverberated with sea-shanties.

Prior to this, sea-shanties had always struck me as cheerful. But the baritone concertina gives them a very dirge-like quality -- as if performed by Russian sailors who have been sent to a concentration camp for criticizing Stalin. It made me want to howl with misery. To console myself I re-read John Masefield's excellent 1906 essay on the history of the sea-shanty (available online here).

In Christchurch the rain continued to piss down. The puddles on our front lawn grew so large that ducks came to live in them. This maddened me beyond belief. Didn't they realize this was dry land? For the first time in my life I truly wanted to shoot a duck. I closed my eyes, and tried to sooth myself by recalling F.W. Harvey's poem (written on a bad day in Holzminden prison during World War I):

From troubles of the world I turn to ducks,
Beautiful comical things
Sleeping or curled
Their heads beneath white wings
By water cool...

If nothing else, the summer of The L.e.d.s has been good for ducks.

(45 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!