Observations on communities after one year in Motueka

July 5, 2010

It’s been nearly a year since we moved from Christchurch to Motueka and it feels like a good time for a progress report, not as a “what we’ve done here” diary but rather what things I’ve learnt.

Also we’ve recently enjoyed a great community festival, the Motueka Festival of Lights, celebrating mid-winter and lifting the spirits of the locals. For those not familiar with this event, have a look here for reports and photos.

If my blog is new to you, you may also want to have a look at earlier articles (for example, this one) about what a community like Motueka means to me philosophically.

My experience here (matched pretty much by that of my wife) shows that most of my expectations have been met and opinions confirmed, but some new things have been learnt – mainly about the strengths and limitations of living in a community the size of Motueka (population 7,500 to 14,000, depending on where you draw the line around it) and a city the size of Christchurch (pop. 400,000 and growing fast).

Other lessons learnt (and still being learnt) are about what it can be like to live in a “sustainable” and “resilient” community that may well be able to withstand the 21st century onslaught of global financial instability, peak oil and climate change.

For a start, I’ve learnt that having fewer choices makes it easier to actually do things. In Christchurch on any day there is a choice of entertainment experiences, so much so that, given almost all involved getting in the car and looking for car parks, we rarely went to any of them. (Especially on the cold winter nights in those parts.) In Motueka good concerts and other entertainments are held quite often, sometimes involving visiting performers but more often using home-grown talent, mostly of excellent quality. And guess what – we actually go to see most of them, mostly within walking distance.

We reside only 5 walking minutes from the main shopping precinct so we use the car far less often than we used to in suburban Christchurch. In winter we drive sometimes when in summer we would have walked or cycled, and we go to Nelson for family and occasional extra shopping or medical excursions, but we realise that if petrol supplies dried up for a month or three our lives would not be disrupted too much.

When we chose Motueka to live, part of the reason was that we didn’t want to be in a smaller village community where everyone knew each other and their activities. Going to that from a city would have been one leap too far. But as hoped, we’ve found the size of Motueka is just right. Almost all the things important for a busy and happy life are located within walking distance, covering a broad range of needs. But it’s big enough for us to know that we will still be meeting new people for many years to come.

We have found that for some locals, even Motueka is too large, and they seem stuck in their own little sub-communities or clubs with little interest in wider community events or activities. Many of the older ones told us that, despite plenty of publicity, they weren’t really aware the Festival of Lights was coming and didn’t really care anyway – they were more interested in their next club meeting and trip away. I guess that happens in communities of all sizes, especially among the well entrenched.

While here I’ve become aware of the Transition Towns (TT) concept. Motueka has a TT group of its own, which is purposeful and active but struggles for traction. I’m quite convinced that the TT concept – basically a green, low-energy, localised economy – is the best for the future, but it’s so hard to go “cold turkey” and switch from a consumption and growth-driven society en masse. I’m confident, however, that Motueka is better placed than many NZ towns to work toward that goal over the coming decade or two, and to weather crises that will devastate larger cities.

I do recognise that the depth and breadth of one’s involvement in a community depends largely on how much time you have, and therefore on your age and family or business responsibilities. I am now edging into the ‘oldies’ category and do have more time on my hands to ponder concepts like ‘community’. It’s easy for parents of young families to become totally occupied in just parenting and have little time to think about wider community issues. But in the parenting process they are also making a big, long-term contribution to the community by raising and teaching the next generation to appreciate their place in it.

And they do. I’ve talked with a few of our teenaged residents who are aware of the positives of the Motueka community and who appreciate what it offers. They commonly talk of leaving to look for the more varied and exciting opportunities in the cities or overseas, but they also say that they can easily see themselves returning to raise families here. We should welcome their adventurous nature because many of them return with vigour and ideas that benefit us all in the long run. And the more welcoming and engaging we make our community to them now, the more likely they are to return.

Even if most teenagers and young parents don’t get involved in wider community projects, most parents nevertheless play a role and make their contribution by helping out at preschool groups, school activities, and sports and other clubs that their kids join. Since arriving here, I’ve been impressed by the sheer number of community groups offering services, support and companionship to people of all demographics.

And finally, the clearest difference I see between community living in a small/medium town and a city. In a community like Motueka, if something needs doing you talk with others like yourself and, if there’s a way, organise amongst yourselves to get it done – yourselves. Whereas in a city your first thought is to find out whose job it is to do that thing – who’s paid to do it – and agitate to get them to do it.


When will we see some grown up political journalists?

June 20, 2010

Further to my carefully considered comments on the politicians’ credit card “scandal” story last week, I’m following it up with a little less subtlety and somewhat more anger and exasperation.

As this media-driven story runs on, the immaturity of the journalists chasing it becomes more obvious. Chasing Chris Carter around parliament to bombard him with demands that he apologise to the nation (for what, they are not clear), and then casting him in their TV news reports as evasive, having a “hissy fit”, or even in “meltdown” mode, just shows how childish and full of themselves these young journos are.

Watching them in action this past week, egged on by the older but ratings-driven John Campbell and Mark Sainsbury, made me realise just how young these media kids now are. Where are the wiser heads? The ones who can put it all in perspective, who can make the story more about the real issues and less about themselves?

Do they realise to what extent they can now control public perceptions? That they can selectively slant these stories to make them run on? They probably do, which is why they’re loving it.

The story of journos chasing Carter around parliament – justified by their bosses, when they were punished by parliament’s speaker with loss of their parking privileges, as being that they were trying to get information of “national importance” (give me a break!!) – has the appearance of seventh form kids running amok around their school having locked all the teachers in the gym. A sniff of their own power and they become centre of the universe.

I heard on radio that the trawl through the credit card receipts of politicians (which is probably showing that 99.9% of usages were perfectly legitimate, but who cares about them) showed one claimed by Gerry Brownlie when he (rather, we taxpayers) paid for drinks in a bar with some gallery journalists. Will that one come out? No way! Not when the knowing recipients of our public money were the journalists themselves!


Shane Jones’s expenses scandal too much of a beat up

June 11, 2010

Whew! What a media and talkback frenzy about Labour MP Shane Jones and the several other pollies whose casual use of expense accounts have been revealed in their gory detail! The media are loving this, with statements repeated over and over and over: “Shane Jones watched porn movies using taxpayer money”, “Chris Carter had a massage at the taxpayers expense, flowers for gay partner”, etc etc.

Now I’m not going to defend the silliness and lax organisation of these and other affected politicians, but I am going to appeal for a sense of proportion and perspective, as well as for these holier-than-thou reporters to just temper their delight a bit.

I’ve mentioned in an earlier blog article (different topic) that I’m not overly impressed by the one getting the biggest beating up, Shane Jones, so I’m not defending him like a one-eyed Cantabrian would defend its rugby players no matter what they did on the field. He clearly has been cavalier and sloppy with his accounting, but I don’t equate sloppy with evil.

I’m convinced Jones (and in general the other politicians “found out”) weren’t trying to rort the system. I’m confident that none of them thought, ‘I’ll pay for this one using my MP’s expense account because I’ll get away with it, and it’s sort of a business expense’. I say this because I’ve done similar things myself from time to time with my personal and business accounts.

As my forbearing wife will attest, I’m a stickler for keeping business and personal finances separate, charging expenses to my small business only when there is unarguable justification. (For me it’s just not worth the risk of getting involved in a time-wasting and expensive tax audit process.) But there are times when for convenience I use the business card or bank account for a personal transaction and then pay it back at the end of the month when doing the bank reconciliation. It’s all noted in the records for the accountant to check.

I am aware that this procedure is against the rules of parliament – using the ministerial card when it’s convenient but paying it back from personal funds soon after, which is what Jones appears to have done. But going against the rules and being a cheat or fraudster are poles apart in such instances. (To me it’s like the difference between a motorist breaking the speed limit by 10kph and one overtaking on blind corners and double yellows.) However, those who used their card inappropriately but then did NOT repay do warrant further examination.

I’m also sure that Shane Jones is copping waaaaaay more venom and ridicule because some of it he spent on watching blue movies when away on trips. That’s not a crime. It’s not even a disgraceful thing for any person to do, be they a politician or a business person. And he repaid the costs at the time without prompting from the media. He’s not evil or disgusting or a cheat, he’s just been sloppy and inexact in his spur-of-the-moment accounting.

I am still more disturbed by Finance Minister Bill English’s deliberate and strategic endeavours, until exposed last year, to use the system to make or save significant sums of money through his privileged housing arrangements.

The common tool being used to beat up the politicians caught using their ministerial cards for personal expenses, again usually by the holier-than-thou brigade, is that it’s OK for private business owners to use their business to charge all sorts of dubious expenses to because it’s private money, not taxpayers’ money.

I’m not OK about that. They only do it to avoid paying tax. And every unjustifiable use of business accounts to avoid paying tax is a misuse of public money, because the rest of us have to pay extra tax to make up for their shortfall. Indirectly it’s just as bad a case of cheating as the politicians’ dodges.


Slippery Mr Key – what does he really stand for?

June 5, 2010

Hopefully Prime Minister John Key at last is learning – the hard way – that the strategies he apparently used so successfully as a money dealer don’t cut it in politics.

I’m very, very pleased that he’s finally stated categorically that Kiwibank will NOT be sold while he’s prime minister. But why did it take so long to finally state it? Why so many attempts to be slippery with his words over the past few weeks?

Slipperyness may work when cutting money deals, playing people off against each other, giving assurances that have loopholes, giving himself wriggle-room. But when you’re dealing with an electorate who are passionate about important issues, it just undermines his credibility. People with strong views are not interested in cutting deals and adjusting frameworks so everyone saves some face. They want firm, principled statements from their leaders.

After his easy ride with the electorate during his first year in office, when his affable grin let him float above any churning undercurrents, he is now starting to look less substantial. Too often now the grin and dismissive response to challenging questions looks shady. Watch his eyes and the direction of his glance when confronted with the results of some previous slippery statement. Too often they’re telling us that he’s not telling the whole story but rather a version cut to suit what he thinks he can get away with.

The dealings with Tuhoe showed this clearly, and it’s come back to bite him. And the increasingly used tactics by his government team of floating plans for things like mining, conservation and water use to see how we react, smell more like games of poker or business tactical deal-making than honest consultation.

What does John Key really stand for? How carefully do we need to keep an eye on him to try to work out what cards are in his hand and which he’ll play next? Some people didn’t like Helen Clark’s generally more direct and less blokesy approach, but at least we usually knew what she believed in and what she wanted us to do. With Key we always have to guess. And for me, it’s wearing thin, John.


Kiwibank and ‘Three strikes’ revisited

May 28, 2010

It’s been a busy week in this household, so this time I’m just going to comment briefly on two current news items that I’ve expounded on in the past.

1. Kiwibank and its possible partial sale

I am again disturbed by the renewed suggestions by the right-wing elements of the government and some of the business community (you can tell them by the glint in their eyes as they envisage getting a piece of the action) that shares in Kiwibank be made available to the public.

(I was going to link here to a blog article I wrote last July, setting out my thoughts at that time. Unfortunately, the link to that article seems to have been lost, so I’ve copied it and placed it at the bottom of this current article.)

My comments last July were made at the time when some pundits were suggesting that the government-owned bank be expanded to provide full trading services and therefore needed vast new investment – presumably from shareholders.

Now we seem to be one step on, wondering how the extra money might be obtained. But my main problem remains with the underlying assumption – that because Kiwibank is a business it must seek to grow. Businesses cannot stand still, it’s said. You grow or you die.

I challenge this assumption. There are plenty of cases where this does not need to happen. As a simple example, consider the web design business I ran for 9 years. After a few years working hard to build a viable and sustainable operation, I faced the decision of either maintaining the limited (but, it seemed, much appreciated) service as a one-man band, or taking on staff and pushing harder for a much larger and richer client base. I chose the former, and never regretted it. I worked on improving my service and my expertise, but not on growing beyond what one person could handle.

Kiwibank was set up for the specific purpose of mainly serving the indigenous domestic and small business market, and apparently it is now running that quite profitably and offering services that the privately owned banks are not interested in providing (such as small, part-time teller services in NZ Post shops).

But this is not enough for Big Business. They demand that Kiwibank grows to compete with the big boys. For this, it needs private investment. But then it would have to please its shareholders as top priority and offer unprofitable services next. And it would probably have to play in the international money market and borrow larger amounts from overseas.

I reject that. I suspect that Kiwibank’s boss, Sam Knowles, rejects it too, and has announced his resignation because he doesn’t believe that this sort of quantum leap in investment to fund wider trading operations is good for Kiwibank’s core customers.

With the exception of Jim Anderton’s input, the argument seems to have “moved on” to one of who should own shares in Kiwibank, but for me (and Jim) it should be back at a more fundamental issue: Does the bank have to grow through external stimulus? Should it not retain the business model it started with and grow organically within its own capabilities? Should it not continue to be the one larger bank with national coverage that offers banking services to ordinary Kiwis first and making profits and growing second?

2. Three Strikes law

I also wrote about this in January when the policy was announced and steps began to enact it.  You can read what I had to say then.

Since then I’ve done a great deal more reading on this topic and listened to various commentators and visiting legal experts, and my view has changed somewhat.

I still think that there will be some gains when the really hard-core violent criminals who are unlikely ever to be capable of rehabilitation. But I do believe that they can (and should) be dealt with within existing law (or what was existing law until this week).

My opinion has modified (or hardened) in two major ways:

1. Considering that only crimes committed from now on can contribute to the “three strikes” tally, it may be 10-20 years or even more before these targeted criminals are even considered for their 3rd strike. That is just so far out that it doesn’t register. Do we really have to wait that long before the main supposed main benefits – the ability to lock up the real nasties for ever – are manifest? It appears so, and therefore the law is just a bit of pandering to alarmists without actually doing anything in the short to medium term.

2. One of the most consistent claims for the need for harsher penalties is that they will send a deterrent message to potential criminals that it’s not worth it, and therefore there will be fewer crimes. Now if this does in fact hold any water at all, we should see immediate effects. Like, from today onward. We have sent the message. If it’s to have any effect, it must cause violent crime rates to slow right now. If they don’t within a statistically adequate period like one year, then the deterrence argument is just a load of hogwash. I know which outcome my money would be on.

———————————————————————————————-

Earlier comments on Kiwibank, written July 2009:

I may be wrong but . . . . I get a feeling that Big Business is making another push to get Kiwibank gobbled up into the game playing and greed of the more-market business world. And that possibility disappoints and concerns me.

Last Saturday (July 17th) the Christchurch Press newspaper published a feature report on Kiwibank in the Businessday pages, written by Roeland van den Bergh. As we’re all aware, Kiwibank was set up at the start of this decade, and in the eyes of ordinary, supportive Kiwis it had two clear primary purposes, as summarised by van den Bergh: to “look after ordinary New Zealanders and keep profits onshore”.

Through the 1990s large numbers of people were becoming unhappy at the growing fees being charged by the four main banks, all Australian owned, along with increasing profits remitted to their Australian shareholders. So . . . despite complaints from the ideologues and big players of the business world, Kiwibank was set up and initially funded by the government to provide a viable nationwide, New Zealand-owned alternative. And it has done surprisingly well, putting some pressure on the big four and reminding us of the days when banking meant financial services for ordinary people rather than speculating on world markets to foster greed and maximise profits for remote shareholders.

Kiwibank, we’ve been told, has grown steadily to the point where its market share is edging up toward the space long occupied by the big four, especially among domestic customers. Apparently it’s been working mainly on the business model that I always thought (in my naivety?) is or should be the basic operation of banks – borrowing from people with excess money (paying interest for the privilege) and lending re-packaged money to suitable people who needed it (charging interest for the service).

As van den Bergh wrote, referring also to the other main locally-owned bank TSB, “both banks fund their lending almost entirely from domestic retail deposits, while the big banks have been hamstrung by their need to borrow on international money markets, which have been frozen”.

That confirmed for me something that has bothered since last year’s financial crash – why was it such a huge problem that nervous banks were not lending to each other, causing the system to grind to a halt? Shouldn’t banks just be borrowing from savers (people and businesses) and lending to borrowers (other people and businesses)? Why do they need to spend so much effort borrowing off and lending to each other? (Apart, that is, from extracting fees for every transaction.)

Back to Kiwibank. So far so good with the Press article. Then I became uneasy as I read that as Kiwibank “grows its balance sheet beyond $10b it will have to increasingly diversify its funding to include international wholesale lending to maintain its growth.” (my italics).

Here we see again the Big Business ethic that growth is imperative. Apparently it’s not enough to just do what you do well or better, to grow organically by getting more and more customers to use and appreciate your core services. And according to the growth imperative if the growth rate is not being maintained, then it’s not enough to operate on a plateau.

Why does Kiwibank need to keep growing in size and reach, even when it may mean that its whole raison d’etre is imperilled? Ah yes, of course . . . it’s because the people pulling the strings – the government – are aligned with the business world. They’re not satisfied with providing a service that can pay for itself, grow organically, and offer the bonus of an optional, modest dividend. Forget about serving customers and retaining income within NZ, just make money for the government and its business friends!

As van den Bergh wrote, “The Government has discussed expanding Kiwibank amid calls for it to beef up the State-owned bank to help push interest rates lower.” OK, beef it up and take advantage of the bank’s ability to affect domestic interest rates, but don’t get into the same silly corporate money games with overseas markets that have caused so much grief recently to the private banking industry and society as a whole.