Hot Off The Press
Cranford Hospice – Dying in Hawke’s Bay, Part 2
February 8, 2010
Yesterday we posted Part 1 of Dying in Hawke’s Bay, our investigation into the state of affairs at Cranford House. Below is Part 2. The entire article can be downloaded here.
Dying in Hawke’s Bay – Part 2
By Mark Sweet and Tom Belford
The Management
In January 2008 Shaun Robinson, CEO of PSEC, announced the recruitment of a new leadership team at Cranford.
Barry Keane, Executive Director, Dr Mike Harris, Medical Director, and Sandra Sanderson, Nursing Director. Keane and Harris worked together at Arohanui Hospice in Palmerston North. Dr Harris was relatively inexperienced in palliative care, and yet to qualify as a Palliative Care Specialist.
Barry Keane comes from a nursing background, and is currently Chair of the Palliative Care Advisory Group, which signals his pre-eminence in current palliative care trends. His enthusiasm for the Liverpool Care of the Dying Clinical Pathways was recognised at the outset. Sandra Sanderson was recruited from Scotland, where she worked as a palliative care co-ordinator with a background in nursing leadership, education, and facilitation, all within palliative care.
Our interviews indicated that another major player in the restructuring of Cranford was Diane Keip. Keip comes from a hospice nursing background in the South Island and was employed by Cranford, when Kerryn Lum was Medical Director, to help implement the HB Palliative Care Strategy, which Lum and her colleagues had developed.
Keip developed a close working relationship with Shaun Robinson, giving her access to confidential information, which caused distress to those involved. She now holds the position of Palliative Care Planning and Funding Manager with HBDHB, and is the primary day-to-day monitor of Cranford’s performance … relied upon by senior management to reassure that “all is well.”
With Shaun Robinson micromanaging, the new leadership team soon changed the culture of care that had characterized Cranford. Many people BayBuzz spoke to pointed to Robinson and Keane as the protagonists most responsible for creating a culture of distrust and fear.
Numerous incidents were related where staff have been treated with disrespect and intimidation. Many are convinced there was an orchestrated campaign of ‘constructive dismissal’ where abusive behaviour was employed as a weapon to move along old time employees. Only in past weeks has an employment action brought by three Cranford nurses been settled by mediation.
And in a 29 November 2009 letter written to HB Today (but rejected), Richard Grey, husband of Sue Grey, until recently a nurse at Cranford, with decades of experience, said:
“If the reorganisation is not going smoothly, management often react with an increase in discipline to assert their management role. The staff then believe that they are not respected, are being threatened, intimidated and can feel very insecure. This leads on to a down turn in morale, increase in sickness, more involvement in disputes and unions, along with a loss of employees. As well as increased costs and possible reduction in the services offered.
Much of the above was already beginning to occur whilst my wife was in employment at Cranford, so I strongly advised her to leave soonest. On reflection, the correct decision, even though she, as are the remaining Cranford nurses, felt torn by the strong bond of loyalty, commitment and allegiance first and foremost to their patients and then to their fellow colleagues.”
The clash of cultures, between the old Cranford and the new, is not just a matter of management styles, but also of systems and philosophy.
In a presentation entitled Rethinking Palliative Care Provision, Barry Keane asks, “But where have we come from? Reactionary movement – Cottage hospice – Charity base – Culture of ‘specialness.’” He then asks, “Has the nature of Hospice development been one of the barriers to progress?”
He obviously thinks so. Indeed, nurses at Cranford have been admonished not to refer to Cranford as “a Hospice … it is a Palliative Care Unit.”
Palliative care provision with a diminished hospice role would appear the direction Cranford is being steered, with an emphasis of spreading care for the dying more broadly by providing training to Health Providers in palliative care, including the Liverpool Care of the Dying Pathway (LCP).
”Over the last 12 months, 1100 staff in resthomes and hospitals have received specific training in the care of the dying through the Liverpool Care of the Dying Pathway project,” states Ron Hall in his open letter. Barry Keane describes LCP as “a tool designed to be used in settings other than a hospice, which enhances the skill and confidence of practitioners, and the quality of care.”
Listening to Barry Keane speak passionately about, “ensuring best practice in palliative care for the dying being available to all in need,” is hard to reconcile with the allegations of his insensitive management style. It’s unfortunate his tenure at Cranford has been mired in so much controversy, but from what Baybuzz has heard from the parties dealing with Keane, he has brought it on himself.
Shaun Robinson declined to speak to BayBuzz about “issues” at Cranford, quoting Ron Hall’s letter as PSEC’s “final word on the matter.” He did however reply to a written question: Has the CEO of PSEC any comment to make about the management structure ‘bedding in’ process?
”Given the stable and close knit culture within a traditional hospice like Cranford, organizational development and change can be difficult for staff, volunteers, leadership and the community… As a result of this situation, communication between some key clinical staff was adversely affected leading to some negative impacts on staff morale. Since that time additional effort has gone into communications and team development; workshops and meetings have been held with staff and volunteers to address their concerns about change and to work together on the way forward – this is an ongoing process. While change is always hard, the reality in February 2010 is a growing sense of positiveness within Cranford and a desire to keep progressing palliative care for the people of the Hawke’s Bay.”
Also the “reality” in February 2010: The situation remains sufficiently “negative” that a mediator has been brought in to help rebuild morale. So, while Robinson speaks of “growing sense of positiveness” and Mr Hall proclaims all is well, employment actions and mediator involvement suggest otherwise.
The DHB
The complaints are too numerous, too widely-known, too widely-shared, and too credible to be dismissed. Certainly the ‘open letter’ from Presbyterian Support is an inadequate response to widespread public apprehension.
In view of this, one might think that the Hawke’s Bay DHB, provider of 70% of Cranford’s funds and the contractor (through PSEC) of its services, might inquire vigorously and independently into the matter. Not so.
BayBuzz interviewed a member of DHB’s senior executive team, Ken Foote, General Manager of Planning, Funding & Performance. Mr Foote expressed nothing but confidence in PSEC, who he repeatedly discussed as a “contractor” satisfactorily delivering “outputs.” When issues were raised publicly last November, Foote said he and his team made inquiries of PSEC management and came away reassured that “there were no concerns in terms of quality of care affecting patients.” This is the message he passed to the DHB Board.
Said Mr Foote: “We have expressed our support for Cranford … We remain confident in the level of care … We have no cause for concern about the delivery of the contract and the quality of care.”
He noted that DHB’s contract is with PSEC and how they deliver their services is up to them … “unless we felt there was some threat to the organization that could make that contract difficult to deliver.” Clearly, DHB, through Mr Foote, sees no such threat. Why? Because PSEC has assured them there is none!
A routine “audit” of Cranford’s performance begins this month as part of a normal three-year cycle of evaluation of service contracts.
Recommendations
BayBuzz suggests several significant steps are required.
1. First and foremost, as 70% funder and possessor of requisite expertise, HBDHB, with active oversight by Board members, must investigate the situation fully and issue a public report indicating findings and any recommended actions.
The aforementioned “audit” can feed into this (as should the McLeod report), but cannot substitute. We believe the review team should include appropriate management & clinical senior officials (including some not in the cozy loop between DHB and PSEC), plus some elected Board members. The latter are necessary to signal a high level of concern by those directly accountable to the community and to reinforce the credibility of findings. The report should be discussed with the interested public in an open forum sponsored by DHB.
2. In this process, the management role of Presbyterian Support should be re-considered. Clearly the dysfunction at Cranford is linked to the management approach imposed by PSEC. As a community asset, Cranford is funded by our taxes and donations, and deserves to be run directly by a Board with one mission and with requisite experience coming from the community.
3. An evaluation program should be instituted to systematically ascertain the views of families whose loved ones have been treated at Cranford. If it can be done for hospital patients, it can be done as a sign of respect and concern for the families of those who die after hospice care. And of course to improve practices where necessary for the benefit of future patients.
4. The HBDHB must also take a more proactive role is educating the public about the HB Palliative Care Strategy, and specifically on how and where this care will be provided. In 2009, 499 patients were referred to Cranford. But clearly not all the terminally ill are or will be cared for at Cranford Hospice, whatever the public perception … both because the numbers will skyrocket, and because this is not the preference of all patients. So what does the future scenario look like? The public should be clear about this.
5. Finally, the Hawke’s Bay community needs to place its present funding relationship with Cranford “in escrow” until these issues are dealt with fully and publicly. The community has been tremendously generous to Cranford Hospice over the years. But unquestioning generosity would now be irresponsible until some substantially greater accountability and public responsiveness is brought into play.
You can find supporting documents at www.baybuzz.co.nz/issues/health/cranford
Comments
Cranford Hospice – Dying in Hawke’s Bay, Part 1
February 7, 2010
What follows is Part 1 of a lengthy two-part article on Cranford Hospice, Dying in Hawke’s Bay. Tomorrow we will post Part 2. [For the impatient, the entire article can be downloaded here.]
Dying in Hawke’s Bay is one of the most in-depth articles BayBuzz has published. Writer/reporter Mark Sweet and I spent at least sixty hours pulling it together. We interviewed seventeen knowledgeable insiders in depth, some repeatedly, and an equal number informally. And we reviewed a range of documents and web resources … many of which you can find in the Issues section of the BayBuzz website.
Why?
Because perhaps there’s no more iconic and beloved public service institution in Hawke’s Bay than Cranford Hospice. One that has touched thousands of families over the years, and with a blossoming senior citizen population, will touch even more to come. An institution that receives 30% of its annual funding from the generous donations of the community. An institution that’s broken.
Since November we’ve received numerous requests – pleas, in some cases – to look into what was described as a seriously dispirited facility. Dysfunctional to the point that caregiving might be compromised.
Dying in Hawke’s Bay – Part 1
By Mark Sweet & Tom Belford
Not a pleasant topic.
But an inevitable one.
And one of special policy importance in Hawke’s Bay, where people over age 65 represent the fastest growing segment of our population. For those afflicted with terminal illnesses like cancer, which often bring unrelenting pain, the final path to death can be especially dire. Special care – palliative care – must be provided to these individuals to ease their suffering (and that of their families) and enable a dignified passing.
In Hawke’s Bay, that has been the mission of Cranford Hospice for more than twenty-five years. During that period, our community has developed both tremendous pride and trust in the care provided by Cranford. But now that trust has been shaken by a very public dispute between present management, as provided by Presbyterian Support, and former and present clinical staff, who allege that quality of care has suffered in an environment of insensitivity and mis-placed responsibility at best – and bullying and intimidation at worst.
A range of charges have been brought to BayBuzz, and we have investigated them through a series of in-depth interviews with knowledgeable parties, as well as reviewing pertinent documents made available to us. Certain parties at the centre of the controversy spoke only superficially with us – notably, Barry Keane, Executive Director of Cranford Hospice; Shaun Robinson, CEO of Presbyterian Support; and Ron Hall, Board Chair, Presbyterian Support.
Our conclusion … Cranford Hospice is broken in spirit, and quite possibly the quality of care provision is diminished as well. Intervention by a responsible body – Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (HBDHB) – is clearly required if issues are to be fully explored, disputes resolved, and public confidence restored. Here is our story. Supporting documents, some not previously published, can be found on the BayBuzz website, enabling readers to draw your own conclusions.
Palliative Care
To understand the current dispute, a bit if history is required.
In February 2001 then Minister of Health, Annette King, announced the New Zealand Palliative Care Strategy.
Palliative care was succinctly defined as “the care of people who are dying from active, progressive diseases or other conditions that are not responsive to curative treatment.” The document emphasised that palliative care “embraces the physical, social, emotional and spiritual elements of well-being … and enhances a person’s quality of life while they are dying. Palliative care also supports the bereaved family/whanau.”
The Strategy contained nine steps to implement the vision of providing “timely access to quality palliative care services” to all people who are dying. District Health Boards were given responsibility and funding for implementing the strategy.
In Hawke’s Bay Cranford Hospice had been providing this service already for 20 years and was regarded as a model of palliative care in the community. They were the obvious vehicle to assist the Government’s policy, and the HBDHB contracted Cranford to do the job.
Up until this time Presbyterian Services had taken a hands off management attitude towards Cranford, and from it’s beginning in 1982 the Hospice developed its own culture of caring for the dying.
Jack Mackie was the Director when Presbyterian Social Services Association bought Cranford Hospital from the Royston Trust Board. “Cranford was allowed to develop on its own,” he told Baybuzz, “The PSSA were not involved.”
John and his wife Margaret were especially interested in the work of Dame Cicely Saunders at St. Christophers Hospice in London, and her four goals were used as a guide in the development of Cranford:
- To care humanely for the terminally ill.
- To provide not merely for the patient’s medical requirements, but also for the spiritual and emotional needs of the patient and loved ones.
- To give family and friends the opportunity to share actively in the care, comfort and support of the dying individual.
- To make the patient’s final days as painless, happy and meaningful as possible.
From the beginning, the aspirations of Cranford were the same as those which came later in the New Zealand Palliative Care Strategy of 2001.
From the outset, Cranford was a community asset. The first volunteers came from women’s groups associated with the churches and from the Country Women’s Institute. Fundraising and donations were the sole source of income, and Jack Mackie ensured that PSS, “did not proclaim involvement.”
With the appointment of Dr Libby Smales as Medical Director in1985, Cranford’s success was assured. She had trained at St. Christopher’s and as Jack Mackie observed, “Libby understood the spiritual aspect of dying, and the importance of family involvement. She created a flat management structure with relationships of equality where communication was easy and everyone was involved in patient care.”
Under the direction of Dr Smales, Cranford matured into a model of best practice in palliative care. Numerous professional articles written by EA Smales, HG Sanders, KL Lum, and AP Denton testify to the reputation of the team.
Libby Smales left Cranford in 2000. Her successor, Kerryn Lum, had been with the hospice since 1996.
A change in Presbyterian Support management also occurred in 2000 with the appointment of Shaun Robinson as CEO. This marked a change in the relationship between PSEC and Cranford which saw PSEC assume more and more control over Cranford affairs until arriving at the situation we have today, where Cranford staff are directly answerable to the CEO of PSEC. When Baybuzz contacted Cranford Director, Barry Keane, he said he couldn’t talk to us without the permission of Shaun Robinson. A far cry from Jack Mackie’s hands off approach.
In August 2007 a Review of Management and Leadership Functions and Structure (Harper/Devine) recommended that: “PSEC recognises the dynamic tension between Cranford and the rest of PSEC, valuing the individuality and uniqueness of the strong Cranford brand and what it offers PSEC while encouraging the development of collaborative innovative organisational wide synergies.”
To PSEC this was an invitation to restructure Cranford, and within a year the three top positions were filled by new appointments from outside Hawke’s Bay, old relationships were severed, with many people feeling very badly treated.
The Complaints
”We do not intend to participate in any further debate via the media. We believe that most reasonable people would agree with our decision” is how the PSEC Board concluded an “open letter to assure the public, staff and supporters that they can have total confidence in Cranford Hospice.” (HB Today advert, November 2009)
The letter was in response to “articles and correspondence in the media … based on the opinions of a small number of people.”
Doctors Smales and Lum were obviously among the “small number” of people who had “unjustified criticisms,” because two weeks before the PSEC letter they issued a joint statement in which they referred to “a climate of bullying and intimidation” at Cranford. They spoke of the “much admired interdisciplinary team being systematically deconstructed,” and how “Many benefactors are now cautious of their ongoing support.”
When things went sour at Cranford, Libby Smales was an obvious conduit for people’s concerns and grievances. After a year of being constantly asked, “to do something about the destruction of Cranford,” she approached the PSEC Board in September 2008, but her request to, “take with me a number of professional people who had been or were involved with the Hospice,” was declined by Chairman Ron Hall. Also declined was her request that her presentation be, “to the Board alone, as many of the concerns relate to Hospice management …”
What Dr Smales did present to the PSEC Board was a clear and illustrated picture of dysfunction at Cranford:
- The Inter-Disciplinary Team approach, which fostered co-operation and easy communication was being replaced by an outdated, hierarchical, hospital model, unsuitable to achieving Current Best Practice in Palliative Care.
- Experienced staff were struggling to get what patients need/deserve from inexperienced staff, who were unsure, hesitant, and acting in isolation because of the destruction of the team.
- The cohesive, mutually supportive way of working with GP’s, who previously could discuss problems with any of the Inter-Disciplinary Team (in house team, Palliative Care Co-ordinator, pharmacist, on call doctor) was lost.
Supporting Dr Smale’s concerns were letters from people involved with Cranford.
From a Napier GP: “I don’t know what to tell patients about the hospice service any more, as I don’t want to raise their expectations … Recently when I rang Cranford to obtain a Special Authority for a mutual patient, I was stunned to hear that there would be no pharmacist available until the next day. Yes I can get a Special Authority myself, but it can take up to two weeks to get a reply … Cranford pharmacists had an excellent system for immediate responses. Palliative Care patients don’t always have two weeks to wait.”
From Medical Staff: “Redundancies and resignations … include hospice manager, principal nurse, medical director, councillor, massage therapist, and two pharmacists. Several staff members have taken stress leave. Many others are expressing levels of stress, distress, and low morale.”
From Senior Nurses: “New medical personnel are inexperienced and and hesitant resulting in poor symptom control. This is often resulting in painful and distressing deaths … the loss (of the Pharmacy team) is putting a huge strain on the team.”
From Dr Kerryn Lum: “Loss of teamwork, insufficient staffing, and loss of trust and goodwill has meant that the excellent pro-active anticipatory care planning for which Cranford was renowned is reduced to reactive crisis, with a slower response time than ever before. Dying patients and distraught families do not have time to wait.”
Presbyterian Support’s response was to commission a review of Cranford by Dr Sandy McLeod, a Palliative Care Physician from Christchurch. Dr McLeod’s report has not been released by PSEC (it should be), but what is known is that when he asked staff which regime would they rather be under if they were dying – the old or the new – the majority chose the old.
There is no doubt that the restructuring of Cranford has compromised the quality of care, and there is little indication that concerns expressed in September 2008 (and since) have been resolved.
End, Part 1.
Part 2 will examine Cranford management, DHB’s position, and recommend a path to resolution.
Comments
Hear report on Copenhagen, and more
February 6, 2010
Last December local lad Louis Chambers attended the Copenhagen Climate Change summit as part of a New Zealand Youth delegation — twelve young kiwis passionate about protecting our climate for generations to come.
This Wednesday, 10 February at 7.30pm. Louis has kindly agreed to address a public meeting on his wonderful experiences before he heads back to uni.
The venue is St Luke’s ( Anglican Church) Lounge in Havelock Village,
right between the library and the shops.
Backing up Louis are other local students: Tiho Mijatov who has just returned from the United Nations youth forum in the Hague; and also Suzanna Remmerswaal, who has been installing solar panels in Tonga with Engineers without Borders – lots of good and exciting stuff from our youth. Plus some music from fellow former Havelock High student David Walters.
All welcome. Koha and cuppa.
Liz Remmerswaal
Comments
Where’s the buzz in 2010?
February 4, 2010
The February BayBuzz Digest (watch for it next week) will feature a range of wise prognostications about promises to be kept, challenges to be met, trends to watch in 2010 from various elected and community leaders in Hawke’s Bay.
I tend to focus on the Councils, so here’s my sense of where the political excitement will be found in the year ahead. Political careers will rise or fall depending upon how these ten situations play out.
1. Regional resource co-governance
Expectations are that the Crown will soon announce a new “co-governance” arrangement whereby six Maori leaders, appointed by iwi, sit alongside six elected Regional Councillors as equals to decide resource management policy for Hawke’s Bay. The Resource Management Act gets amended in full, ugly public view with heaps of public consultation. “Co-governance”, on the other hand, will be sprung on unsuspecting locals before they know what’s happened! Whatever the merits involved in co-governance, it amounts to pretty radical change … effectively plotted in secret. Watch for major fireworks on this one.
2. Poo hits the fan
Sometime this year Hastings will need to turn on its new sewage treatment plant again. No one is praying harder than Engineer-in-Chief Lawrence Yule that it will work. But Hastings staff and consultants are running out of #8 wire and duct tape. Anyone want to take bets? And watching with nose pinched is Mayor Arnott, who’s committed Napier to the same foul technology.
3. National water policy
Around the middle of the year, central Government is expected to issue national freshwater quality standards, and address related water management issues, perhaps altering the distribution of power between Wellington and the regional councils. Imagine … thinking about water as a national strategic asset, instead of a first come, first served local commodity. What a concept! Big implications for Hawke’s Bay and HBRC.
4. Velodrome decision
Without a velodrome, the Regional Sports Park becomes, well, the Hastings athletic field. Unison and the Regional Council will put their checkbooks away (saving you as a Unison shareholder and you as a HBRC ratepayer a bit of cash). When a decision will arrive seems to be anybody’s guess … slipping into low gear, it’s been overdue since November.
[BTW, did you notice that Wanganui just said: Hey, we already have a velodrome ... we'll just put a roof on it ... no probs!]
5. HB Museum & Art Gallery redevelopment
Unlike the velodrome, funding for this edifice seems to be safely wired, with construction getting underway mid-year. Nothing should interfere with a 2012 ribbon-cutting. Personally, I’m for it. But I’d like to see Hastings Councillors expalin why they are putting up $1 million, given that their ratepayers clearly opposed this largesse in the Council’s own survey.
But HBMAG aside, there’s distracting Marineland, still seeking its “Wow” factor … as in “Wow, it’s still there!”
6. Heretaunga Plains rescued
The Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) will be adopted, probably pre-election so we can all be treated to a group hug photo featuring Lawrence, Barbara and Alan. The Plan will be applauded enthusiastically by a dozen policy wonks and a small army of consultants. The rest of us can sleep at night reassured that the Bay’s rampant population growth of less than 300 people a year has been well planned for, possibly with some protection of our invaluable soils and coastline.
7. Amalgamation
Lucky beyond his wildest hopes, Mayor Yule will find an election opponent in Hastings who is actually against amalgamation, and spend his entire re-election campaign clobbering the poor bastard. In Napier, on the other hand, the reverse occurs. The validity of the election results will be called into question when Barbara Arnott’s Lilleputian opponent, a champion of amalgamation, apparently receives zero votes. Lots of fuss about amalgamation in 2010, but no action.
8. Tukituki & Mohaka clean-ups
The Regional Council has six or seven months to show that its various strategies for cleaning up the Tukituki and Mohaka Rivers are gaining any traction. Has the land purchase and resource consenting required to advance the effluent-to-land scheme proposed for the Tuki progressed? Is the Mohaka stakeholders group actually putting a lid on the dairy crap, or is it sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya? The more inaction or slow motion is perceived, the more energetic the campaign to change the team will be.
9. “Test” year for Venture HB
VHB is gearing up for World Cup Rugby in 2011. However, It’s own “test” year is 2010. Here’s another situation where performance must overtake planning in the coming year. Smart, bold plans – and VHB has some – can fail if there’s too much sand in the gears. For VHB, 2010 must be a year of successful execution and constituency rapprochement. Do or die!
10. Local body elections
Of course, the October elections will be the most baldly political event of the year. The Hastings mayoral race will generate the most intensity. Clearly Mayor Yule’s strategy is to upset enough people that multiple candidates run against him, enabling him to squeak through to re-election with a narrow plurality. Once he gets back to the Council Chambers, however, he’s likely to see a surprising number of new faces around the table. Queen Arnott will be easily re-coronated. Her Court? Does it matter? And at the Regional Council, expect a determined re-election push by incumbents as long-in-the-tooth Councillors unite under the slogan: “You don’t know what we do, but we could have done it worse”.
OK readers, got any issues to top these?
Tom Belford
Comments
Damming for dairying?!
February 1, 2010
The Regional Council is barely into its full-scale feasibility study — at a cost pushing $1 million — of building several dams on the Tukituki in Central Hawke’s Bay. But already the rural press is raising issues that put a spotlight on the controversial economics and politics of such a venture.
For example, the February Country-Wide features two somewhat contradictory articles talking about the potential economics the CHB scheme. One, Dams plan full of challenges, cites a AgFirst Hastings economist, referring to projected rates of return on irrigation investment for cropping versus sheep & beef verus dairying, concluding: “Probably only dairy farms could afford this at the moment.”
If it turns out that only dairying — the most intensive and environmentally unfriendly of possible land uses — makes the irrigation scheme viable, the political lift for the Regional Council could prove back-breaking. Especially given evidence of the damage that dairying is doing already to the Mohaka. How many rivers in HB should dairying screw up?
In the other article, Irrigation scheme ‘worth looking at’, perennial booster of farm interests, Otane farmer Hugh Ritchie gives a different spin to the numbers and urges farmers to look hard at the proposed irrigation project.
Other articles raise questions about the ultimate funding of the scheme.
HBRC is quick to note that its feasibility study enjoys funding support from MAF. But the Council has also been flexing its financial portfolio muscles, indicating that a scheme like this is precisely the sort of regional infrastructure project that the Council should invest “its wealth” in, as opposed to Wellington real estate. [Wouldn't that be ratepayer wealth?!]
Conservationists I hear from, even if they might ultimately be convinced a massive irrigation scheme involving the Tukituki could be made environmentally safe (and perhaps even beneficial) will go to the mat for a user-pays funding regime. Their argument: “Rights” to public water enhance land value enormously for the “rights” holder … why should ratepayers pay for landowner wealth creation?
Complicating the “who pays” picture is Agriculture Minister Carter. This headline blared in the 19 January Rural News: “No state irrigation subsidy.” Says Carter: “At this stage the Government is not saying no, but what I can say is we won’t be going back to the old days of subsidies. These projects will have to stack up. We won’t be subsidizing them.”
What kind of farming can sustain a massive irrigation investment? … Can environmental harm be avoided … Who pays?
Those are the million dollar questions the Regional Council has before it. Perhaps it would not be too wise for Regional Councillors to wax poetic about this scheme until a fair bit more of the homework is done.
Tom Belford
Comments
Man About Town
January 29, 2010
Homage to The Earthquake
By Andrew Frame
I have a love-hate relationship with earthquakes.
The physics behind them is fascinating. Last year’s Fiordland quake shifted the bottom of the South Island 30cm closer to Australia – not bad landscaping for millions of tons of rock, eh?
A 7.8 magnitude earthquake, such as the one that struck Hawke’s Bay in 1931, produces the same amount of force as 600 Megatons (600 Million tons) of explosives. The “Little Boy” nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was around 15 Kilotons (15 thousand tons). So if I do the maths (without blowing a blood vessel): To try and recreate the 1931 quake, you would have to set off 40,000 “Little Boy” sized nuclear bombs 20km below Waipatiki Beach. These are mind-bogglingly big, scary numbers (especially if you live at Waipatiki Beach).
So much for theory.
Earthquakes themselves scare the living hell out of me. I can’t even bear to stand in the earthquake simulator at Te Papa for more than a few seconds. At the mere hint of a decent shake I will easily break the land-speed record between any given point and the nearest doorframe. I guess it’s a control thing. There’s not a lot you can do when everything around you is moving of its own free will.
This Thursday marks the 79th anniversary of the Hawke’s Bay Earthquake. Growing up in Napier, earthquakes were an ever present part of life. We had them occasionally. We learned about them in school; read books about them. We even lived, worked and shopped in buildings constructed directly after “The Quake” (except no one cared as much about the architecture back then).
My two late Great-Aunts even experienced the 1931 earthquake first hand. One was working at Bestall’s (now Jessica’s Design Store) in town when the earthquake struck, and had to scramble out of the wreckage of the shop once the shaking had ceased. She remembered seeing gold and silver rings and necklaces from a nearby jewelry store strewn over Hastings Street. Usually fair game to light fingers, they were completely untouched as people were either too shocked to notice or already beginning rescue efforts.
Her younger sister, like so many of the children at Nelson Park School, had just gone outside to play when the earthquake struck. Both aunts survived to reach very respectable ages.
256 people were not so lucky.
This is why I’m forever disappointed at how little focus there is on the actual 1931 earthquake during Art Deco Weekend. This year, one lecture and a survivors’ tea (providing someone organizes it, unlike a previous year) are the only obvious homages to the earthquake itself.
Without the seismic event, there would most likely have been no major architectural design change in the city. It was the key event that brought the people and the city together. Yet the nearest most Deco goers get to remembering the earthquake is post-cocktail wobbles on vintage heels. I would love to see more of a focus on the earthquake and the people’s recovery from it at a future weekend, rather than just “drink, drink, dress up, oh look at the buildings!”
The Hawke’s Bay Museum’s exhibit is a great touchstone to the event, mixing the past with the present. Modern earthquake information streamed onto screens via Geonet’s website mixes with artifacts of the 1931 earthquake. “Survivors’ Stories” documents people’s memories of that fateful day in February, and is shown in a tent constructed of the same material the original survivors’ camp tents were made of.
Alternatively, a drive out to the Park Island Cemetery and visit to the Earthquake memorial is a touching tribute. A few meters walk from the memorial is a panoramic view of a large portion of Napier. The hill, Hawke’s Bay and the raised lagoon area … the grander legacy of change brought on by the earthquake.
So, before the frivolities of the upcoming Art Deco Weekend take hold, take a moment this week to remember the earthquake, the survivors, those not so fortunate, and the city’s spirit, which rose from the ashes and rubble … making our city what it is today.
Comments
One Response to “Man About Town”
-
Elaine McKay on
January 31st, 2010 10:24 am
How about taking the Inner Harbour Tour (p23 of the Art Deco Weekend programme) This interesting tour covers the 1931 earthquake including viewing the land it reclaimed and most importantly the earthquake memorial at Park Island.
Also, the Survivors Afternoon Tea is indeed to be held on 14 February.
Got something to say?
Las Vegas of the South Pacific
January 28, 2010
Forget Napier … The Art Deco City.
According to Councillor Harry Lawson, Napier might better be called the “Las Vegas of the South Pacific!”
This was his observation as Napier Councillors marched up to the brink of taking action to reduce the number of pokies in the prim city, but then balked and retreated to study the issue some more.
Apparently much study is required when “only” two-thirds of submitters on the issue clearly wanted to reduce the number of machines in Napier in a modest attempt to curb problem gambling.
Some Councillors had a “why bother” attitude, believing that determined gamblers, faced with fewer pokies, would simply find another way to gamble. To me, this seems like not banning “P” because addicts will simply switch to another drug.
Others wrung their hands, pointing out that the current “sinking lid” policy had only reduced the number of machines in Napier from 436 in 2003 to 426 in 2009. Councillor Tania Wright observed: “What’s the point of simply endorsing a policy that so far has failed?” Everyone shrugged their shoulders, intellectually stymied. No heavy lifting in this bunch.
It’s not like there’s a shortage of pokies in Napier. In fact, Napier has more machines per population (one for every 130 people) than anywhere in the region … indeed, in New Zealand (the national average is one pokie for every 224 people).
Hence Harry Lawson’s comment.
It’s really bewildering why Councillors would struggle with this issue. What’s the case or constituency for facilitating gambling … in fact, a form of gambling that is especially addictive? Pokies are the “P” of gambling.
My guess is that Councillors have themselves become addicted … to the revenue that comes back to community via the gambling trusts. Worthy sports clubs and other community groups plead that they will “go under” without these funds.
So, instead of weighing the needs of these groups (most quite legitimate) and their contributions to social well-being, biting the bullet, and transparently budgeting ratepayer money to meet those needs and secure those benefits, Councillors prefer to fob the matter off and “pay” for them through the back door via gambling proceeds.
In the end, those least able to pay for programs that benefit the broader community effectively foot the bill. Even as they bankrupt themselves and ruin their families (and sometimes entire businesses … see here for a local example).
But hey, brave Councillors, keep those rates down!
Tom Belford
Comments
3 Responses to “Las Vegas of the South Pacific”
-
John Moriarty on
January 29th, 2010 6:15 am
BayBuzz can be a refreshingly bold voice on social issues, though it has an unfortunate tendency to ascribe unworthy motives to those (usually local government politicians and council employees) with whom it disagrees.
That aside, if BayBuzz is to do an effective job it needs to be logical: that Napier has more pokies than the national average does not necessarily mean that it has “more machines per population … than anywhere … in New Zealand”. Why lessen the effect of a compelling argument by introducing basic statistical error?
Tone down the rhetoric – the facts will do the job.
-
Mark Cleary on
January 29th, 2010 9:55 am
A disappointing lack of leadership from the Council.
In preparation for the review an extensive Social Impact Assessment was prepared by Michelle Hart. I’m surprised that anyone who read that document would have any position other than to oppose a change to the current sinking lid policy.
It’s very sad that sport and community groups have become so dependent on funding from gambling.
Former Councillor Robin Gwynn’s submission to the Committee in November is also well worth reading.
-
Robin Gwynn on
February 1st, 2010 12:17 pm
Sir,
Mr Moriarty questions BayBuzz figures regarding pokies. However, they are quite correct.Department of Internal Affairs figures show that just under 2% of the country’s losses on pokies are spent in Napier. In relation to the national average, that means that losses in Napier are about what one would expect from a city of 80,000 population, not one of 56,000.
The Napier ratio of pokie machines to people is one machine to every 130 people. The nationwide ratio is one machine to every 224 people – a massive difference.
At 1:130, Napier has the highest ratio of machines to population of any of the fifteen cities in the country. At the other end of the spectrum stands Waitakere City with 1:377.
We also have a far higher number of machines in relation to our population than the other cities in our region:
· Napier 1:130
· Hastings (District) 1:190
· Gisborne (District) 1:214
· Palmerston North City 1:158
· Masterton (District) 1:195.Robin Gwynn
Got something to say?
Recent Posts
- Cranford Hospice – Dying in Hawke’s Bay, Part 2 - February 8, 2010
- Cranford Hospice – Dying in Hawke’s Bay, Part 1 - February 7, 2010
- Hear report on Copenhagen, and more - February 6, 2010
BEE-FRIEND BAYBUZZ
Baybuzz needs your support! Become a BayBuzz Friend and receive discounts from our local merchant supporters.
-
Somebody please put me right – isn’t Hugh Ritchie involved in the marketing of irrigation systems? Wasn’t it he who was on the HBRC panel promoting the big schemes at the public presentation on irrigation last year? If I am wrong then my apologies in advance.
Snide comments about investing in Wellington property need a response.
It makes more sense for ratepayers to get a return from a gilt edged investment in Wellington, that will benefit all ratepayers and in the end can be realised, than give vast sums of ratepayers money to consultants and projects that will never see the light of day.
Water is available in CHB and nothing will be achieved by this ‘picking winners’ good looking for councillors, lollie scramble.
It would be better to spend this money on groynes at Haumoana but this could be seen as unfair use of ratepayers money as well.