Bernard Hickey, Peter Bale, Cathrine Dyer & Robert Patman chat about the week in geopolitics, the economy & climate; plus special guest Shamubeel Eaqub on the construction industry's challenges
I think if you follow the money i.e. look at their big donors and where their interests lie, it becomes fairly obvious which way they'll be obliged to go.
Definitely agree with Peter about 'peer reviewing' the Climate Commission report with Cathrine, if she is willing. Yes to the implications across economy, global relations and the rest. Not a topic for the coalition to brush off with 'narrative' - - or any future govt for that matter.
Oh Bernard yes . . . 'independent arbiter'. You're not a bad candidate. 🌞
The miserable, uninspired, concrete moats surrounding intensive near-windowless terraces being super-packed at volume in outer West Auckland is reducing joy in the sense of place and it's lovely undulating views and is too fast for sustainable social cohesiveness and infrastructure to keep up.
How should intensification strengthen communities rather than merely increase dwelling numbers?
it's definitely time we got rid of these pseudo-modesty stories we tell ourselves,
ie 'tall poppies, No 8 wire mentality, punching above our weight' etc.
because it is out of date, not particularly accurate and seems to be a national self-preening pastime.
Good comments too about those 'tall poppies' running the country at present.
Racist, sexist and out of date. Well, they campaigned on taking the country backwards and they have certainly done that. Not too good on the wire or the weight either!
Catherine Dyer has raised an important point: New Zealand is not especially good at developing the kind of integrated intelligence needed to understand the country as a whole and organize effectively around that understanding.
We often treat productivity, climate change, infrastructure, institutional capability, social cohesion, and wider dynamic shifts as separate problems. Yet they interact within the same national system. Addressing them requires more than individual policies or short-term political responses. It requires a stronger collective capacity to interpret what is happening, understand how institutions and sectors depend upon one another, and translate that understanding into coherent social organization.
That is part of the responsibility of governing a country seriously. We should resist the nihilistic conclusion that the challenges are simply too complex, entrenched, or politically difficult to manage. New Zealand still has an obligation to develop the intelligence, institutional capability, and forms of coordination needed to move to the next level in its management of national development.
Mr Eaqub, the figure that only 6% of construction workers are still in the same job five years later is striking.
Your explanation makes sense: construction is highly cyclical, the project pipeline is uncertain, firms come and go, and workers cannot be confident that the job or even the business will still exist several years ahead. That makes investment in training difficult, and when people leave, the industry loses not only skills but also the practical knowledge and relationships that make teams productive.
I wonder, though, whether there is also a less visible human dimension.
Construction workers spend their days creating buildings that will eventually be warm, comfortable and socially useful, but they do the work inside spaces that are still unfinished. Sites can be cold, draughty, noisy, dusty and visually barren. They are organized around production, not around being pleasant places in which people spend a large part of their lives. We may also require asking whether construction work is psychologically, physically and socially sustainable over a working life.
The physical demands also accumulate. Lifting, climbing, kneeling, repetitive movement and exposure may gradually make the work harder to sustain, even where there is no single major injury.
Construction can certainly provide pride, skill, camaraderie and the satisfaction of saying, “I helped build that.” But perhaps retention requires more than a reliable pipeline of projects. It may also require better site environments, greater recognition of workers’ contributions, and credible pathways into supervision, training, quality assurance or other less physically demanding roles as people gain experience.
The industry may be asking how to keep workers without fully asking what it is asking them to remain inside. What it is like to live that job, to experience it.
Small operators, contractors, also need to pay or support their workers in any case, on days and in weeks when there is no work, when the operator has no contract but is looking for a contract. The timing is so crucial, because their clients often say that they will not use that particular contractor if it means the cost includes more or less days and weeks that are not visibly related to the work the client wants to have done. This can create friction inside small operators lives and their workers lives, it is rife with uncertainties, and teams or team members can split because of that.
Well said, Prof Patman.
I don't see how it is a change of government if Top gets 5% in the sense that yes, a new party comes in...but it's not clear who they will side with.
I think if you follow the money i.e. look at their big donors and where their interests lie, it becomes fairly obvious which way they'll be obliged to go.
Yes, 100%
Definitely agree with Peter about 'peer reviewing' the Climate Commission report with Cathrine, if she is willing. Yes to the implications across economy, global relations and the rest. Not a topic for the coalition to brush off with 'narrative' - - or any future govt for that matter.
Oh Bernard yes . . . 'independent arbiter'. You're not a bad candidate. 🌞
Yes to: need an awful lot of housing.
No to: a lot of awful housing.
The miserable, uninspired, concrete moats surrounding intensive near-windowless terraces being super-packed at volume in outer West Auckland is reducing joy in the sense of place and it's lovely undulating views and is too fast for sustainable social cohesiveness and infrastructure to keep up.
How should intensification strengthen communities rather than merely increase dwelling numbers?
Prof Patman knows what he is talking about
Good comments from Bernard at the end,
it's definitely time we got rid of these pseudo-modesty stories we tell ourselves,
ie 'tall poppies, No 8 wire mentality, punching above our weight' etc.
because it is out of date, not particularly accurate and seems to be a national self-preening pastime.
Good comments too about those 'tall poppies' running the country at present.
Racist, sexist and out of date. Well, they campaigned on taking the country backwards and they have certainly done that. Not too good on the wire or the weight either!
Catherine Dyer has raised an important point: New Zealand is not especially good at developing the kind of integrated intelligence needed to understand the country as a whole and organize effectively around that understanding.
We often treat productivity, climate change, infrastructure, institutional capability, social cohesion, and wider dynamic shifts as separate problems. Yet they interact within the same national system. Addressing them requires more than individual policies or short-term political responses. It requires a stronger collective capacity to interpret what is happening, understand how institutions and sectors depend upon one another, and translate that understanding into coherent social organization.
That is part of the responsibility of governing a country seriously. We should resist the nihilistic conclusion that the challenges are simply too complex, entrenched, or politically difficult to manage. New Zealand still has an obligation to develop the intelligence, institutional capability, and forms of coordination needed to move to the next level in its management of national development.
Mr Eaqub, the figure that only 6% of construction workers are still in the same job five years later is striking.
Your explanation makes sense: construction is highly cyclical, the project pipeline is uncertain, firms come and go, and workers cannot be confident that the job or even the business will still exist several years ahead. That makes investment in training difficult, and when people leave, the industry loses not only skills but also the practical knowledge and relationships that make teams productive.
I wonder, though, whether there is also a less visible human dimension.
Construction workers spend their days creating buildings that will eventually be warm, comfortable and socially useful, but they do the work inside spaces that are still unfinished. Sites can be cold, draughty, noisy, dusty and visually barren. They are organized around production, not around being pleasant places in which people spend a large part of their lives. We may also require asking whether construction work is psychologically, physically and socially sustainable over a working life.
The physical demands also accumulate. Lifting, climbing, kneeling, repetitive movement and exposure may gradually make the work harder to sustain, even where there is no single major injury.
Construction can certainly provide pride, skill, camaraderie and the satisfaction of saying, “I helped build that.” But perhaps retention requires more than a reliable pipeline of projects. It may also require better site environments, greater recognition of workers’ contributions, and credible pathways into supervision, training, quality assurance or other less physically demanding roles as people gain experience.
The industry may be asking how to keep workers without fully asking what it is asking them to remain inside. What it is like to live that job, to experience it.
Small operators, contractors, also need to pay or support their workers in any case, on days and in weeks when there is no work, when the operator has no contract but is looking for a contract. The timing is so crucial, because their clients often say that they will not use that particular contractor if it means the cost includes more or less days and weeks that are not visibly related to the work the client wants to have done. This can create friction inside small operators lives and their workers lives, it is rife with uncertainties, and teams or team members can split because of that.