Marine Reserves Bill races ahead

While the America's Cup challenge is commanding a lot of media and air time, it has attracted its share of negative bleating from those who have not recognised the opportunities this mug has brought to New Zealand.

Without question the cup has been the catalyst to change the look of Auckland's waterfront and give our wider marine industry a much-welcomed boost. Boat and ship yards around the country have reported increased sales and dockings due in part to the cup activity. Meanwhile, not all the positive vibes have been associated with the white or pleasure boat market, as our workboat industry continues to produce both new and rebuilds for the commercial industry. It is nice to be part of this air of confidence in what is one of this country's oldest and most respected industries.

New tugs, charter boats, barges and ferries have all quietly slipped into the water among the fanfare of luxury white boat launchings. At Professional Skipper we continue to bring updates and insights of new launchings in our waters. In saying this, it is always helpful to let us know if you have a workboat about to hit the water.

On the subject of Professional Skipper's publication dates, I am mindful of the many telephone calls and letters I received when the last issue was late. This was due in part to my pre-occupation with the Louis Vuitton Challenger race management team.

The next issue will be on the streets in mid-April, and will be two weeks later than our traditional publication date of the beginning of the month. While this issue will be dated May/June on the cover, the number will remain in the correct sequence of issue 33.

This change, with the perceived missing of April, has been brought about by a request from our distributors to bring the bi-monthly issue in line with our calendar year, with the magazine hitting the newsstands two weeks before the month of publication.

We apologise for any inconvenience this might cause our valued readers, but in reality the magazine will be in subscriber's letterboxes ahead of the month of issue. The most pressing concern facing our industry at present evolves around marine reserves and the new Marine Reserves Bill which is currently before the Select Committee. While not wishing to knock marine reserves, their ad hoc proliferation, coupled with new cable areas and the continued growth in marine farms and urban encroachment, all contribute to lost access rights to the wider public.

The whole issue of marine reserves, freedom of access and utilisation of our coastal and sheltered waterways needs to be reviewed as a big picture.

It is unfortunate that this government, because of the pressures of appeasing coalition parties under MMP, is hell-bent on driving the new Marine Reserves Bill and its desired reforms through parliament prior to its own national Oceans Policy. While much is said on this subject by others in the magazine, I can only urge industry participants to ensure that they have had their say, either individually or collectively, through their representative organisations.

While the growth in aquaculture is extremely beneficial to New Zealand and our industry, it is important that the ability to establish marine farms, harvest from the sea or pursue the many commercial recreational pursuits for which New Zealand is noted for is not compromised or put at risk by the wishes of one minority sector group.

When environmentalists propose marine reserves, stating that it is unique or scientifically important, and quote that it's only a small area when considered within our vast economic zone, they tend to conveniently overlook the hostile nature of our exposed 200-mile zone, and other restrictions in place. These include cable and submarine pipeline protection and other legislation, such as the Fisheries and Conservation Act and regional council coastal management plans. The recreational sector is also restricted in its ability to access prime fishing and diving areas which are close to shorelines and cities. And yet we see a developing trend to propose marine reserves on the doorstep and over traditional prime recreational areas. Surely marine reserves are one area where the recreational public and various sectors of the maritime industry can get together and voice their concerns. Remember, the government is under pressure by its coalition partner, the Green Party, to deliver to remain in power. What would happen if the New Zealand public collectively voiced strong opposition to progressing the bill prior to the Oceans Policy. Would the government be confident of remaining in power in the next election, or are our memories that short?

Around the traps, our industry remains in good heart, with a positive outlook on the horizon for 2003. In this issue we bring a continued and varied choice of articles and information with something for everyone. From everyone here at Professional Skipper we wish you all a prosperous year, and look forward to joining you every couple of months.

Keith Ingram Editor
 

The Marine Reserves Bill 2002 is currently under consideration by a Parliamentary Select Committee.

The Department of Conservation and environmental groups (ECO) marine reserves agenda in several regions and the consequential impacts on fishing opportunities have concerned amateur, customary and commercial sectors for many years. Marine reserve applications for North Nelson and Parininihi in Taranaki have failed to gain concurrence from the Minister of Fisheries. Applications for the Wellington South Coast and Te Matuku Bay in the Hauraki Gulf have stalled as a consequence of legal challenge and instructions from the Prime Minister and Cabinet that, in the context of the government's proclaimed bio-diversity policies, DoC and the Ministry of Fisheries should sort out their respective roles in terms of the concurrence process enshrined in the existing Marine Reserves Act.

Notwithstanding those delays, proposals and applications continue to be made under the old act, the most recent being for Volkner Rocks in the Bay of Plenty, and a proposal for Tiritiri Matangi Island in the Hauraki Gulf.

The proposed Marine Reserves Bill removes the concurrence role of the Minister of Fisheries, and expands the scope of the existing act to close areas to fishing. Fisheries correspondent Ray Ryan is an occasional contributor to fishing journals. He has a background in the commercial and charter fishing industries in New Zealand and Australia. Ryan has compiled an overview of Marine Reserves Bill issues for Professional Skipper's readers. The Marine Reserves Bill currently under consideration by Parliament has significant potential to exclude fishing from areas that have been sustainably fished by generations of commercial, customary, and amateur fisherfolk. Loss of access to established fishing grounds is a consequence of this, and already established legislation is a significant risk to all legitimate fishing sectors.

As a matter of course, all those who qualify as 'Extractive users' within the marine environment must anticipate, and where possible pre-empt, the agendas of environmental and animal rights groups, and those politicians who adopt populist environmental philosophies to win favour and authority from their constituents. However, the fishing sectors must accept that they can no longer consider fisheries management in isolation from the effects of fishing. Sustaining stocks and species is an essential management consideration, but stable or even increased fish stocks alone are not a sufficient achievement in the current political and social environment.

To be truly effective in advocating the protection of fishing rights and opportunities, there must be better communication and understanding with and between sector groups and their constituents. There must also be strong debate and advocacy to politicians and bureaucrats on behalf of the legitimate fishing sectors. The Marine Reserves Bill can only be made less threatening to the fishing sectors by a well coordinated and deliberate lobby based on intelligent and credible policy and science. In this instance, coordination and timing are going to be everything, given the Labour Government's preferred legislative timetable for a new Marine Reserves Act, and their stated commitment to the increased protection of New Zealand's marine biodiversity. Marine reserves can be a useful tool for protecting special, at-risk ecosystems. But they must be seen in the context of other tools available to manage, mitigate or eliminate threats to the marine environment: over-fishing is prevented by the 1996 Fisheries Act's main tool for ensuring sustainable fisheries, the Quota Management System, or QMS, potential damage to the marine environment from fishing is prevented by a range of Fisheries Act and voluntary mechanisms, including restrictions on types of activity or area closures land-based discharges into the marine environment, eg from farms or sewerage systems, are managed through the Resource Management Act, and the RMA and the Crown Minerals Act manage potential damage from mining or oil exploration.

In other words, there is a whole suite of tools that have been designed to target specific threats to the marine environment and deal with them. These tools work. New Zealand's entire Exclusive Economic Zone is managed under the Fisheries Act on a sustainable basis. The QMS is one of the best mechanisms in the world for controlling fishing effort. The control of fishing effort is recognised internationally as the single most important step any country can take in managing any environmental impacts of fishing. Good management of any resource, whether land-based or marine, involves balancing costs and benefits from any change in use. This is the basis of the Resource Management Act, where economic and environmental impacts are weighed, as well as alternatives to the proposed action, under section 32. This process ensures that the outcome caters to New Zealand's core environmental and economic interests. This principle of balance is also enshrined in the RMA's purpose and in the purpose of the Fisheries Act.

In contrast, the Marine Reserves Bill does not have a process that will ensure that the costs and benefits of a new proposed reserve are balanced. Economic and social costs are inevitable from the creation of a new marine reserve, because it completely closes off the area to existing sustainable commercial, customary and recreational extractive use. Myths about marine reserves They help fish stocks recover. Marine reserves are not a tool for managing fish stocks. Conserving fish stocks and preventing over-fishing are the purposes of the Fisheries Act. That's why we have catch limits, fisheries plans and so on.

New Zealand's EEZ is already managed under the Fisheries Act to conserve fish stocks for future generations and prevent over-fishing. Science doesn't support claims that marine reserves help fish stocks to recover and spill over into neighbouring fisheries. In fact, because New Zealand's fisheries are managed by setting sustainable catch limits, marine reserves will simply displace fishing activity, and this may lead to undesirable effects such as depleting fish stocks in adjacent areas.

They deliver social benefits like recreation, tourism and education opportunities. These activities are not dependent on a marine reserve, and are therefore not valid reasons for creating one. Recreation, tourism and educational opportunities are not incompatible with sustainable use of marine resources. In fact, recreational and game fishing opportunities are lost when a marine reserve is created. Similarly, coastal education experiences are in no way incompatible with fishing. There is no need to ban all sustainable extractive use of marine resources to allow for recreation, tourism and education - so these cannot be reasons for creating a marine reserve. Any such zero-impact activities that are allowed to take place after the creation of a marine reserve should be incidental to its creation, not the purpose for it.

What happens to fishing activity when a marine reserve is established? Fishers in the area will stop, or move to the reduced area outside the reserve which is still available for fishing. If they move, fishing activity will increase in that reduced area. This is likely to lead to increased conflicts within and between different types of fishers (customary, commercial and recreational), and greater competition to catch fewer fish, and could ultimately result in reduced catch limits for the fishery, ie fewer fish for everyone. If fishers stop fishing, there will be social and economic costs for them and their communities.

What does the research say? Internationally, evidence that marine reserves benefit fisheries management when fishing effort is already controlled (eg through catch limits) is weak. In New Zealand, there have been no studies that demonstrate marine reserves 'Create more fish for everyone' outside the reserve boundary. Underlying motives? In many respects, no-take marine reserves are a politician's dream. They are easy, cheap, convenient and popular. So what if a few dirty fishermen are put out of business? Closing areas to fishing becomes 'All care and no responsibility' for the marine reserve proponents, and ensures that the government or local authorities require no real effort to manage activities within the reserve boundaries. There are therefore no ongoing management costs, apart from some policing when locals start complaining about fish thieves - just draw the lines on the map and shut it down.

An added attraction is the possibility of DoC generating income by selling eco-tourism concessions. 'Not fishing' is not an option for those who rely on fishing for economic, social, cultural or spiritual reasons. Fishing interests must ensure that the Select Committee process delivers an act that provides sufficient protection of existing user rights, and considers compensating existing users displaced from fishing grounds on the pretext of some wider public benefit accruing from protecting and preserving marine ecosystems within declared no-take areas.

To Top

Scientists on board the research vessel Tangaroa came across some formidable fire-power when they began mapping the ocean floor between the North Island and the Kermadec Islands last year.

They discovered more than 50 volcanoes, six of them as big as Mt Taranaki, looming out of the seabed. The largest was more than 20km in diameter and 2500m high, while the summit of another rose to just 65m below the ocean's surface. They also discovered a new caldera that forms a 5km-wide hole to a depth of about 500m below the seabed. The crew used deep-sea corers and dredges to collect hundreds of volcanic rock samples, and identified significant new areas of fauna thriving around hydrothermal vents. Their presence had remained unnoticed until revealed by the Simrad EM300 multi-channel seismic system towed behind the RV Tangaroa that can 'Look into' the seafloor to about 2km deep to provide important information on the sediments and rocks underneath our oceans.

The maps are providing new insights into active geological processes affecting the seabed around New Zealand. This research has revealed the impact of seamounts rafted by tectonic movements against New Zealand which have caused massive and chaotic submarine landslides along the continental slope. To the scientists from the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research on board, it was only one of dozens of different projects they have carried out on the 70m Tangaroa, New Zealand's premier research vessel.

The 12-year-old vessel has been owned and operated by NIWA Vessel Management Ltd since 1995 specifically for fisheries stock assessment and marine research, including oceanography, marine biology, geology and geophysics. The government bought the Tangaroa before the establishment of NIWA as a state-owned enterprise to support its other fisheries research vessel Kaharoa as its principal oceanographic and deepwater fisheries research ship. The Ministry of Fisheries had operated both vessels.

At 18 times the size of its land mass, New Zealand's marine area is one of the biggest in the world, and contains immense resources. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has changed the traditional definition of what constitutes a continental shelf, and Tangaroa has carried out extensive research for Land Information New Zealand to support our claims on this enormous territory. NIWA's scientific staff have collaborated with others to provide many such services, such as bathymetric and high resolution seismic profiles around the Campbell Plateau, the Colville Ridge, Lord Howe Rise and off Fiordland.

Tangaroa can carry up to 44 personnel for as long as 60 days at sea, and operates throughout New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone, and from the tropics to Antarctica. The Southern Ocean is no place for the faint-hearted, whether you're there for pleasure, racing or research, as her skipper, Andrew Leachman, recalled in 2000. Tangaroa was under charter to the Antarctic Division of the Australian Department of the Environment. On board, 24 Australian and Italian scientists were surveying the history of the Antarctic Continental Slope using sediment cores, seismic surveys and other techniques. Leachman and the officers on board were also acting as inspectors on behalf of the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as part of the campaign against illegal fishing for toothfish.

During the voyage the winds off the Wilkes Land coast of Antarctica blew a steady 60 knots, gusting to 90 knots. 'It might have been higher, but our anemometer stops at 90 knots. The air temperature was -20 degrees Celsius. I never bothered to calculate the wind chill factor. I was far too busy trying to keep the Tangaroa going fast enough to steer, yet not so fast to cause spray to cover the ship. Down there, at 67 degrees south, the spray sticks to steel. Two-inch thick pipes can become 12in thick within a few minutes. Wind? How about force four to force 10 within 10 minutes Pancake ice formed another problem, as it could quickly build up under the tow cables, lifting the units up on to the surface of the ice. They water ski ... ice ski ... behind the vessel on the surface' says Leachman. 'That doesn't give you very good data'

Tangaroa is well equipped for her duties. Because some of New Zealand's most important commercial fish species (such as orange roughy) are found at great depths, she can trawl down to 2000m. She can also accommodate a wide range of commercial and research mid-water and bottom trawl gear. Powerful, low-pressure hydraulic winches feature up-to-date auto-trawl technology. Electronic monitoring systems give full information on gear depth, door spread and net openings. Acoustic techniques developed by NIWA are becoming increasingly significant in estimating the abundance of fish stocks, particularly spawning schools of hoki and orange roughy. Sound is transmitted from a towed body, and the echoes from the fish are recorded and plotted on an echogram. The data is then scaled up to calculate the total biomass over the surveyed area. Scientific studies carried out from Tangaroa include marine biological, biodiversity and oceanographic research, such as ocean currents, salinity and temperatures. Understanding ocean current patterns is vital in the effective management of coastal and marine resources and hazards, and increases our understanding of small-scale variations in the marine environment.

The science vessels' capabilities are continually expanding, and several years ago NIWA incorporated Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers into its oceanographic research. The profiler transmits acoustic pulses at different angles below the vessel. These pulses travel down through the water column and are reflected back by small particles in the water. The water current speed relative to the vessel can be calculated from the difference between the transmitted and received acoustic frequencies. NIWA says it is also studying the options of expanding its multi-beam echosounder with a new, shallow-water system which can survey seabeds less than 150m deep with much greater detail. Her ability to penetrate ice means Tangaroa is the only research vessel in New Zealand and the southwestern Pacific which can work in the Ross Sea Dependency in Antarctica.

This versatility places high demand on the Tangaroa and her crew, including from overseas research agencies. As a result she operates at maximum capacity, and is at sea for about 320 to 340 days per year, so her two crews follow very tight turnarounds between voyages. Most of her time is taken up with NIWA's own research activities for the New Zealand government, but she has also carried out research charters for commercial fisheries, and biodiversity research for the New Zealand fishing industry and the New Caledonian and Australian governments, along with surveys for the offshore oil and gas industry and for submarine cables and oil pipelines. Tangaroa carries an automatic weather station with sensors to record a wide range of weather data. She has a full range of facilities for sorting, preserving, processing and storing fish and other biological material, and numerous wet and dry laboratories, including a special plankton laboratory. Any fish not used for research are processed using the fish factory that can process up to 16 tonnes of fish per day. The freezer can hold 350 tonnes of processed fish. She has a photographic dark room and a 6m emergency survival container for voyages to Antarctica which provides all the basic survival facilities and food for the ship's complement should she experience a total 'Blackout', ie no engine power.

On board is a 16-tonne Effer 80,000 5S crane, the largest knuckle-boom-type crane in New Zealand. The crane boom can telescope up on itself when not in use so it takes up minimal space, and is rated for use in all sea states. The Effer crane gives the crew greater flexibility at sea and during tight turnarounds in port, when there is often a need to transfer large amounts of gear and stores. Specialised heavy lifts still need to be planned for. However, the addition of the crane on the starboard waist all but eliminates the need to rely on shore-side dock cranes and the associated costs of having them on standby at all hours. Other equipment carried on board includes various small airgun systems, a magnetometer, a gravity meter and a sonobuoy system.

The Tangaroa has a range of communal spaces, including a mess room, three lounges with television and video equipment, a smoking lounge, a conference room which seats 14, a fitness centre and even a Japanese bath and a sauna. See www.niwa.co.nz

'Customer service - or not...' by Steve Punter

As we lean into the front end of 2003, with some of us having overfed, over-drunk and overstressed ourselves during the so-called 'Festive' season, I find myself returning to a topic I wrote about nearly 10 years ago. I refer to customer service, or should I say, the appalling lack of it in general terms. Nothing seems to have changed in that time.

I think the hour has come for us all to get tough. The customer pays for service, but all too often doesn't get it. The employer pays wages so that staff will provide service. All too often they don't, but still accept their wages. The employment agreement is a two-way document, providing rewards in return for performance.

This article is a 'Call to action'. The elderly lady, frail of bone and having suffered a heart attack and a stroke within days of each other, had fallen about a metre from the bed to the hard linoleum floor, and lain there for some 20 minutes or so before being discovered. Why did this happen? The sides of the bed had been left in the 'down' position, despite the presence of a large notice Sellotaped to the wall above her head which said, in un-missably large letters, 'Do not leave bedsides down'. This sign had been placed there by the patient's family, after a similar event, in an effort to overcome the apathy of the nursing staff.

The charge nurse, being called to account for it, said, 'well, what do you suggest? We tell them. We train them. What else can I do?

I dunno about you, but the words 'Fire the culprit. Very publicly' come to mind. But of course, that didn't happen. Which hospital was it? It doesn't matter. It could be any hospital in New Zealand.

Imagine a 747 pilot 'Forgetting' to lower the landing gear on his final approach to the airport. Imagine the air accident inspector on television shrugging his shoulders and saying 'Ah hell. What can you do? We tell them, we train them. What else can we do? Still, 300 dead passengers and crew (not forgetting an awfully expensive aircraft), is a little different from one defenceless old lady falling out of bed.

Four years on, in a rest home, the same elderly lady has a fall, hurts her ankle, is examined by a registered nurse, and for the next four days is encouraged to walk on it. It was only when she could no longer bear the pain that the ankle was x-rayed and the broken bone revealed. Believe me, a lot of fuss was created at the time - once again initiated and driven along by the family. So called 'Hearings' took place, but... the passage of time... the analogy of the bucket of water comes to mind, where you can stick your hand in, thrash it about as much as you like, but seconds after you take your hand out, the water is exactly the same as it was before. Which rest home was it? It doesn't matter. It's the third rest home this family has tried.

To take it further, as in the hospital case above, would mean contacting an advocate, more hearings, a dubious outcome as to whether any real change would occur, and, in the background, fear of retaliation against the vulnerable patient. So life goes on.

In a large retail store, part of a chain that spends millions in advertising, a young male checkout operator finished the current customer, never once having looked at her or acknowledged her in any way, picked up a 'Closed' sign, smacked it down on the conveyor, told the last served customer to 'Tell the others I've closed', and walked off. There were 10 other customers in the queue. Nobody complained verbally, they all just shuffled off to join the back of another queue. Which retailer was it? Would it change anything if I told you? His manager was told, and did nothing.

Being aware of something doesn't mean action will be taken. An airline decided (for unexplained reasons) to change its flight schedule for a particular flight, and 'Instructed' all its travel agents, who then had to contact 250 passengers, who all then had to change their hotel bookings, other flights, security and work arrangements, and in many cases incurred additional costs in doing so. Does the airline care? Apparently not, since yours truly is unable to elicit a response from its so-called 'Customer relations' department.

Arriving in New Zealand, a plane-load of tired passengers entered the customs hall and were confronted with three 'Holding pens' (what other label would you use for a system that pens humans like cattle). One was labelled Disabled and Parents with Children, another was marked Express, and the third pen was unmarked. Customs officials were waiting in the first two booths, and the third was unattended. Most of the passengers did not fit the description of the first two pens, and filed along and formed a solid mass at the unattended booth. One wheelchair-bound passenger arrived at the disabled booth and was processed. Some parents with children turned up and were processed. Various special persons (I have no idea of the qualities one must possess to be this special) went through the Express queue. Still the third booth remained empty, and the solid mass waited, and waited. Then the muttering started, and got louder.

One of the customs officers picked up her phone and was heard to say 'Tell (unidentifiable name) to get some help down here or come and deal with the complaints'

More waiting ensured. Meanwhile, another plane had landed and a new mass of passengers arrived, moving down to the other end of the hall where, you guessed it, customs officers appeared and started processing them. At this point, people in the 'Ignored' queue started to talk loudly about simply walking through the booths. Conditioned to obedience even in the face of raw stupidity, nobody did. Perhaps a night in the cells didn't appeal. It didn't to me, but I was almost angry enough to give it a go. But when you have the kind of big stick that customs has, you can wave it whenever and at whomever you like. Finally, the two existing officers, having nothing else to do, condescended to start taking people from the front of the ignored queue.

Why this happened is difficult to fathom. Airlines publish flight schedules and planes do not arrive unexpectedly. The maximum number of people that a plane can discharge is a known figure. It's not rocket science - any schoolchild could work it out easily enough. If that's the case, one is left to assume that this appalling treatment is the result of a compliance mindset: going through customs is required by law, you can't get into the country without being 'Processed', therefore there is no need to have any concept of customer service. Pen them up like cattle and treat them how you like - the victims have no option. Do unto others? By now you will have sensed that yours truly was in the ignored queue, at the front of it, and while my waiting time was shorter than those behind me, I have filed a letter of complaint with the Customs Department.

Unlike the airline mentioned above, at least customs had the courtesy to respond and say they will investigate the matter, although since a month has gone by one wonders how long it takes to ask a few simple questions and get some answers.

These are just a few examples; I have many more, as I'm sure you do too. There is another side to this picture that at first would seem to soften it, but in fact makes it even more perplexing. Inside each of the offending organisations are people who do care, and who shine a faintly flickering light, like a grain of gold glimpsed at the bottom of the prospector's pan, shyly peeking through gaps in the dirt on top. The same airline that treated its passenger with complete disregard in Sydney after destroying his suitcase, has a gold nugget at its Auckland service desk who did everything the cretin in Sydney could and should have done.

Since our two dominant airlines seem determined to merge despite the objections of the majority, the fate of what passes for customer service in our air industry appears to be that of a discarded boarding pass in a strong breeze. It was competition from Ansett that finally drove the slothful beast that was Air New Zealand to finally and reluctantly give us air bridges to board aircraft with, after years of forcing hapless customers to stand in the pouring, horizontal, rain at the bottom of a boarding ladder. How quickly some forget what a monopoly does. With United's planned exit from the playing field, it can only get worse.

One can only hope the Commerce Commission has the testicular fortitude to stand up for the fate of the customer. In my chosen profession we are supposed to be in the business of providing skills and knowledge that will allow positive behavioural change. But the thing I am constantly being confronted with is that, in some cases, customer service training fails miserably in the attempt, and I am having to admit to myself, albeit reluctantly, that there are bigger forces at play that I cannot reasonably influence. One of them is the organisation's leadership as it cascades down from the top. If the leadership is apathetic about customer service, there really is no point in applying training at the operator level, since the leaders will either not provide the role modelling required or not provide the resources necessary to supply the service.

Simply put, if there are 50 customers at the supermarket checkout, only two checkout operators on duty, and the manager doesn't care, no amount of training of the checkout operators will solve the problem. Another force I cannot influence is that of apathy in the so-called service person. Customer service, when you come right down to it, can be simplistically defined as 'Do unto others as you would have done to you'. If the service provider really doesn't give a rat's backside for his or her fellow human, training is not going to fix it.

I really do believe that those 'Gold nuggets' mentioned above have something inside them that others simply don't have - a genuine desire to help other people, and who 'Get their kicks' from having an appreciative customer. Give me a bunch of people like that, give me management who believe, and are prepared to act as role models and provide the proper team resources. I'll supply the skills and knowledge, and together we'll create a customer service team that can't be beaten. If all the above seems a bit of a moan, it isn't intended to be. I'd like it to be a call to action. If I could, I'd start an action group called something like Customers against Crappy Service, where members undertake to fight tooth and boarding pass against apathy and bad treatment, and do it by speaking out, publicly, right there where the action is, instead of waiting to moan to their partner when they get home.

A friend of mine at New Zealand Post said to me, in answer to my point about long queues, 'You've' only got to ask, you know. They'll open another counter' One assumes from this that the staff at Post Shops all have impaired vision. Why were ATM machines so well received in New Zealand? Perhaps it's because a machine is less likely to abuse you. You don't expect an ATM to treat you with anything other than impersonal machine efficiency, which it does very well. Therefore your expectations are satisfied. Ask around and see how many people have embraced Internet banking. You may be surprised, and the reason is the same. Join me in the checkout queue, or the bank queue (if I ever have to go there), or the one at New Zealand Post, by chanting loudly 'Open another checkout, open another checkout'

Keep it up until embarrassment finally forces the offenders to do what they should have done willingly under their own initiative, and before it became a problem. The next time you receive casual, indifferent or negligent 'Service', join me in not accepting it. Either that, or stand accused of the same indifference which, of course, perpetuates it. If you're a manager or an employer reading this, perhaps you need to reflect on the comment I made about employment agreements earlier. The law requires that you treat staff fairly. It does not require you to continue to employ people who cannot, or will not, perform to the standard you require. Recruit well, train well and motivate well, and you can expect and demand results. Your staff would soon complain if you only paid them 80 percent of their wages, so why should you accept anything less than 100 percent output? I am a little weary of managers moaning to me 'You can't get rid of staff these days'.

I teach employment law, and I represent people up to and including tribunal and authority level. If you have a staff member who is not performing, despite strenuous efforts, including retraining and performance counselling, and despite informal warnings, give me a call. If you've got an agreement that complies with the ERA and a clear disciplinary process, I'll show you how to do it fairly, within the law, and in a surprisingly short time. If you haven't got those documents, I'll show you where to start. It'll just take a little longer, that's all.

I'm a trainer by profession, with a penchant for supporting and defending the underdog. However, I have also learned from experience that there are some things even training can't fix, and I know when to call it a day.

To Top

This is just a selection of the articles in NZ Professional Skipper
- click here for subscription details to receive your own copy with ALL the content