No role ex­ists

Central Leader - - Letters -

I was in­ter­ested to read that coun­cil­lor Cathy Casey has sup­pos­edly re­signed in dis­gust from her role as the coun­cil’s child and fam­ily ad­vo­cate. That would be quite a state­ment if the role ac­tu­ally ex­isted.

How­ever it doesn’t, and hence why coun­cil hasn’t named an­other per­son to re­place her as ad­vo­cate.

As some­one who has worked for Auck­land City Coun­cil and cur­rently works along­side the coun­cil, I un­der­stand from of­fi­cials that un­der this new coun­cil no one had been ap­pointed to be its child and fam­ily ad­vo­cate.

In fact even un­der the pre­vi­ous Hub­bard ad­min­is­tra­tion, while a Child and Fam­ily Ac­tion Plan was en­dorsed by a com­mit­tee res­o­lu­tion in Au­gust 2006, no com­mit­tee ever for­mally ap­pointed coun­cil­lor Casey as the coun­cil’s of­fi­cial ad­vo­cate for such mat­ters.

Her ti­tle was merely a po­lit­i­cal one.

Given there’s been a ma­jor po­lit­i­cal change at coun­cil, coun­cil­lor Casey did not vol­un­tar­ily re­sign from this post.

Rather, Auck­land vot­ers ef­fec­tively re­jected this role and oth­ers at the last lo­cal elec­tions.

If coun­cil­lor Casey is so pas­sion­ate about so­cial pol­icy, the big­gest po­lit­i­cal dif­fer­ence she could make would be as a mem­ber of par­lia­ment. CAMERON BREWER

Pt Che­va­lier

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.