Auckland’s is­sues spread to regions

The Northern Advocate - - Opinion - Ad­vo­cate,

In the ar­ti­cle by Im­ran Ali, ( Novem­ber 3), re­gard­ing the cur­rent Govern­ment buy­ing a park in Whanga¯rei for hous­ing, Dr Shane Reti said the peo­ple of the district, and not HNZ, should de­ter­mine the fu­ture shape of the city.

In our opin­ion, that state­ment is shal­low. Over the nine years that Na­tional was in Govern­ment, Na­tional al­lowed mas­sive im­mi­gra­tion of 70,000-plus per year. Where were those 630,000-plus peo­ple to live? New Zealan­ders were be­ing dis­placed, sleep­ing in parks and shop doorways. Now this prob­lem has moved to the regions.

Auck­lan­ders sit in their cars for hours each day, and 30,000-plus more cars are reg­is­tered each year, com­pound­ing the prob­lem. It is pro­posed to take pre­cious na­tive bush in the Waitak­eres for a dam, as wa­ter sup­ply will not meet the in­creased pop­u­la­tion re­quire­ments. Auck­lan­ders are pay­ing an in­creased petrol tax be­cause road­ing is now in­suf­fi­cient.

There was no pub­lic con­sul­ta­tion as to whether Auck­lan­ders wanted, or were pre­pared to pay for, mas­sive mi­gra­tion. It is ob­vi­ous that, when Auckland reached sat­u­ra­tion point, th­ese prob­lems would move to the prov­inces.

Labour in­her­ited this prob­lem and is pro­duc­ing a so­lu­tion. Do we want all of our parks and land cov­ered in houses? Do we want our house and sec­tion sizes re­duced? The long-term ram­i­fi­ca­tions would be flood­ing, as rain­wa­ter has nowhere to go ex­cept through the pub­lic stormwa­ter drainage sys­tem.

All New Zealan­ders, in­clud­ing the newly-ar­rived, must have a safe, warm house for their fam­i­lies. Point-scor­ing with hous­ing is un­ac­cept­able. Our let­ters re­gard­ing lack of in­fra­struc­ture for such high im­mi­gra­tion poli­cies were ig­nored. Tak­ing away parks, or­chards and mar­ket gar­dens for hous­ing, as hap­pened in Auckland, will have long-term reper­cus­sions. We do not want the same thing to hap­pen in Whanga¯rei. In­ten­sive hous­ing to house peo­ple im­me­di­ately is a short­term so­lu­tion. Long-term, we must think about the num­bers com­ing into the coun­try, and en­sure there is the in­fra­struc­ture in place for them — hous­ing, road­ing, elec­tric­ity, wa­ter, stormwa­ter drainage, sew­er­age retic­u­la­tion, etc.

Im­mi­gra­tion, un­less to re-unite fam­i­lies, should be put on hold un­til our in­fra­struc­ture is ad­e­quate.

We also need con­sul­ta­tion on im­mi­gra­tion and its ef­fects on our com­mu­ni­ties, as stated by Dr Reti. Bev­er­ley Aldridge/ Kath­leen Pat­tin­son Ota­matea Grey Power

Abor­tion re­al­ity

Say­ing the abor­tion law should be re­laxed be­cause that’s where “re­al­ity” is, is like say­ing “let’s put up the speed limit be­cause most peo­ple travel over it!” If you want to fit the abor­tion law to re­al­ity, why don’t you bring in some bi­ol­o­gists to say what a baby feels like when it’s go­ing through the abor­tion process? That’s re­al­ity. It’s nice and easy keep­ing it “the mother’s choice”, but that au­to­mat­i­cally ex­cludes an­other hu­man be­ing. (Won­der how the Bill of Rights deals with that?) NZ is al­ways cham­pi­oning the un­derdog (or un­der-whale as the case may be), so how is it we can be so two-faced over this?

Be­fore this is writ­ten off as a com­plete anti-abor­tion rant, I would like to sim­ply say, we can­not af­ford to re­lax abor­tion laws be­cause we

Our let­ters re­gard­ing lack of in­fra­struc­ture for such high im­mi­gra­tion poli­cies were ig­nored.

have had 1⁄ a mil­lion abor­tions in this 2 coun­try, which shows some­thing is very wrong. There­fore, I rec­om­mend tack­ling it at the other end — not more, or younger sex ed­u­ca­tion, be­cause that doesn’t work, but some home­work done on the age/race/ sit­u­a­tion end where sta­tis­tics will give a clue as to where to tar­get. J L Wik­lund Kerik­eri

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.