Letters to the Editor

Denial of science

In response to Rob Paterson’s letter (Ideology or idiocy? December 20) in regard to climate change, to state that, “No one has even established that man has anything much to do with climate change” is a denial of the science and the overwhelming evidence in support.

The knowledge of greenhouse gases and their properties have been around for more than 150 years. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, in 1896, was first to use basic principles in chemistry to calculate to what the increase in CO2 levels will raise the Earth’s surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

He concluded that the burning of fossil fuels, and other combustion processes, if on a large enough scale will cause global temperatures to rise. The conclusions of his work have been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science.

Up until about 1980 the signature of CO2 on the Earth’s climate system was too small to separate out from the natural variations, such as solar activity and ocean circulation. However this has changed over the past four decades, with the increasing rate of CO2 being added to the atmosphere coinciding with the upward trend in temperature. Natural causes can be ruled out, as there has been no increase in the sun’s output.

Unless the world can stop adding to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, future generations are going to be faced with the dire consequences. Although New Zealand accounts for only a tiny fraction of the global greenhouse gas emissions we rank high on a per capita base.

Rob Paterson’s political spin does a disservice to matters that have to be urgently addressed. RAY PATERSON

Kaimaumau

Pay-back time

That the government should even contemplate committing our country to the UN Global Migration Compact is horrific to consider. The Compact is in line with the left wing Marxist agenda that presently controls the United Nations, with the intention of gaining full International control, and removing national sovereignty and governance.

The proposed migrant movement is from east to west, never the other way.

The majority of former colonial countries, a very large number, who, with voting rights equal to all other nations, see this as pay-back time for historical injustices blamed on the major colonial powers. The Marxists, having failed under Stalin and Mao, in spite of the hundred million of their citizens exterminated, now see this as another way of gaining international control, and have persuaded the formerly colonised nations support them.

Their successes among the morally naive and historically ignorant but highly altruistic students have led to left wing control of teaching faculties in most Western universities, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand et al. An apathetic public are unaware of this threat to their national identity, and are kept uninformed by a less than objective media.

Wake up New Zealand. Be concerned, be very, very concerned. BRYAN JOHNSON

Omokoroa

A raw nerve?

Gee whiz, talk about a raw nerve, and Dr Dean Myburgh’s reaction to ‘Stalemate’ (letters December 13).

Maybe he should consider that if he were to act rather than react, manage his staff more effectively, and spend some time visiting the council clients, he may find out more about the problems that exist.

Good managers should cover the ground and make surprise visits with and without staff. It is the best way to keep informed as to the performance of employees, and the need for correction and action.

So how about a New Year resolution Dean, and start doing your job, and lead by example? That way this time next year we will all be full of praise for you and your staff.

MURRAY SMITH

Cooper’s Beach

The end is nigh

Members of Parliament should not be seduced by David Seymour’s proposed amendments to his euthanasia Bill.

Right to Life contends that David Seymour knew from the outset that in order to get any euthanasia Bill across the line he had to ‘shoot for the stars’ in order to ‘get to the moon’. He knows that once any euthanasia Bill is enacted in Parliament, then it will be only a matter of time before the criteria for those

eligible for euthanasia death will be widened.

There has always been the danger to the vulnerable inherent in any change to our current Crimes Act legislation. Man is a pragmatic creature, and in an increasingly secular society, that has no foundation of objective morality, pragmatic measures will soon see safeguards eroded, with an everwidening class of persons eligible to be killed by a ‘doctor’.

David Seymour made the astounding statement on TV One News (December 13) that following his proposed amendments, there was, now no reason that the Hon Maggie Barry – who has recently submitted a Private Members Palliative Care Bill to the ballot – should not support his Bill. Such a statement shows a complete lack of understanding of why she and others oppose any euthanasia Bill, which permits doctors to kill their patients.

Right to Life commends Members of Parliament for protecting the vulnerable in our community by opposing his End of Life Choice Bill currently with the Justice Select Committee. They are encouraged to avoid being enticed to support this Bill by the seductive amendments now being proposed.

Right to Life is delighted that David Seymour has now recognised that the majority of Members of Parliament are opposed to his EOLCB, and that his Bill will suffer an ignoble defeat at its second reading in March. This Bill is poorly drafted, and is a threat to the most vulnerable members of our community, the aged, the disabled and the seriously ill.

David Seymour should also recognise that the majority of New Zealanders are fiercely opposed to his contentious Bill. A careful analysis of the more than 36,000 written submissions to the Justice Committee is being conducted by the Care Alliance. This undertaking is not complete, but to date it reveals that 92 per cent are opposed to the Bill.

The Justice Committee has a moral obligation to finalise its report back to Parliament reflecting the overwhelming opposition to this dangerous Bill, expressed by the public in their submissions.

David Seymour is desperate to save his Bill, and is now proposing three amendments: for Parliament to allow doctors to kill only those in a terminal condition or to assist in their suicide, and to exclude patients who have a mental health condition.

David Seymour does not understand that the Bill is fundamentally flawed because it undermines the total prohibition against the taking of innocent human life, which is the foundation of the law and medicine.

There is no amendment that can be made to this Bill that will make it acceptable.

Right to Life earnestly requests that the media, which should be at the service of the community, now withdraw support for this dangerous Bill. The media have an important role in protecting our community by upholding and defending the prohibition of the medical profession to care for their patients and not to kill them.

KEN ORR Right to Life

Nowhere to go

I wanted a Christmas present I did not think Santa could, or would, deliver me. I am not being selfish or unreasonable, but just realistic, because what I want is a political party I can vote for at the next general election.

As one who feels currently disenfranchised, I have been looking at what the two main parties have to offer. Both have their good points, but are too bogged down by their negatives to be real options.

I quite like National’s pragmatism and realism, but it is too beholden to the top end of the business community for my liking, and still far too inclined to see its role as doing their bidding. Besides, there is a nasty, punitive streak evident in the attitudes of some of its newer MPs that is disturbing, and a group of hard right activists outside Parliament trying to pull the party more in their direction that is downright scary.

Labour’s social policies have always held appeal, but the fact that it is still lockstep with the unions, when most New Zealanders are not, is a turn-off. Also, its obsequious adherence to political correctness is nauseating. I wish it would actually stand for something, rather than just pandering to every passing cause.

Both parties are still in the rigid ‘my party, right or wrong mould,’ with limited capacity to compromise, or reach across the political divide.

I well recall the advice a very distinguished former MP gave me many years ago that he joined his particular party simply because he agreed with more of what it stood for than he disagreed with. I have always thought that was the appropriate balance. It would nice to see more evidence of that type of thinking in both Labour and National today.

In my quest, I even looked at the Greens and ACT as well. The Greens have increasing credibility on environmental issues, especially as the ravages of climate change become daily more apparent, but, oh dear, they do go off at strange tangents every now and then, that leave one wondering. ACT is still too trapped in the neo-liberal time warp of the 1980s to be at all relevant today.

As I am a generally tolerant and reasonable person, focused on the opportunities that lie ahead for our country, rather than the restoration of yesteryear, I cannot possibly consider New Zealand First. Nor am I a bigot or a racist, which seems to be a precondition for belonging to that party.

What I want is a basic, progressive, liberal party which believes in social justice, equality and equal access for all to opportunity, built on sound, environmentally sustainable market-led economic policies, and where the government is there to help those in need, but otherwise lets people get on with their own lives. I want a party that is no slave to vested interests, and is transparent and open in the pursuit of its principles.

Of course, we used to have a party like that - UnitedFuture - whose policies people kept saying they liked, and that it was important we be in Parliament to promote them, but all that notwithstanding, when the crunch came, they just did not vote for us in sufficient numbers to make it all possible.

For those other middle ground people who feel similarly disenfranchised right now, it seems a simple enough

proposition. A party of people like us to represent people like us. Yet, sadly, I do not think even Santa can make it happen.

So, in the meantime, it will be back to just dreaming.

PETER DUNNE

Wellington

Worth remembering

At a certain point we realise our youth has started to fade, and it’s not just the creaky knees or the occasional forgotten name, but more the passing names from TV shows gone from the memories of youth that cements it.

The latest lost name is Ken Berry - Captain Parmenter from ‘F Troop’. He, Gilligan and Maxwell Smart were all there providing a laugh after a day at school when there were few other laughs. The shows were of their time, and probably wouldn’t make it today, especially F Troop and its racism.

TV has many role models, from Tony Soprano to Dick Van Dyke, the good, bad and ugly of the world. Children of the ‘60s had their role models, from the heroes like Batman, the historical, like Daniel Boone, or the future like Captain Kirk, but what of the present children? Who will they remember fondly in their dotage - some instagrammer, a Facebook social influencer, a wrestling promoter turned President?

We need to create a worthwhile present for our children to vaguely remember fondly in their old age, as what we have now may not be worth remembering.

DENNIS FITZGERALD

Melbourne

A fair contribution

In his December 13 column (Are we being served?) David Clendon, of Vision Kerikeri, with reference to the Arvida Kerikeri Retirement Village (KRV) proposal, asks a crucial question: “Where is the balance point between the economic costs to be borne by the public purse, the profit to be derived by the developer, and the wider social and environmental costs and benefits?”

The overall KRV project is described as 200 retirement units with a 90-bed care unit and communal facilities. Stage 1 consists of 28 two- and threebedroom retirement units.

Record of a November 7, 2018, planning meeting between the Far North District Council and Arvida Group Ltd noted that Mayor John Carter supported the project, and that it was important for the district. Regarding development contributions, the possibility of having a developer agreement (not development contributions) was discussed, as it was indicated that capital expenditure was a challenge for council.

Dr Dean Myburgh, of Council District Services Group, confirmed that this needed to be considered sooner rather than later, as 2019 was a local government election year. He also stated that this would need to be considered by council’s senior leadership team.

Likely community and infrastructure issues from KRV affecting council (i.e. ratepayers) are future arterial routes alignment, the new wastewater treatment plant golive timeframe, and other possible plans for non-vehicular routes or networks such as community walking and cycling tracks, and Hall Rd water main timing. Discussion took place on the importance of infrastructure delivery by council to align with the KRV programme and some of the challenges that will need to be addressed.

John Papesch, senior civil engineer at Haigh Workman, spoke about the various council infrastructures needed for the project. He confirmed KRV’s reliance on the new wastewater treatment plant being delivered, timely delivery of an agreed water supply pipeline along Hall Rd, and bringing forward the programme for upgrading of Hall Rd to support both KRV and other Hall Rd subdivisions beyond the immediate Stage 1 proposal. The extension of Hall Rd to the KRV site will be constructed to an eight metre width that complies with a council road standard.

The Local Government Act, 2002, determines that the purpose of development contributions is to enable territorial authorities to recover from persons undertaking development a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the

total cost of capital expenditure necessary to service growth over the long term. Some of the principles to be taken into account when exercising duties and functions under the Act when preparing a development contributions policy, or requiring development contributions are, that they should only be required if the effects or cumulative effects of developments will create or have created a requirement for the territorial authority to provide or to have provided new or additional assets or assets of increased capacity.

Surely, this must be the case for the KRV and other major projects being developed within the Far North District.

The 2017 OECD environmental performance review of New Zealand defines development contributions as one-off levies imposed by territorial authorities on developers to finance parts of the capital costs associated with new development, notably the provision of trunk infrastructure. Their cost is commonly passed on to the purchasers of new houses or commercial premises as part of the sale price. They typically fund a relatively small part of local public infrastructure investment.

The OECD review states that development contributions are an important instrument to stimulate efficient use of land

and infrastructure, and to promote better environmental outcomes. It also adds that systematic use of such contributions and rates guide efficient and sustainable urban land use by, among other criteria, reflecting the true cost of development on infrastructure and service provision and associated environmental costs.

In 2015 council resolved to suspend development contributions in light of a perceived economic downturn, and has resolved not recommence them for the term of the district’s’ long-term plan 2018-28, in spite of obvious significant economic upturn in areas such as Kerikeri and Waipapa.

In a March 2013 submission to the Department of Internal Affairs on development contributions, Local Government New Zealand made the very pertinent points that they were unaware of any evidence that reducing development contributions would reduce house prices or improve housing affordability, and that there was an intrinsic link between development contributions, rates, and the level of investment in providing infrastructure for growth. Any changes to one element in the financial mix would impact on the others, and removing development contributions would shift the burden on to

other sources of infrastructure funding, including rates.

Council’s plan to conduct a comprehensive review of all funding mechanisms, including rates, development contributions, fees and charges within the next two years is far too nebulous. It should already have been well under way.

In the meantime council has signalled that it will negotiate development agreements for significant developments where there are significant infrastructure impacts from the development. That process needs to be totally transparent for ratepayers to trust that cost allocations have not been distorted in favour of developers, as its policy has done so for the past few years.

For the Arvida financial year 2018, revenue of $132.3 million was up 30 per cent on the previous year, and underlying profit was up 43 per cent to $33 million.

A developer in such sound shape must contribute fairly to the cost of ancillary infrastructure requirements, and any move to exempt Arvida from contributions with respect to KRV should be soundly rejected.

If Mayor Carter’s council continues to ignore this significant ratepayer issue there are bound to be electoral consequences late in 2019. ROSS FORBES

Kerikeri