Letters to the Editor
Rein in transport projects
Well done Councillor Wilson for trying to get some sense into a lot of the street works projects planned by the Hamilton City Council. Good to see the article on the front page of Waikato Times on Friday about stopping unnecessary and totally exorbitant traffic and transport projects. These small projects such as crossings, roundabouts, bus stops etc (all of which I am in favour of) and their absurd costs are what the public see and what the media focus on. It is all about perceptions. Furthermore they are indicative of the great problem of the high costs of much council and for that matter Government work.
I can still recall the shock of the cost of restoring the Seddon Street roundabout after the street race fiasco.
There is a feeling that many city councils and the senior staff are out of control. And especially those in the transport departments.
It is the considered view of many that this is in part due to in many cases mediocre and inexperienced councils not being able to control the plans and spending of management.
It is also the view of those I know in the construction industry that the private sector businesses who put in tenders for such work take councils for a ride as the council staff do not have the experience to check the costs.
This problem of incompetent councils is a real crisis for democracy, which is also occurring at central government level.
Russell Armitage, Hamilton (abridged)
Spending under microscope
I have, along with the rest of Hamilton ratepayers, increasing concern at the extortionist rate rises and the mounting debt that is close to exceeding the allowed limits. (What happens when it does, do the lights go off and the city shuts down?) We are drip fed via media, countless issues, ranging from urgent infrastructure requirements, to nice to have vanity projects that council wishes the coin from our already depleted pockets for.
I desire for clarity and accountability from the council, a fully itemised accounting of all this proposed expenditure and current costs, a line-by-line detail of these multiple millions all in one spreadsheet, with adequate explanations cross referenced. This to be made available via media, and online.
It will allow for a focus on the essentials, by a multiple number of informed sources, along with the general populace. It will allow for the correct prioritisation that ensures the city remains sustainable. It will allow for investigative journalism to do its best in a myriad of ways that serves its audience best.
It will allow for accountability across all levels of council and any delegated roles or agencies, commercial of otherwise. It will allow for a less “siloed” approach, to a collective spend.
One may wonder if this can not be made readily available in a coherent fashion, for ratepayers, how indeed are council collectively making informed decisions, across the board?
Paul Evans-mcleod, Hamilton
Water meters
I see in the Waikato Timesthat Ewan Wilson now wants water meters for Hamilton. This person is the same guy who failed as the owner of Kiwi Airlines and cost many many people their jobs and customers loss of ticket purchases when he folded the company up.
He now sits as a Hamilton city councillor trying to tell us how to live and pay for his salary doing nothing but dreaming up ways to make us pay for his easy job. Why don't the people of Hamilton realise just who they are voting for when its time to change councillors here? Get rid of the useless ones and figure out we have too many councillors already taking our money for doing nothing. Its time to speak up and change their lifestyles as they are trying to change ours.
Again I hope you print this letter and let people know who is the one who wants a 25% increase in our rates and now wants water meters to pay his salary. It’s Ewan Wilson and his tribe.
Jim Crain Sr, Hamilton
Editor’s note: Since this letter was written, the council has slightly reduced its proposed rates rise to 19.9%.
Council arguments
In reference to the letter by Thomas Beuker, the letter by VGM Livia stating “Councillors go home” has a valid reason. Why do we elect a mayor and councillors? To listen to the community, look after the city and direct the council in the proper direction. Who created the debt? The mayor and councillors.
They had their unaffordable pet project in mind and requested council staff to embark on them. These projects put the city into debt and the poor council staff were made redundant. It is the mayor and councillors’ fault which had driven the city into such high debt and they want the community to pay 25.5% rate increase.
It is a joke.
I agree V8 may be a loss, like some of the projects the present council is doing, but V8 put Hamilton on the world map. I am aware Claudelands is a huge loss. Mayor and council staff should have moved into Claudelands building and save on rent. They could have parked their cars around the new theatre and crossed the river using the new footbridge over the river to Claudelands.
Linda Bradburn, Hamilton
Rental struggle
I'm writing because I was reading the article Migration putting pressure on city’s rental market and wanted to say it's even worse than the article says.
We moved over from Tauranga in May last year because we ended up in emergency accommodation after getting notice to move out for family. We began renting a room for my 10 year old son and I, having to move from one room rental to another in the eight months we had been here before finally getting a 3-bedroom property so my teen can also come stay holidays and long weekends.
I lucked out being the only person at the viewing of the house I got. But almost every other house viewing had heaps of people and many were immigrants and sometimes it seemed they were prioritised over me and my family.
Not that I'm against anyone who comes to New Zealand for whatever reason but the government does need to provide a solution to this problem because
New Zealanders are having to use lots of resources being put in emergency accommodation due to the lack of housing available. Malaki Casey, Hamilton
Political solution?
Since it isn’t H. Webb, R. Armitage, M. Manoharan, G. Orchard writing this letter to the editor it probably won’t be printed in the Waikato Times, but here goes.
The current Māori vs Pākehā political contretemps could perhaps be settled as follows and would also answer other House of Representative sores.
As NZ has no Upper “House” and Kiwis seem to be faced with ever increasing numbers of hangovers with list members in our current system how about: 20 Māorionly members (selected by the tribes) for an “Upper” House, similar to the house of Lords in UK.
The current, lower house limited therefore to 100 members only. The upper house would have the same say/control that hte UK house of Lords has over UK legislation/ Acts.
Māori roll public could only vote for the select 20. All else ono the general roll vote for the 100. People voted for get into Parliament strictly on their percentage of the total vote, no passing on the under 5% to swell the numbers of the over 5%. My vote last election was totally “lost” to me this way. I’d sooner the vote went into the waste basket than some unknown switch me to numbers suit.
A.R. Baker, Morrinsville
Innocent until proven guilty
If anyone still needs convincing why NZ should continue to fund UNRWA they only need to watch the Inside Story programme on Aljazeera to get the facts. NZ’S reason for withholding UNRWA funding was based on the US decision. In the past NZ knew when to have an independent foreign policy on important issues.
Our justice system operates on the premise that people are innocent til proven guilty.
In the case of the UNRWA workers’ alleged involvement in the Oct. 7th atrocities, NZ along the US is treating them guilty before that’s proven. False confessions could have been obtained under torture.
If those workers are found guilty they will be punished but that doesn’t mean that, while awaiting a court ruling, millions of people, the majority women and children already suffering beyond belief, should be collectively punished. That’s a breach of international law. Meanwhile NZ’S decision to withhold funds makes it complicit in supporting Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war, a war crime. How can we live with this?
Sister Barbara Cameron, Hamilton
Diverging Treaty views
Could I try and explain the two rapidly diverging views on our Treaty. Both sides want the Treaty honoured, and both generally agree that the Māori version has greater authority – so why the conflict? On the one hand we have people who believe that the Treaty is in danger of being changed and wish to retain it in it’s original form.
On the other side are people who believe that it is being changed with constantly evolving “principles” and want it returned to its original form.
One side believes that the Treaty is a partnership between two peoples. The other side points out that there is no mention of partnership in the agreement and that the first claim that the Treaty could be “In the nature of a partnership” was in 1987 – 147 years after the signing. They believe that the separation of the races required to form a partnership this long after the event is dangerous racial division and not the “He Iwi Tahi Tatou” (We are now one people) understanding and acceptance at the time.
One side believes that the Treaty was a partnership long before 1987.
The other side recalls Dame Whina Cooper saying in 1975: “We signed the Treaty to become one people”.
One side believes that Māori did not cede sovereignty.
The other side reminds us that some iwi claim they obviously did not cede sovereignty because they didn’t sign. One side believes that ceding sovereignty was not the understanding by Māori at the time. The other side points to well recorded speeches on February 5th where “coming under” the Queen and the Governor was the subject of heated debate, and after an all-night hui, the majority signed.
One side still believes that Māori did not understand.
The other side believes what they read in ‘Papers Past’ online – the faithfully recorded speeches from the majority of Māoridom’s leaders at the time showing a clear wish to “Let this Governor be our Governor and this Queen our Queen”.
One side believes that the rangatiratanga granted to Māori in Article Two means sovereignty over the whole country. The other side believes that kawanatanga (a clear transliteration of governorship) over the whole country, was already ceded in Article One and that rangatiratanga in Article Two means chiefly (Rangatira) control over each chief’s own small area – there were over 500 chiefs, and they were sharply divided by decades of wars.
Fred Barrett, Tīrau
Cultural report
The National coalition government intends to remove legal aid funding for section 27 cultural reports for criminal sentencing. Lawyers generally agree that cultural reports can be helpful for the judge and the defendant.
I raise the fact that defendants who identify as Māori may be provided with free cultural reports prepared by Hokai Tapuwae, which is made up of Māori organisations funded by the Department of Corrections.
It is curious that the defendants who are given Hokai Tapuae reports are not required to apply for legal aid funding. My question for the coalition government is, do they intend to remove funding for Hokai Tapuwae cultural reports as well as defunding privately prepared cultural reports. Joe Hamblett, Barrister, Hamilton