Letters to the Editor

 

Abuse of trust
It is all too common for small not-for-profits to suffer at the hands of those who get themselves put into positions of trust, and then abuse that trust by theft, forgery and such. The truth finally came out. The Kerr’s misdoings led to conviction, and I say thank you to the Anchorage committee for being so committed to seeing justice done.

Often people get away with such ‘minor’ breaches of trust, because it’s all too complicated to follow through to conviction, and the paperwork trail is generally messy and fraught with coverups. Small not-for-profits run by volunteers don’t generally have the resource of time and energy to hold the dishonest to account. In this instance, their determination brought out the truth of what had been suspected for a number of years.

We have forgiven, and moved on. Thank you Anchorage for your follow-through. Remorse would have been ideal, but I hope some good is brought about through community service.

T Kirkley
Auckland


Greed and camouflage
After reading Prof Worzel’s contribution in the last Mangawhai Focus, it was some relief to realise that in fact there are still individuals out there who are able to convey a reality that is right under our noses. It is a shameful pity that this reality goes unnoticed, as it did in 1938-39.

Apathy is unfortunately the characteristic of the majority, and the many who choose to not raise their heads above the parapet are inevitably vastly more numerous. There are many historic examples of the few who choose not to lie down and succumb to propaganda, manipulation and viciousness. The first of many that come to mind is a certain country around that era in which a group of people chose to resist. It is an added shame that the ongoing propaganda machine has swayed the disinterested majority, giving rise to the undeservingly abject label "the bunch of whinging Mangawhai ratepayers."

Interestingly, many years later this aforementioned resistance group is viewed with respect, although the ultimate outcome has been far less morally just and decent in Mangahwhai's case.

The latter part of Prof's contribution relating to the behaviour of central government, and the collusion between all the clever men (and women) and their assumed cleverness, together with the Auditor General's self-absolving feeble attitude, says just about all that needs to be said.

Our moral fibre, integrity and family responsibility all seem to be a distant memory. Greed and camouflage seem to be the preferred fix-all. I am still unable to fathom why and how people in these supposed high places are able to think so much differently than many, and feel absolutely no guilt, responsibility or any such self-depreciating emotions. Their detachment must be so deep-seated that

nothing bothers them. They must simply get up in the morning without one iota of conscience or sense of ethics whatsoever.

I personally couldn't live with myself, but that's just me. Position, notoriety, self-importance and all the trappings of perceived success far outweigh any resemblance of what in fact is categorically wrong, and they awake in the morning without so much as a pang because they simply don't care.

Whether or not one ‘wins’ or ‘loses’ in my view comes a distant second to the manner in which one behaves throughout this short life of ours. And also, for what they might care, I have zero respect for Roberston, Provost and those of the same ilk, they can disappear into oblivion.

Regrettably there are times as in Mangawhai that the 700-pound gorilla called the government have had the upper hand.
The law may be, but that does not make it right.
And ultimately I read Worzel's page more than once, and I'm glad I did.

Which reminded me of a favourite I often listen to:

Because there are no facts, there is no truth/Just a data to be manipulated/I can get any result you like/What's it worth to you?/Because there is no wrong, there is no right/And I sleep very well at night/No shame, no solution/No remorse, no retribution/Just people selling T-shirts/Just opportunity to participate in the pathetic little circus/And winning, winning, winning.

Anthony Roberts
Mangawhai


Council spending confusion
1. A proper cycle-walkway from Mangawhai Heads to the Village has to have first priority. It would be a start for footpaths to cope with the growth. But the council does not want to invest one cent for the pedestrians and cyclist in 2016/17.

2. Next year the Council want to spend $408,750 to seal Black Swamp Road! In March 21 issue of the Focus, Commissioner John Robertson claimed that road sealing will be done when the property owners raise the money for it. Why should we make an exception for Black Swamp Road? Are Tern Point, and the Tara Iti Golf Course community with their luxury dwellings someone special?

3. While not in the 10 year plan, next year the Council want to spend an additional $664,000 from our general rates for the Mangawhai Wastewater Scheme. How many times has the Council announced that the Scheme is working well? This assertion doesn’t match the facts. A nitrogen effluent of 16.7 mg per litre after treatment is a very poor result. Grey-water from a bath without any treatment has most times better results. For 18 months we have asked the Council to consider modern and cheaper options starting with grey-water separation and using them on site. We have received no answer to our suggestions. Continuously repeating statements that don’t consider the facts can’t be the right way to find proper solutions.

The Council doesn’t want to put the annual plan through a formal consultation process because they claim that the annual plan is not much different from the

10 year plan. The $664,000 dollars that will be spent next year for the Waste Water Scheme is a significant difference. Last year an overwhelming majority of over 70 percent of all dwellings not connected (final report of the advisory panel) didn’t want a mandatory connection. Many of those who have technically assessed modern wastewater separation systems want a proper review before spending more money on an outmoded treatment plant.

Conclusion: New road sealing has to be paid for by the property owners involved! The wastewater treatment system needs a serious review. Doing these will save $1,072,750 next year that can be spent in better ways to cope with the growth of Mangawhai. We need a 5 kmh traffic zone design for our town. This is a modern town plan pattern looked at with the eyes of pedestrians, children and cyclists. Let us start immediately with a walk-cycle highway from the Village to the Heads before we lose our easy way to live.

Christian Simon
Mangawhai


Criticism confusing
The executive of the Mangawhai Harbour Restoration Society (MHRS) has been surprised and puzzled by Mr Roy Vaughan’s continuing criticism, some of which has been false, particularly about items relating to the financial viability of the organisation, mangrove removal and dredging.

It seems that Mr Vaughan has taken every opportunity to write letters to this newspaper with disparaging comments about every aspect of the work conducted by the MHRS executive on behalf of ratepayers. The MHRS executive are all volunteers who have a love of the harbour and want to see it protected for use by future generations.

We conduct our business in open monthly meetings and report to ratepayers and the Kaipara District Council on an annual basis. Mr Vaughan seldom attends those annual review meetings, seemingly preferring to shoot arrows from a distance via the media.

Mangawhai ratepayers need to be aware that Mr Vaughan was an executive member of MHRS for several years commencing in 2005 and was a member of the executive that unanimously agreed to commence investigation of mangrove management within the harbour. He resigned from the Society prior to an application being made to the Northland Regional Council to obtain resource consent for the removal of mangroves but made an individual submission advocating mangrove management. In this, he supported the removal of mangroves in specified areas. He now appears to have made a complete about-turn with regard to this issue.

While on the executive he was a valued member of the subcommittee that oversaw the operation of the Society’s dredge. A number of recommendations he made at that time have been implemented, especially with regard to compliance issues. The dredge will be increasingly busy over the next two to three years to clear channels of the wind-blown sand he has mentioned, together with sand

deposited in the main channel from an eroding bund wall. The dredge is an essential part of the Mangawhai community in ensuring the public has full use of the harbour. Therefore, Mr Vaughan’s suggestion in one of his letters that the dredge is no longer needed is indeed puzzling.

On the issue of commercial sand dredging, Mr Vaughan seems to be implying in one letter that a return of commercial dredging would have an impact on maintaining the necessary depth over the bar. It should be noted that in 2004 the Northland Regional Council supported the MHRS opposition to commercial sand mining and later the Minister of Conservation declined a sand mining application. It is a misguided theory that commercial sand extraction is needed to keep the inlet open. Continued sand mining would have led to dramatic erosion of the Spit.

Mr Vaughan’s criticism that the Society takes advice “from a single consultancy” is false. His assertion that this advice is “hardly impartial” is incorrect and reflects his naivety. He should be apologising to the consultants he mentions for such an outburst. They have worked with the organisation since the early 1990s and as ocean and coastal engineers they have built up a greater knowledge of the harbour than any one person or organisation of which the Society is aware, which is of immeasurable value to the community. These consultants assist in the preparation of submissions to councils and, where necessary, oversee work being carried out.

They are, however, not the only consultants Mangawhai Harbour Restoration Society employs. The Society consults widely and in the last 12 months has worked with scientists from the Department of Conservation, with compliance managers from the Northland Regional Council and is currently receiving advice from Auckland University of Technology scientists and an ornithologist recommended by AUT, as well as scientists from an Auckland consulting firm.

The MHRS Annual General Meeting will be held on Saturday, 30 July 2016, and those wishing for an update on the Society’s financial position and its work are urged to attend. The meeting will be advertised in local papers closer to the date.

Executive Committee
Mangawhai Harbour Restoration Society Inc.