Letters to the Editor

 

Back to basics
Recent articles about the New Zealand Fire Service and its problems have at last made me sit down and write this letter.

The Mangawhai Focus article of November 23 by Rob Pooley in my view makes light of the real problems of an emergency service that for many years has been second to none.

The article mentions that little or no reform has occurred since 1947. This refers to the royal commission of enquiry into the disastrous fire in the Christchurch department store of Ballantynes in which 41 people lost their lives. Arising from the enquiry, three main objectives were identified and recommended to be actioned.

Number one was the formation of a national fire service in where all the individual fire authorities at the time were to be formed into the New Zealand Fire Service. The Fire Service Council was formed in 1949 and the objective was finally completed in 1974 with the abolishment of the fire boards. This excluded the rural fire service at the time.

Number two was to implement a national training regime so that all fire fighters received the same training and could work together at an incident. This was achieved very early with the issuance of the Fire Service Drill Manual to all personnel and the establishment of the Fire Service College in the suburb of Island Bay, Wellington. This college was internationally recognised with overseas personnel from Australia and South East Asia completing officer courses.

This also meant that all equipment was standardised. Part of the problem in Christchurch was the individual brigades had their own equipment which in many cases was not compatible with neighbouring brigades. Working together at the time was virtually impossible, even if the senior officers would have approved it.

Number three was to have an equitable funding source with monies coming from all who benefited from the organisation. In other words the logical source was the taxpayer and not only those who purchased insurance policies with a Fire Service Levy component. This obviously meant that those people who did not purchase appropriate insurance policies received the same service at no charge to themselves. This was highlighted by a chairman of the NZ Fire Service Commission at a house fire on the North Shore in the 1990’s where the occupants did not have insurance, and there was mention of people “freeloading” at the expense of their fellow citizens.

This aspect has never been implemented, and today with the service responding to more than 50 percent of call-outs as non-fire related incidents, who is paying for it? And if the NZ Fire Service insignia has a crown on it, is this or should it be a government department?

The Mangawhai situation possibly occurred because of the corporate attitude of the service today with the basics of the New Zealand Fire Service from the 1949 royal commission report having been surpassed for the benefit of the “politically correct” brigade, the health and safety regime and of course the government of the day ducking for cover due to some agenda about “user pays”!

I am involved in an international website of professional people and many members of the NZ Fire Service are listed. In one session online, I wrote down 12 members and their titles of which only two were actual operational fire fighters. Titles included Manager Strategic Redevelopment, Shift Communication Manager, Fire Engineer, Area Manager, Fire Risk Management Officer, amongst other what seemed to be fancy titles. What happened to Chief Fire Officer, Deputy Chief Fire Officer and so on down to Fireman? Oops, sorry should that be Fireperson?

We, the buyers of appropriate insurance policies, are paying for all this claptrap, corporate philosophy and airy fairy attitudes by people who most likely would not know a dividing breeching from a ‘London’ control branch.

Possibly the “controversial fire officer” was a product of this? I personally know Mike (McIneny) from when he joined the permanent brigade in the 1970’s and he was a dedicated and committed career fire fighter.

Why is the service continually advertising for recruits? Not many years ago there was always a waiting list!

The recent announcement by the Internal Affairs Minister is just another duck shoving exercise with no real benefit to New Zealand. What is this going to cost the ever-suffering insurance buyer?

I know a gentleman who was a volunteer for 30 years who was informed that he could not drive the fire appliance because he had not completed a driving course in Rotorua for which he would have had to take time away from his employment. What woolly-headed thinking allows this experience to be lost as he quite rightly said ‘I cannot carry on’. This guy was a professional driver!

And all some people are worried about is perceived bullying?

It is time that the politicians climbed down off the fence and made some real and beneficial decisions regarding the funding issue for a New Zealand emergency service!

I have been involved in fire services in three countries for 50 years after joining the local brigade in 1965 as a probationary fireman. This brigade was staffed with both permanent and volunteer personnel who worked in harmony. We were on duty 24 hours and off duty 24 hours, no fancy equipment as is evident today, two hours of training daily, cork helmets and no counselling if you had an “experience”. We just got on and did the job!

As an aside, the ambulance service in New Zealand would appear to suffer from much the same malaise. Corporate philosophy, nicely painted vehicles, regular advertisements for new members, begging letters for funding and run by a charity.

New Zealand has a population of just over 4 million people, and back to basics is what should be happening in relation to these most important services to the community.

Peter Matheson
Maungaturoto


Local media in touch

In many ways the local 'give away' newspapers are more in touch with the communities they serve than the national dailies and weekend newspaper. The issues covered may not be earth shattering but the Managahai Focus – and its like competitors that serve the Kaipara and Rodney – has an open door to ordinary folk who want to vent their concern or feelings generally about the society we live in.

Try and give the national media, newspapers, television and radio stations a news tip-off and the first problem is trying to talk to a real journalist in a real news room and not have

your voice recorded or email shelved into some invisible wait list. If you do get a response from a human it is as likely to say they cannot go out of the office to cover the story.

The national dailies like the NZ Herald used to have qualified rounds responsible for reporting police, fire and ambulance, others covering courts and specialist with specialist qualifications to cover science, health, education and transport, shipping and aircrafts etc.

The selection of news priorities used to be based on this basic criteria:

1. Events that endanger life or result in death, murders, accidents and life threatening activities etc.

2. Events which threaten the national economy, involves damaged property etc.

3. The unusual man bites dogs etc.

Journalists were expected to get off their backsides and out in the real world to pick up their news tips and to develop contacts in a position to pass on news tips.

The Herald used to cover more than a dozen local bodies before Mt Eden, Mt Albert, Devonport councils et al, were amalgamated. Now its hard to get any journalist to attend the average local council meeting. No wonder Kaipara was so badly governed for so long and the ratepayers were so misinformed about its decisions. It is sometimes said the media is the last to hear of the illness but the first to attend the funeral. That was certainly the case with the national daily media where Kaipara was concerned.

Major disasters often start life as minor problems which are never reported until they become major problems. The price of freedom and independence is eternal vigilance.

When things go wrong the messenger, the media, often unfairly cops the blame just for doing its job.

During its short life the Mangawhai Focus has opened its pages to many readers. Maintaining a balance of opinions is a bit like tight rope walking. All in all I believe that the Mangawhai Focus, Kaipara Lifestyler, Mahurangi Matters are all doing an excellent job reflecting the views, opinions and activities of all sections of the community in the best old-style type of journalism operating on peanut budgets compared with the national dailies.

Roy Vaughan
Mangawhai


Analysing the war in Syria
The "master plan" is to destroy us all and take no prisoners unless they're short of BBQ material! But now, after the episode in France, I’m not sure “who’s who in the zoo.”

Now pay attention, because I'm only going to say this once:

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good).
So President Putin (who is bad because he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium-poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking ISIS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing.
But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian Rebels

(who are good) are also bad and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel, are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a coalition of Assad (still bad), Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good/bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS, that may now make them good.
America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians, for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now bad, or at the very least, abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslim (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence, many Muslims will now see IS as good (Doh!).
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (hmmm, might have a point) and hence we will be seen as bad.
So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad), many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good) are attempting to re-take the country Assad used to run before all this started.

I hope that clears up any confusion for you.
If it doesn't, you'll have to find someone else to explain it to you in a different way.
OK?

Pete Farrell
Mangawhai


Swimming in the estuary
In response to Dr Ian Greenwood (Mangawhai Focus, Letters to the Editor, Nov 23.)

Since the Mangawhai Community Waste Water Scheme Advisory Panel was installed we used every opportunity to discuss how to beware the estuary of pollution. There has been not one serious answer to all our questions and suggestions, not from you, not from the advisory panel, not from the commissioners.

You raised the question of hypocrisy. For this we asked why in your advice the catchment area should stop at the gate of the closed Tern Point community directly located at the estuary. We asked this because the chairman of the advisory panel lives there. Your answer that you personally live in Mangawhai Heads is no answer to my question!

For 10 months we ask if you got the same result: “The E-Coli pollution in the estuary is from bovine and not from human faeces.” Recently we found heavy bovine pollution from the animals of the Tern Point community, where the chairman of your advisory panel lives. But instead of contacting him you are joking that you don’t run cattle. I can’t consider this as a serious answer.

We send information to you about modern on-site nil discharge separation toilet systems. You claimed to have contacted our nominated experts. I checked this and found out that this isn’t true and you mix it up with ‘your’ Auckland experts that demand a minimum of 1500 sqm section for irrigation. How is it possible that this answer to a nil discharge system does not make you suspicious about the knowledge of those experts? Why haven’t you researched ECOSAN, why not SUSANA, an organization with 255 partners worldwide, for sustainable waste water treatment?

You estimated your preferred option for the irrigation of the waste water treatment extension with NZ$8.347m for 414 new connections, NZ$20,162 for each connection not including grinder pump and reticulation. All this shall be done to discharge effluent via the golf course or directly in the estuary or ocean. You never answered our questions about what will happen with hormones and other medication.

You describe what an important person you are in managing international infrastructure projects. Is it a better or worse reputation to work for the World Bank? The economists Joseph Stiglitz and Michel Chossudovsky (The Globalization Of Poverty) describe the World Bank policy of the last decades as creating infrastructure projects, not to benefit the people, but to prepare a playground for big business, to bring communities, regions and whole states in debt, only to install a playground for asset (and investment) managers. This policy seemed to be very similar to the procedure that we face with our Mangawhai sewage system.

Proclaiming that mandatory connection to the centralised waste water treatment plant is the only way to keep the estuary clean means in reality no interest for the real pollution by bovine excrements, no interest for an environmentally friendly and cost efficient solution and no proper consultation. It seemed to be designed to create debt like so many World Bank infrastructure projects, fortunately with less tragic consequences.

You will understand that a rate strike and other pressure to demand proper research for the structural errors that cause our debt are in the benefit for all of us. Calling it “bad management” and running forward will only create more debt like so many World Bank infrastructure projects. This is the reason for my deep respect for everyone who tries to find a way out of this circle of disaster.

Dear Ian, instead of answering seriously you describe only your personal being to finish with the statement: “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.” For me great people try to resolve problems. Please do me a favor: I like swimming in the estuary. Contact your chairman and help to get the bovine pollution sorted.

(Abridged)

Christian Simon
Mangawhai


Birthday wishes
Firstly, congratulations to editorial and production staff on the 10th birthday of the Focus. (Where’s the beer?)

As writers are readers too, I peruse all the local papers. I may not read all or even much of the content but I always make the letters to the editor a priority though not necessarily for the views expressed. I think the number and quality of letters is a good guage of a newspapers health. All over the world I have found that papers with quality content inspire quality letters to the editor.

So I would also like to congratulate Anthony Roberts for his excellent letter in last week’s edition. I have decided in celebration of my own eight years contributing to this august journal to award Anthony 'The Professor Worzel, Excellence in Letters to the Editor Award' for 2015. Sorry mate there's no prize or a cup or anything.

Certainly the letters to the editor illustrates a healthy paper embraced (or is that wrestled with?) by the local community. The literary quality of the letters to the ed show it is read by all and sundry.

I would ask Anthony to refrain from sending any articles to the Focus, they might sack me.

Cheers guys. I'll check my e-mails regularly so as not to miss the 10 year birthday party.

Chris Sellars
Brynderwyn