Letters to the Editor

 

Future leaders need to step up
Recently it has been suggested that the [Kaipara] commissioners’ term should be extended.

We no longer need three commissioners, and we should not abrogate our responsibilities and step aside while critical issues like amalgamation and rates increases could be forced on us while we are without democratic representation.

With elections due this October, if commissioner Robertson was prepared to extend his term as a commissioner, perhaps he could show his commitment by indicating willingness to apply for the vacant chief executive position and facilitate return to democratic and representative governance. Substantial salary and service to Kaipara as CEO could appeal for one or two years.

We will then, post elections, have continuity of guidance to changes underway, cost savings and truly independent representation of and for ratepayers and residents best interests.

With democracy restored, let full discovery be completed; nothing to hide means nothing to fear and importantly the Mangawhai dissension will be immediately resolved, at low cost, and Council can look again to the primary welfare of Kaipara, not to that pre-occupation with Government and the banks.

Without democracy, we will get what ‘they’ want – higher rates, water and other charges, unnecessary and expensive consultants and litigation at ratepayers expense, instead of living within ratepayers means.

Amalgamations always increase rates, and decision-making is shifted further away for the convenience of governing bodies, frequently adopting regulations or policies ever less relevant to Kaipara.

Commissioners have improved the capability of Kaipara District Council, but we must now play an active role and not step even further aside.

Our forebears paid with their lives for democracy! Let us reflect on that, and while voters were mostly poorly represented in the immediate recent past, capable people exist in Kaipara and they must be encouraged to come forward, and we must all actively participate and govern ourselves to the greatest extent possible.

Ron Manderson
Mangawhai


Quote correction
In your most recent issue [Focus, Dec 22], which you implied to me would contain a response from my organisation [Mangawhai Ratepayers & Residents Association] to the “open letter” of Kaipara District Council in your previous issue [Focus, Dec 8], and which did not, you quoted a number of remarks that you have gleaned from a website somewhere, which you claim is mine.

I do not own a website and I certainly do not own or have editorial control over the website that you claim is mine.

Whether the website concerned ever published the comments that you say you found there is something that you need to take up with the owner of the website, but I require you to publish this letter, and the original letter that I submitted to you in reply to Robertson’s [Kaipara District Council chairman John Robertson] open letter, accompanied by an unqualified apology for attributing statements to me that I did not make.

You are probably aware that wrongly attributing remarks made by one person to another person is potentially defamatory.

Your journalistic standards are shameful, and for that reason I have copied the press council on this correspondence.

Bruce Rogan
Chairman, MRRA
Mangawhai

CORRECTION: Thanks to Mr Rogan for pointing out our error. The quotes referred to [Focus, Dec 22, ‘Group seeks extended term for commissioners’] should have in fact been credited to Clive Boonham and his Kaipara Concerns blog site [Kaipara Concerns, ‘National Party sabotaging democracy in Kaipara’, 09.12.14)

- Ed


Hypothetically speaking
Imagine you go into a shop to buy some items but when you come out you find that you've been overcharged. You go back into the shop but they refuse, for no good reason, to refund the money. You go to Consumer Affairs but they tell you that there is nothing they can do. Then you hear on the news that the supermarket chain has been doing this to hundreds of its customers and that they have lobbied government to bring in a new law that makes it legal for them to refuse to refund overcharged amounts.

This may seem too crazy to ever happen, but it is analogous to what happened/is happening to property owners in Mangawhai. The appeal being sought by the Mangawhai Ratepayers & Residents Association (MRRA) is based on ethical principles of natural justice. This issue of ratepayer liability for illegally struck loans deserves the full attention of our elected representatives, our courts and our media and it needs to be dealt with forthwith. The ridiculous divide-and-rule politicking and threats to members of our community should never have happened and must stop. Now.

We must accept nothing less than a just and equitable outcome that removes liability for the debt from the innocent party: the ratepayers and residents of Mangawhai. 
We deserve justice and it must not be delayed further.

Would you have gone back into the shop for that refund? Do you support the MRRA's stance? If not, why not?

Alan Preston
Mangawhai


Fuss over water quality
As many will know there was the situation of very heavy rains on Sunday December 14 and a routine Northland Regional Council (NRC) bathing water quality sampling of the estuary and ocean beach the following day, Monday December 15, with results being made publically available Friday December 19.

The Kaipara District Council (KDC) then erected a notice – with the signage indicating in conjunction with Northern District Health Board (NDHB) – at the Mangawhai Heads Beach car park noting ‘Beach Closed for Swimming until January 14’ and also ‘No Shellfish Collection until January 14’.

Local Surf Life Saving also erected a ‘Beach Closed’ sign, but later modified it to an advisory sign. Luckily after the routine sampling by NRC the following Monday December 22 and the standard 24-hour analysis period the ‘No Swimming’ signs were removed.

I was concerned about what I considered an over-reaction to the event and the potential harm to Mangawhai at the peak season and did a lot of follow-up and discussions with NRC, KDC, NDHB and Surf Life Saving. Three of those organisations were very helpful, willingly engaged in discussion, and wanted to do things better if such a situation arose again; KDC did not respond in a timely manner, with the local compliance officer eventually replying on behalf of KDC and effectively noting that they had done the correct thing.

As I understand, the NRC are responsible only for the routine sampling, results are forwarded to the District Council and NDHB immediately they are available (typically late Tuesday afternoon or first thing Wednesday morning) and via Ministry of Environment procedures it is the responsibility of those two organization to ascertain the reason for a high E. coli reading and to take action as necessary. This should have resulted in both an advisory ‘No swimming for 7 days/No shellfish collection for 21 days” sign and follow-up sampling and analysis by KDC and/or NDHB on the Wednesday/Thursday which would likely have resulted in the beach being cleared for swimming by the weekend of December 20-21.

If in fact the Sunday rain had commenced midday Monday or later instead, it is highly improbable that there would have been any sampling and analysis indicating high E. coli counts at the ocean beach, or in fact even within the estuary.

Hopefully all four organisations can coordinate an appropriate response if the situation arises again.

At least two businesses were directly affected by the ‘Beach Closed for Swimming’ signs; imagine what the effect would have been if the Auckland press had got hold of the KDC/NDHB signage and publicised the fact that the Mangawhai beach would be closed for swimming until mid-January.

John Dickie
Mangawhai


An open question
The commissioners used an open letter in the Focus [Focus, Dec 8] as a vehicle to persuade the executive of the MRRA to withdraw from seeking justice for past wrongs in the spirit of moving forward.

Have we arrived at a time in NZ’s development where we turn our back on justice in the spirit of expediency? Is justice too expensive and not worth bothering about? Essentially that is the Commissioners’ plea: “It is all water under the bridge, now.” That is the message coming through.

My open question to the citizens of Kaipara is this: If you contracted a builder to build a house for you to the specifications you supplied but he instead ignored your plan and built something entirely different which for you that was entirely unsuitable, would you pay up saying, “Well, what’s done is done and cannot be undone.” Or would you take the matter to court and let the judicial system decide. After all, you have a house that doesn’t meet your needs, doesn’t suit the section it is on, is not built with the building standards in mind, has serious flaws and costs twice the original quoted price.

Litigation could prove expensive but then so is the house and you don’t want it. The builder wants his money and you don’t want to pay because it is not the house you commissioned. Would you take the matter to court or just pay up?

It’s worth thinking about, isn’t it?

Barbara Pengelly
Mangawhai Heads

---