Bondi tragedy: call to support one another
I write after the very sad and troubling events in Bondi. What happened there has affected many people, especially members of our Jewish community, and I know this time is very painful for some among us.
When people are harmed because of their religion or identity, it touches all of us. Even when such events happen far away, they do not stay far from our hearts. These moments can leave people feeling unsafe, worried, or shaken, and those feelings are completely understandable.
As the Dunedin Abrahamic Interfaith Group, we have worked together for peace and supported one another since 2001. We come from different faiths and backgrounds but we are deeply connected by respect and care for one another. Moments like this remind us why listening, kindness, and standing together truly matter.
We hold in our thoughts those who lost their lives and those who were injured. We also acknowledge the efforts of those who acted to protect others and prevent further harm.
If you need support, please know that you are not alone. You are very welcome to reach out to one another or to me or a member of our group. Sometimes, just knowing others are there can help.
May we continue to support one another with patience, compassion, and peace.
What about landlords?
I agree with Zoe Eckhoff’s observation (ODT 12.12.25) that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s check of student flats was largely ineffectual because it excluded landlords who would not agree to property inspections.
It is all the more startling that, of the 53 properties inspected, two-thirds required either warnings or improvement notices, although MBIE did not impose any financial penalties .
The impression I get is that MBIE goes easy on landlords renting out substandard properties, whether to students or other tenants. In the same manner, the Dunedin City Council refrains from exercising its obligations under the Health Act 1956 as they relate to residential accommodation.
Tenants might have their landlords maintain properties to a habitable standard if the Tenancy Tribunal actually heard their appeals instead of dismissing them peremptorily.
This is not the case: there is little prospect of improvement. People unhappy with the tribunal have the right of appeal to the District Court, where they might, just possibly, receive justice.
What about tenants?
The government’s agency has attended to substandard flats. Good on them, but what about substandard tenants?
The evidence is clear in the ODT, which each year runs photographs of piles of burnt and destroyed furniture that looks as if it would have been much appreciated by others.
What is not thought of is the effect on elderly and or infirm landlords whose properties are managed out of necessity rather than desire to provide funds for rest home fees or caregivers.
One case in the media recently, of older Christchurch landlady Barbara Kennedy who lost $26,000 in rent and then to add insult to injury was blamed by the Tribunal that it was mostly her fault because she didn’t chase it up quickly enough. Did they never consider, especially because of her age, that she might have problems with the activities of daily living ?
In particular it seems that stealing is OK, as long as it is from landlords.
[Abridged: length, Editor.]
Flood protection or a South Dunedin stadium?
Thank you Susan Johnston and Alan Paterson (Letters ODT 10.12.25) for raising the money issue with respect to keeping South Dunedin dry.
South D’s stormwater system has been undersized for decades, long before climate change discussions, resulting in the 2015 and 2024 floods among others. Unfortunately, the council’s future focused climate change investigation has left South D in limbo, with increased flood risk.
The eyewatering estimates of $3.2 billion-$7.1b for the seven potential long-term 2100 scenarios are best set aside. Two baseline costs are needed: 1) Flood prevention works, beginning with pipes and pumps, to make South D flood-free within five years (est $150 million), and 2) Coastal dewatering line to prevent slowly rising sea-levels from increasing adjacent groundwater levels if needed (est $200m).
This $350m is cheap compared with billions to relocate all South D households, businesses, shops, schools and infrastructure.
Willingness to pay $350m is a moral question. For comparison, the Dunedin stadium built in 2011 for $220m would cost about $400m now. How much is South Dunedin worth?
[Julian Doorey is a member of South Dunedin Stormwater Justice Group.]
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: letters@odt.co.nz
