Wake up and open a door to needy public
Inspector Marty Gray (ODT 3.12.24) needs to wake up to the needs of the public.
It is not just a bus hub issue. The problem is on your front door and you can’t see it.
The public has lost all trust in the police; we only see them on the zero tolerance speed drives to collect more revenue. And it’s not just the general public you have issues with, the thugs don’t fear you or respect you, and are aware you are nowhere to be found when needed.
The public don’t want more cameras so we have good clean footage of people getting assaulted, and the idea of turning Dunedin into a surveillance city because the police can’t be bothered walking the streets is disgusting.
I suggest we close the whole police station down and repurpose it for the Dunedin Hospital. The police can walk the streets to keep us safe.
Hans Rosloot
Dunedin
Little fluffy words
What a pitiful, fluffy, politely correct and ‘‘woke’’ reply from the Dunedin police area commander Marty Gray in reply to a distressed youngster’s family when he sought help from the central city police.
Never mind pointing out the ‘‘hours of attendance’’ commander, when the door is locked. It’s high time you installed an after-hours emergency alarm at the main door.
D. Edwards
Mosgiel
A fallible tribunal
Victoria University senior law lecturer Carwyn Jones (ODT 28.11.24) should know that the Ngāi Tahu settlement of 1998 was made at a time when there was no dispute over the Crown’s sovereignty in New Zealand and, therefore, that rangatiratanga was seen in a stricter context.
The Waitangi Tribunal also accepted that position but changed its mind in 2014, stating that Māori did not cede sovereignty in 1840. Then Attorney-general, Christopher Finlayson, who was a key negotiator for Ngāi Tahu in 1998, immediately rejected that finding.
The tribunal is not some kind of sacred enclave with powers of papal infallibility. It is quite capable of coming to wrong conclusions.
Philip Temple
Dunedin
Pro development
I would like to reply to Marian Poole’s letter (ODT 23.11.24). I support the fast track of exploration in New Zealand simply because it is another avenue of creating a cash flow for our country and its citizens.
In all exploration there is an element of risk and a reasonably high failure rate but the fiscal returns normally far outweigh the risk of development.
You should tell the Middle Eastern countries that their oil/gas revenues are like gambling and while you are at it you could tell that to the North and South American countries and the North Sea countries.
Oh, and don’t forget Russia, Australia and the African countries: they are all receiving large cash flows from exploration.
‘‘Simplistic denialism’’ is to ignore the possibilities of exploration and plod on borrowing to repair/rebuild our ageing infrastructure in the hope that our farmers can continue to the cash flow our wee country sorely needs. Delaying in infrastructure rebuild/repair has nothing to do with reduced costs, it has to do with the ability to pay for them.
Mind you, if that Labour mob actually did something our hospital would be 90% built and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Greg Edwards
Mosgiel
No, Labour did not do nothing, but you are
I am so tired of Christopher Luxon saying that Labour did “nothing” about building our new hospital.
In 2017 Labour when campaigning on the issue there were no plans and no commitment from the National government. In six years since Labour developed a plan, bought the land, let the contracts and prioritised the outpatient building.
We can all see that building and it will open in 2026.
The Health NZ website (updated October 24) tells me the inpatient building will open in 2029 and the piling for that is completed.
Except the government has put the brakes on. They are the ones doing nothing - except scaling back and back. Meanwhile a devious Christopher Luxon repeats his mantra hoping everyone will believe him.
Gio Angelo
Belleknowes
Temporary features
IT is encouraging to see the ODT headline that at least some politicians value a replacement hospital but it does beg the question “What is the altitude of the old Cadbury site?”
A new hospital is going to be good for at least until 2100, so do the extraordinary sums for the replacement budget for the bunds, stop banks and finally the dykes that may eventually be needed if the global community can’t get its act together on the fossil fuel problem? We mustn’t forget that there is actually only one ocean and coastlines are a “temporary geological feature’’.
Ian Orchard
Christchurch
A binding duty
To Hilary Calvert on our duties (Opinion ODT 5.12.24). So, no duty of social empathy - or being mindful of the stuff that binds society together?
Marian Poole
Deborah Bay
A cut-out-and-keep guide for opinion pieces
Whilst I am happy to accept that ‘‘shining a light on problematic issues’’ is a prerequisite of a free society, I wonder if resistance to Act New Zealand’s Treaty Principles Bill is not in some part of a response to the manner of its delivery. The Bill’s proponents and supporters seem to have adopted a sermonising posture in their agitations, and are seemingly unwilling to allow that there could be merit in other points of view.
In that regard, might I suggest that Gerrard Eckhoff’s recent tirade against the stance of the 42 King’s Counsel who openly oppose the bill (Opinion ODT 26.11.24) is no less emotive than he claims their submission to be. An example might be the last-gasp reference to social discord: ‘‘Divisiveness will always occur when privilege is withdrawn’’.
The statement is a truism, but whose truth does it represent? Who are the privileged and who the underprivileged? Where is the context? Speak plainly, Mr Eckhoff.
Though not a jurist, as one of the ‘‘timorous few’’ to oppose the Bill I would ask Mr Eckhoff if it would be unreasonable to expect him to temper his rhetoric and reflect on his style, if only in the interests of rational debate.
To assist me generally in establishing the validity of my (rare) published assertions, I have devised the following check-list, which he might find helpful:
1. A lecture is not a discussion;
2. An opinion is not a fact;
3. Propaganda is not information;
4. A half-truth is only one part of a story;
5. Truth requires context;
6. Dissenters deserve respect.
Having put pen to paper, an author should re-read the script, preferably aloud. Re-read it again before going to print — not a guarantee of rational thought, but it helps. Lighting a bonfire is no pathway to enlightenment.
Mr Eckhoff, to be taken seriously, would be well advised to accept that not everyone agrees with him
We need constant reminders that none of us is perfect. Nor is life.
Robin Marks
Dunedin
[Abridged: length. Editor.]
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
