Costs being cut at hospital for years
It seems to me on reading Mary Williams’ article (ODT 14.12.24), that back when the original Dunedin Hospital was built, they were cutting costs too.
Room 14, four beds and no toilet; the appalling situation which arises re no hot water available at certain times, plus hot taps running brown.
Room 11, no running water for over a year. When they reported the problem, they said that fixing it would require turning off the water for more of the hospital.
This also smacks of cost-cutting back then. History going to repeat itself again. The fact that $23.6 million was approved for critical infrastructure expenditure on Dunedin Hospital to ensure it remains safe and functional until the new hospital opens. The way things are being constantly delayed, it is obviously going to blow out this budget, which only has $14.7m left.
The leaking from the old roof, which is on the floor above Ward 8, causing leaks effecting the ward lighting. These all point to slack maintenance.
The present day clinicians were asked for their input re what would operate and work more efficiently in the new hospital. Both the previous Labour government and this coalition government have and are doing their best to undermine the clinicians’ suggestions.
Their suggestions are not just nice-to-haves, but what they consider will be needed for the next 50 years.
As they are at the coalface, who better to say what is needed? I realise all these come at a cost, but build it once and build it to last. The pussyfooting around, employing expert after expert, in trying to meet a cost is just causing more cost wastage.
The lower South Island needs and deserves this hospital built to its original plan.
A. Sarah
Oamaru
Diverse stripes
What a joke. The Dunedin City Council has a large debt to service so is reducing its grass cutting to reduce costs. Then we have this ridiculous suggestion for rainbow crossings.
How much extra is this costing us over white stripes? If they want to make people feel included, what about the Chinese contribution or a tartan design to reflect the Scots who made Dunedin what it is today? Will these proposed designs actually make them a legal pedestrian crossing?
R. Morey
Dunedin
Driving appalling
I have recently returned to Dunedin after a long period living in a large city overseas and I'm appalled at the standard of driving here. Driving 10-20km under the speed limit in town does not make for safer driving. It adds to congestion and frustration for other road users, and leaving a car length or more between you and the car in front at traffic lights and moving off slowly so others miss the lights leads to more congestion and frustration.
Red light running is rampant, probably due in part to the slow pace of clearing the lights by others. We may live in a small city but Dunedin is expanding and if we don't change our driving habits now congestion and frustration will only get worse.
Peak hour traffic is already greater than what it should be for a city of this size.
Ross Alexander
Maori Hill
Let’s have a respectful debate on the subject
ODT correspondent Robin Marks (Letters 10.12.24) is critical of what is described as my failure to speak plainly.
On occasions, trying to meet ODT word limits, precludes explanations.
Alternately Robin Marks might like to review their comprehension skills.
It was not my comment that described the Treaty Principles Bill as “this pile of muck”.
Nor did I describe the public as “having their ignorance and prejudice exploited” or the Bill as “evil” .
Robin Marks ignores the reality that the comments in my opinion piece on the Treaty Principles are based on the work of respected historians such as Michael King .
Opinion pieces are not sworn factual statements Robin Marks, but simply comments based on interest and personal understanding . Otherwise known as “public opinion.”
I live in hope that the critics of the Treaty Principles Bill such as Robin Marks might soon indicate exactly what clause or principle they find offensive.
Perhaps the ODT could sponsor a debate on the subject?
Gerrard Eckhoff
Alexandra
Michael King
Discussion is at least a path to prosperity
To those who oppose the Treaty Principles Bill:
1. Do you really believe that our freely-elected democratic Parliament should not have the power to make laws and that our freely-elected democratic government should not have full power to govern?
2. Do you really believe that the rights that hapū and iwi Maori had under the Treaty at its signing in 1840 should not be recognised?
3. Do you really believe that everyone should not be equal before the law?
If 1, then I assume you want to return to some kind of undemocratic governing arrangement where a privileged few, unelected and unaccountable to the rest of us, decide the laws, the taxes and the consequences?
If 2, then do you believe that Maori were over-compensated by the courts?
If 3, then do you want some kind of unequal society where different groups have different rights and power over others.
The vagueness of what “The Principles of the Treaty” means has resulted in substantial payments to consultants at our (ratepayers and taxpayers’) expense, and also added to the costs of many institutions, causing price rises.
Why would anyone be strongly opposed to a public discussion? Is there fear of a gravy train being lost?
My thoughts also go back to the flag debate, when John Key’s attempt to replace our flag with a modern one was soundly booted out, more I think, because of opposition to the man than to the plan.
If New Zealand is to prosper peacefully, our laws need to reflect a regard for people as individuals, not as members of ethnic groups.
Discussion on this Bill is at least a start on that path.
John Day
Wanaka
BIBLE READING: In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. — Luke 2:8.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
