Actions, not words break NZ Post deed
One would think that the current CEO of New Zealand Post, David Walsh, who is receiving just on $900,000 salary and his predecessor Sir Brian Roche paid $1.68 million, that between them they had the business acumen to meet the conditions of the SOE Act 1988 which required New Zealand Post to be "an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates".
In 1989 a Deed of Understanding was an integral part of NZ Post, clearly setting out the social, price, and service undertakings that had to be met.
What has this CEO offered? The gradual demise of the very fundamental service that the postal service was set up for — to deliver mail to the mailboxes of every New Zealander. Mr Walsh chooses to dishonour the Deed in favour of dollars.
He does not seem to realise that if one postie stops delivering mail to 300 letterboxes each day then 300 people will have to travel each day to check their mail. With 2 million letterboxes and some 320 delivery days that’s in excess of 640 million daily journeys Kiwis will be asked to make simply to replace some 750 posties.
Many rural people will have to drive every day to check their mail — millions of litres of fuel expended, further impact on the environment. Thousands of elderly who can currently manage to check their mail box each day will be unable to travel to a cluster site or central mail centre.
There has to be a better way. If Mr Walsh does not have the skill to honour the Deed then he should step aside.
[Abridged — length. Editor.]
Bus matters
I join the protest of the unhappy cyclist’s recent letter (18.11.24) regarding NZTA’s restriction of bikes on buses.
Last week, my grandson, bound for MacAndrew Bay, was left stranded at Edgar Centre bus stop, with his bike which had developed a flat tyre. The bus driver refused to take him and his disabled bike and shut the door and drove away. With his parents unavailable at that time, about 3.45, I received his call.
These new restrictions are NZTA’s concerns of bus headlights being obscured by bikes on racks, but I wonder how can the slim lines of a bike seriously obscure the bus driver’s vision. Refusal to take a schoolboy home under these conditions is not acceptable. We need simple common sense and empathy.
[Delaney Myers, chief executive, Bus & Coach Association, responds: "In late October, NZTA issued an Industry Alert explaining it tested some buses with loaded bike racks, and found they were not legally compliant because the bikes obstructed headlights. NZTA instructed operators that they must take steps to comply with the law and should restrict use of affected racks to daytime until resolved. We respect that NZTA would not issue an alert unless there was a safety risk.
By law, buses must always be up to Certificate of Fitness (CoF) standard on the road. When buses go for their CoF, the racks are empty. Testing indicates most of the fleet doesn’t comply with CoF lighting requirements with bikes on, and there was no quick fix in most cases. This meant the only way to comply with the law was to disable the racks.
Regarding daytime use, the law says required lighting can’t be obstructed at any time. During the day, headlamps are required in low light, heavy rain, fog and tunnels.
We share the frustrations, and ask people to understand that as responsible transport operators, companies can’t reinstate the racks until it can be done legally. We’re working with councils and NZTA to try and find a resolution.
In the meantime, please know the bus drivers have no choice about the racks. Please don’t take your frustrations out on them.
Bible: literary merit versus scientific worth
Your correspondent M.W. Cowan (Letters ODT 6.11.24) states: "The Bible has a great opening verse and it gets better when you read more." He then quotes that "great" opening verse: "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."
He has got it all wrong. The Bible is said to be "the infallible Word of God". And yet, it begins with a big lie; the Earth was not created in the beginning. Modern cosmology has proved conclusively that by the time our solar system was born, the rest of the universe was already more than eight billion years old.
As to the biblical narrative getting "better as you read more" — wrong again. It’s second verse is also a big lie.
While we still don't know for certain how our planet got its copious amounts of liquid water, we do know that it was not there from day one. The earth was then a seething cauldron of molten rock and toxic fumes. It took millions of years to cool down.
Whatever value the Bible may have as a piece of literature, for truthseeking purposes the book is worthless.
Giving credit
I wish to acknowledge the excellent letter of New Plymouth resident Steve Laurence regarding positive money (13.11.24) Neither Labour nor National as yet seem to be willing to use this monetary policy to create wealth and opportunity. Chris Leitch and Bruce Beetham, who led Social Credit with compassion and care, would be pleased that New Zealanders are campaigning on this issue. Thank you Steve. Chris, may perpetual light shine upon all the good that you were able to do.
Seymour should stick to what he knows about
I am forever grateful to the education I received in sociology and Māori studies that formed part of my training to become a registered nurse in the 1990s. Without it, I may have had a similar reaction to the parliamentary haka as that of Bruce Eliott (Letters ODT 19.11.24) and Colin Perriman (21.11.24).
To Speaker Gerry Brownlee’s credit, he had the grace and wisdom to leave Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke to "be" Māori. Education is key to understanding and fostering cross-cultural relations.
Would it not be ridiculous to engage a sociologist to engineer the next major infrastructure project? Why then do we have an engineer meddling in matters of sociology, ethnology, history etc?
I suspect David Seymour’s area of expertise would see him better suited to helping Simeon Brown with his potholes.
Let’s all move on
When is enough enough? Every day in the media we read of discontent, racial abuse, and total ignorance regarding this issue. Years ago in the ’60s and ’70s I, along with thousands of Kiwis worked alongside Māori and other races: everyone was content, virtually everyone had employment, and everyone had equal access to education and health.
Today, we are experiencing independent, individualistic, racial, radicals who are only interested in stirring up the Treaty issues for their own benefit. What don't they understand: the Treaty was signed by their forefathers for equality for all, no exceptions.
Let’s get back to reality, all move on: as Winston Peters said, one country one people.
Middle NZ speaks
I was so amazed by the hysteria over Act New Zealand’s Bill that I thought I should read up on it, which I did, and I wonder if all those protesting have too.
Surprisingly I couldn't see anything wrong with it; the premise that we are all equal in this country should be rock solid for a start and is certainly worth discussing.
I think everyone should read up on it and have a long think about it. If you are worried that it is going to divide the country, well bad luck as that already happened long before this Bill came to light .
The situation is that I am looking at it as a member of middle New Zealand. We are the silent majority of this country who sit back, say little, go about our business and take a good look at the direction this country is heading in. We may not say much but we do vote.
Diabolical legacy
Democracy worldwide is under threat, whether the USA, Germany, Israel, the list goes on. We sit here in Godzone and think we are better, are different, but really are we?
A current coalition of partners who were desperate to reign at any cost, whose ideological agendas are so different that massive compromises have been made to appear to be "united" in purpose: what a crock.
An Act party who regularly blows the dog whistle of racism; a New Zealand First party that rides the populist wave amongst those who see Winston Peters as the second coming. Lastly the Nats, led by someone who believes New Zealand should be run like a business, those who have money will make more, those who haven't — who cares?
The three core foundations that support and make a country what it is are health, education and welfare. That trifecta should be sacrosanct, no matter who is in power. Are we all happy with how things are in that trifecta? My guess is most will say no.
Sadly all three are now political footballs where whomever makes the best claim of others being at fault wins the game. Is this what we voted for? Is this how we want to be seen as a country?
But most of all is this diabolical situation to be the legacy we leave for our tamariki and mokopuna?
Principles of equality
It's all very well for Anaru Eketone (Opinion ODT 18.11.24) to lecture us about his skewed interpretation of the Treaty. However, the word kāwanatanga (governorship) is indicative of the concept of sovereignty, for which there was no traditional Māori equivalent word. Further still, it is clear from documents and letters written by Māori that they accepted British sovereignty.
Case in point is a letter penned by Kāi Tahu representatives in 1857 to Queen Victoria asking her to bring back George Grey (Teriha) as a "permanent governor over them over the South Island . . . who was sent by thee to lay down the law of they loving command for the Maori race — that the law be made one — that the commandments be made one — that the natives be made one — at the white skin be made one".
The said letter, which is held with the National Library, intones principles of equality between the races under one law, and has appended the names of numerous Kāi Tahu and Kāti Māmoe rangatira, including Taiaroa, Karetai, Tiramōrehu, and Te Au of Colac Bay.
Shameful waste
Like many of your readers I was appalled at the accusations that the CEO of the Dunedin City Council habitually badmouthed all and sundry when the mood took her over a lengthy period of time.
In response the mayor selected a group of councillors to determine how the matter should be handled. The CEO apologised and instead of using their authority, collective skills and common sense to come up with a suitable reprimand and disciplinary action they elected to spend $132,509.01, or the annual rates of about 40 Dunedin ratepayers, on a report from a legal person, just in case they did something wrong and needed someone else to blame.
The thing that struck me is that the mayor and councillors accept that this is wise and appropriate use of the money that 40 ratepayers have worked hard to provide. Imagine what else could have been done with that money, and this is only one example. The mind boggles.
In my view if the current elected representatives can’t make decisions about routine employment matters without running for help from obscenely expensive consultants at every turn then they are all taking a salary under false pretences and should resign .
This is a disgraceful and shameful waste of our money.
Colourful vocabulary
DCC chief executive Sandy Graham’s colourful vocabulary may not have been all that wise or appropriate but for goodness sake the self-righteous bleating of some city councillors is quite ridiculous: I have no doubt they have resorted to such rhetoric and still do.
Ms Graham’s position with DCC is demanding and highly stressful and so concessions need to be made. Any councillors or DCC employees who for some reason hold negative views of Ms Graham, will most certainly milk her recent language for all it’s worth, and I suggest those who have publicly denigrated her will have an agenda of a different type unrelated to this slight fall from grace.
I wish Ms Graham my vote of confidence unreservedly. She has taken full responsibility and apologies have been made. Her detractors need to move on.
Emboldening terror
Peter Matheson’s column (Opinion ODT 5.11.24) seeks a response for Gaza. However, it's full of baseless allegations and is precariously selective.
Stating that Palestinian and Lebanese lives matter, he retells their accounts. Yet, did he try to hear those of Israelis who experienced the atrocities of October 7 or lived under the threats of Hizbollah invasion?
Matheson labels Israel’s government as the “instigator of political instability and the problem in the Middle East”. However, despite his enthusiasm to condemn Israel, he completely ignores Hamas’ aim to destroy Israel through sacrificing Gaza’s people and infrastructure. It’s Hamas’ disregard for Palestinian and Israeli lives which causes the suffering.
Yet, despite Hamas’ contempt for its people, Israel’s complex, defensive war upholds the laws of armed conflict, as assessed by veteran Western generals, rather than an Otago academic.
So, how to respond? Ironically, Matheson’s suggestions, which fail to hold Hamas to account, will only embolden them and invite further violence from which ordinary Palestinians will be the main victims. Instead, he should call to release the Israeli hostages and remove Hamas.
Expansion, not survival
What pro-Zionists like Chris Caradus (Letters ODT 14.11.24) conveniently overlook is that Israel is no longer fighting for survival but for expansion – to be achieved by killing, maiming, starving and expelling as many Arabs, the indigenous people of Palestine, as possible under the mendacious protection of the US.
A C- from me
John Hobbs, doctoral student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at Otago University, gets a C- from me for his latest article (Opinion ODT 15.11.24) mainly for its inaccuracies and lack of facts.
Ten times he uses the term "genocide" against Israel as it confronts its enemies in a seven-front war since its border was breached on October 7. Hobbs must think that if he repeats it enough times it could be true. It is not.
He fails to acknowledge that Hamas is the terrorist front that was the aggressor, only referring to the Palestinian people. They did vote Hamas into power but that's another story. The same with the Hizbollah who John refers to as the Lebanese people. These two terrorist groups are proxies of the Islamic republic of Iran under the control of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
The known charter of this Iranian Islamic regime is the complete annihilation of Israel and the killing of every Jew. Their education system teaches this mantra from age 2 and encourages martyrdom in this cause.
The vicious brutality shown on October 7 to the 1200 innocent victims and 250 hostages, over half of whom have been murdered by Hamas, vividly demonstrates this indoctrinated hatred towards Israel and its inhabitants.
Israel's population of 7 million people would welcome the chance to live in peace with all its 400 million Arab neighbours.
John Hobbs is living in a fantasy world if he thinks the noble values and principles expressed by Nania Mahuta during her time as foreign minister, could influence such radicalised thinking from Teheran.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
