Official power and elected representatives
I know nothing of the details of why the [Gore] situation you write about has occurred (ODT, 31.3.23), but I do know that throughout the country there is an awakening within local government of CEOs having close to autonomous power which has reduced elected representatives' roles to nothing much more than rubber stamping.
The resulting frustration is causing great damage to councils and the democratic process generally.
The solution is an act of Parliament that would dispense with the current title of CEO and return the role to that of senior clerk. This action would also have the effect of again attracting practical people back to council tables.
Having said that, until codes of conduct are also discarded no elected person will feel free to voice an opinion. The threat of action against any rep who doesn’t abide by a particular agenda is killing robust debate.
Tamaki protest
In response to the article "Protest against Tamakis ends in celebration" (ODT, 31.3.23), I found the quote: "People are scared of things they don’t understand. And a lot of people […] tend to express their fear through anger."
In light of the recent Posie Parker protests and contentions around "free speech" in New Zealand, I find this quote very relevant for reflection. It requires a certain bravery and strength of character to engage in discourse with someone who holds a contrary worldview from your own, especially if this can be done without falling into anger or other emotional outbursts.
Through debate we allow our views to be challenged and confront the possibility that certain ideas we hold are illogical or built on false premises, and it also provides an opportunity for the public to become more informed on an issue and form their own opinions.
Society must value open discourse and debate, otherwise volatile "protests" will dictate what ideas are acceptable and what are not. "Might makes right" should never be a precedent used to shut down a discussion, as that sentiment gives virtue to aggression and intimidation in lieu of pursuing truth, reason, and understanding.
Hospital campaign
Fantastic to see Mayor Radich with other councillors at Wall St Mall leading the petition against the proposed new hospital funding cuts.
The Government cries poor as a justification for the downsizing, which has no basis in fact. Any sovereign government of a country that is a net producer of goods and services is able to issue sufficient funds in order to realise the employment of labour and materials for infrastructure projects and the maintenance of public services.
This funding can be issued debt free by the Reserve Bank NZ with virtually zero cost to the taxpayer due to the majority of the money spent into circulation returning through the normal daily taxes operating throughout the economy. There is no reason why Dunedin should not have the first-class new hospital it was promised, other than perhaps the failed economic mindset of the Government and Treasury.
Rights aplenty
I think Greg Dawes (ODT 3.4.23) is mistaken. Māori have more rights than non-Māori. They have the rights they enjoyed and continue to enjoy as tangata whenua and they have the additional rights they enjoy under Te Tiriti.
Betting on Dunedin hospital as a going concern
Without in any way wanting to disparage the considerable efforts being made by the Dunedin mayor and locals to get the Labour Government to back down on cost-cutting at the new hospital, I have a practical solution that may appeal to all parties, and would actually place Dunedin in a considerably superior position to other centres.
My suggestion is that someone negotiate with the government to refrain from the traditional "stripping out" of the hospital chattels and fittings in the existing hospital and instead place it on the market as a "going concern" for someone such as Southern Cross Healthcare to take it over when the new hospital is operational.
This is likely to actually get the Government a better return from the existing building rather than seeing it sold as a skeleton building or empty section. It may cost a little more buying new chattels and fittings for the new hospital, rather than transferring some existing equipment, but this would be negligible in the big picture, and would reduce running costs in subsequent years.
Critics will say that the buyer of the hospital will not be able to get staff, nurses and doctors, but existing privately run hospitals do not experience the same constraints as government-run institutions, and I'll wager $500 that within 24 months the old hospital will be well run and cost-effectively upgraded by private enterprise, and receiving considerable revenue from the public purse — when the new Dunedin hospital is unable to meet demand — as is being postulated.
Otago will be the real winner if this could be achieved.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
