Hospital article claims offensive: councillor
I write this letter as a disillusioned ex-Labour voter.
The language of MP Rachel Brooking’s opinion piece demonstrates the massive void that is occurring throughout the nation between Labour MPs and the people they are supposed to represent.
Her opinion piece (ODT 11.4.23) is being written as if the hospital rebuild team is bringing a new focus to the delivery of health and that is why we are seeing these changes. This manipulation of the events till now is offensive.
The redesign is to try and maintain clinical integrity in the face of a missing $90 million that she and other members of the Government are steadfastly refusing to bridge.
To say the programme business case is out of date is either cynical or naive. There were many years of hard work that went into designing the business case. The Government simply doesn’t want to commit to it. To accuse us of being intellectually lazy shows the domineering approach Labour has taken during this term of government.
Our local Labour MPs have not only failed to back the people of Dunedin over many issues they have now taken to speaking in arrogant tones down to us "the common people” they obviously feel they rule over.
The decision to fund or not to fund sits with Cabinet. Grant Robinson and Ayesha Verrall both have links to Dunedin. The decision sits primarily with them.
It is time to show Labour in this election that loyalty is earned not given.
Show your working
Thank you to Rachel Brooking for her article today (ODT 11.4.23) on the hospital build and in particular for the questions she raises as part of her requirement for clarification about aspects that concernwe who are currently protesting.
The biggest issue for me is the current inability to get clear and concise explanations for changes that have been made since the original plan was approved. What I hear and read is just generalisations, not specifics in most cases.
I need to ask the decision-makers for the following information so I can clearly understand how we have reached the latest design iteration and whether it will be fit for purpose.
For each individual department requiring clinical space, teaching space or staff spaces, and following discussions during the design process that were held with the clinicians involved as to what they really need, please tell me how much space has been allocated in the new build to each area compared to what they have now? A comparison chart would be ideal. Same for ward space, public space, administration space and so on.
We are told the new build is bigger so surely it would not be too difficult to detail the specifics of where the extra space is going to be.
We have heard the negative issues of equipment not being purchased, potential outsourcing of services, mental health beds omitted, areas built but as shells not completed. Whilst this may save money now, it must be affecting the space to be in use on completion of round one of the build.
Personally, I don’t care if the building is a just a concrete block – it is the inside services that are more important. What we need are the facilities to enable all staff to do their jobs in a way that patients require, in an environment that promotes care and pride.
Please show me precisely how the new build provides for this and will fulfil Otago-Southland health needs for the future.
Evolution, nudity, and hanging out at Kaka Point
In response to the article concerning nudist Lloyd Bonnar (ODT 10.4.23), I must share concerns about the lack of tolerance shown by his accusers.
Many cultures accept and respect nudity. While not a nudist, on visits to Germany or Scandinavia I sit naked with friends at the beach. In many sub-Saharan countries or our Pacific neighbours, nudity is rarely an issue. New Zealand, however, was influenced by the judgemental finger-pointing Victorian age, where tour groups of British women rampaged across Europe knocking the genitalia off Roman statues, and colonial masters ordered indigenous people to cover up.
I would like to think modern attitudes are more evolved, but alas, this is not the case down in Kaka Point.
I wonder whether any aggression would have been shown if Mr Bonnar was left alone? Would locals have acted similarly on a Swedish beach or a park in central Berlin? No, they would not care, and neither should we in New Zealand: when someone is naked away from the rest of humanity they are hurting no-one.
Judge Phillips is correct: being naked on an isolated beach does not cause harm. We must respect his ruling. What is concerning is that Mr and Mrs Rutherford and their neighbours remain obsessed with Mr Bonnar’s nudity, dismissing the judge and the New Zealand legal system. This is an unacceptable disrespect and intolerance of the rules underpinning our country. Kaka Point belongs to everyone and we must respect all who spend time there as long as they do not cause harm. After all, Mr Bonnar was alone, not at St Kilda on a bank holiday.
Mr Bonnar’s accusers should heed the words of Mahatma Gandhi that "the golden rule of conduct is mutual toleration" and just let him spend his days hanging out at Kaka Point.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
