20 minute read
Opinion
EDITORIAL
We can better spend $30m elsewhere
WE SAY
GRACE PRIOR
grace.prior@age.co.nz
Our mental health system is failing, and a decaying system has left many families stranded in relative poverty. We’re letting this happen while our council parades about with constructing a civic centre for the ages.
I’m not sure if I’m alone in this thought or not, but I believe that the $30 odd million earmarked for a proposed civic centre in Masterton should be going into community support.
Social Development Ministry data shows 2268 workingaged [18-64] Masterton residents received a benefi t in 2020. The biggest portion, 790, were between the ages of 25 and 39.
We have a silent epidemic going on in the background of this town. Some children are bound to be growing up in broken families, failing to get an education, and being sucked into a system of poverty they can’t always get out from.
I say this because I’ve seen, met, and lived with people who have grown up in Masterton and have been in the prison system, which stemmed from their broken upbringing.
This isn’t something I ever thought I’d experience, but it was eye-opening to how the world looks for someone who has had next to nothing their whole life.
Masterton Council wants to spend a large amount of money on a civic centre when it could be helping its community in other, more meaningful ways.
The argument shouldn’t be between keeping the old town hall or building a new facility – it should be about where priorities in spending lie.
If anything, we need community facilities that are useful, better mental health support, and better education options.
Build something for the community, sure, but make it useful.
We could have a space that is accessible to all walks of life and provides support services they need.
I just can’t fathom how we can care so much about what a $30m civic facility is going to look like while children are walking to school with no shoes and no food.
Yes, there is support in place for families and communities, but it wouldn’t be a long shot to say that it isn’t enough.
You know that “would you steal bread to feed your family?” age-old question? Well, I bet you that’s happening regularly for some people right around the corner.
We act like we know what’s going on in our communities, but I don’t think we do.
‘Progress’ in the way of building something is nothing if parts of our community are still suff ering.
There is support out there, some from various government agencies, no doubt a bit from the council – but that is nowhere near enough.
The troubles that lower-income families face are often inter-generational, much like some of our wealth.
We seem to have been turning a bit of a blind eye to poverty in this country and allowing ourselves to forget because we just don’t see it.
I’m not asking everyone to become Mother Teresa, but I think it makes a damn sight more sense investing in our people and their welfare before we invest in a building, so we look prettier.
The Wairarapa Times-Age is subject to New Zealand Media Council procedures. A complaint must rst be directed in writing to the editor’s email address. If not satis ed with the response, the complaint may be referred to the Media Council P.O. Box 10-879, Wellington 6143. Or use the online complaint form at www.presscouncil.org.nz. Please include copies of the article and all correspondence with the publication.
LETTERS
Thanks for the incredible five years, team
Wow, what an incredible fi ve years of local ownership of the Times-Age.
Until I opened the paper yesterday morning, I had not realised how things had gone full circle. I remember feeling devastated when circulation was removed from Masterton and people’s jobs were at risk.
Thank you, Andrew Denholm for bringing things back to Masterton and for the superb service to Wairarapa — up to date news items, reporting both sides of important events that aff ect so many people.
I love the items on those whose lives can be changed for the better with help from all sources, some unexpected. Assistance has come for so many because of the stories your staff have sourced.
Congratulations to you all for a job well done. Special thanks to those who brave the weather in the dark of night to deliver my paper to the door. So much appreciated.
Mrs P Palmer
Masterton
Coverage appreciated
Congratulations on your fi fth anniversary as a locally owned
Proper consultation what we need
In the past week, we’ve heard from Cr Tina Nixon, Mayor Lyn Patterson, and in Tuesday’s paper Teresa McClymont claiming in various states of know-allness that the people and groups opposing Masterton’s $30m civic centre project are dealing in misinformation and should be discounted as such.
Those groups and people are dealing in no such thing.
The thrust of what most of them are saying is simply that they would like further consultation done — it is widely agreed the consultation wasn’t done as well as it could have been.
Cognitive somersaults were performed when less than 30 per cent of people wanted the new $30m project was somehow accounted to 51 per cent support.
Even if you believe that nonsense, 51 per cent support in and of itself would suggest further consultation is needed for such a large project.
The Times-Age survey, while not scientifi c, would suggest the support has been grossly overstated too.
So, it strikes me that the real peddlers of misinformation on this topic are the aforementioned people who are howling “it’s all lies” to community-led action and democracy.
Perhaps now would be a good time to suggest Patterson and Co take themselves to Farmers department store and address the glaring issue at hand by obtaining some new clothing. They might have to take Ross’ measurements with them though - I heard she’s not allowed back there for some reason.
Geoff Brown
Masterton
Resignation call
The small deeds of people often belie more meaning than intended.
Given the immaturity and unprofessionalism shown by Masterton Council’s chief executive Kath Ross in ripping down posters critical of her brainchild $30 million civic centre, how sure can we be that councillors get the impartial advice and facts they need to govern properly and which she is duty-bound to present?
She could do the decent thing and resign. C’est la vie.
Theus Goodwin
Masterton
Civic centre sites considered by Masterton District Council in a 2019 report.
Shame on you
I cannot believe that the Masterton District Council chief executive Kath Ross had the cheek to take down posters that did not agree with her ideals.
Shame on you.
It’s no wonder the council is in disarray if that is how its administrative leader acts.
Lorraine Burcher
Masterton
CEO actions
Masterton Council’s chief executive [Kath Ross] is responsible for the smooth running of our town aff airs, overseeing her staff , advising our elected council.
Sadly, only the very naive would say that she has succeeded.
Many questions need answering.
Are contracts going to the appropriate contractors? Roading, for example, is a complete shambles and the car purchases — is it true that the council has bought two electric cars from a Wellington company rather than supporting our local traders?
And now she has made headlines in our local paper, having been caught on security cameras tearing opposition posters down.
Is this person worthy of a salary in the hundreds of thousands? I think not.
Time for a change — in many areas.
Richard Dahlberg
Masterton
Council decision-making
As you may be aware, I am opposed to the decision to construct a new Masterton civic centre, so-called.
However, although I have a lot of respect for the paper, I was somewhat appalled by the headlines in Wednesday’s edition.
I refer to the ‘Council boss revealed as a poster thief’.
The action was, of course, not only silly but gives signifi cant insight into how disregarding this person is of public opinion.
However, it is the word ‘boss’ that concerns me.
The person in question cannot be the boss of council. The council is a committee who look after the ratepayers of Masterton on their behalf.
A poster in town also stated it was the ‘chief of council’.
Thanks for the incredible five years, team
newspaper, and the fantastic coverage of the people behind the publication and distribution of the TimesAge.
I really appreciate and enjoy getting the paper each morning in my letterbox.
Your coverage of the town hall/civic centre debate is excellent – an open dialogue with numerous letters published and open to discussion.
I read in Tuesday’s paper that Teresa McClymont urged readers to wait for more information — a bit late in the debate as this is what has been asked for all along but is not forthcoming.
Cheryl Cavanagh
Masterton
Proper consultation what we need
PHOTO/FILE
Again not accurate.
Like all chief executives, this council’s is assuming too much authority. She is but an instrument of the council’s organisation.
Here lies the real problem with this issue of town hall replacement. Too many decisions are made without regard to legitimate opinion, typical, I believe, of how chief executives operate.
Let’s be sensible and talk about what Masterton needs now for a centre, and let’s focus on urgent matters such as viable water supply and completed sewage systems and decent everyday needs for all — not just for those with grandiose ideas.
Ross Ireland
Masterton
Town hall subsoil classi cation
My degree qualifi cation is in architecture and structure from fi rst principles.
The Spencer Holmes report of 2004 said the town hall would comply with the rules if the subsoil class is C.
The LGE Consulting report of 2016 said the town hall would not comply with the rules if the subsoil class is D.
Likewise, the surveys on the hospital and, I expect, many commercial buildings in town are based on conjecture, not fact.
In my opinion, it is nonsense to use a hypothetical situation and claim it as fact, then to hold the populace to ransom over it.
Until such time as a subsoil survey is done specifi c to the town hall to correctly determine the subsoil value — by borehole analysis, for example — then there are insuffi cient facts to determine whether or not these buildings meet the rules.
Whether they are safe or not depends on analysis that compliance with the rules doesn’t cover.
The LGE report comes close by addressing the risks of loss of gravity support, and the peer review by Dunning Thornton Consultants usefully adds to this by recommending additional egress from the auditorium.
Stephen Butcher
Carterton
Do we feel lucky?
How many more times are we going to be told by ‘experts’ and politicians that we ‘got lucky’ or ‘dodged a bullet’ when it comes to spreading covid infections?
We have had, mainly in Auckland, but now in Wellington, many examples of supposedly infectious people travelling widely, visiting restaurants, shops, gyms, and colleges without any community spread.
However, what is the response? To argue for even more restrictive conditions regarding masks and scanning.
When I was at school, I was taught that if the facts don’t fi t your theory, then it’s not the facts that are wrong.
On the other side of the coin, it is now okay to claim a ‘false positive’ result [probably correctly] when the other evidence is contradictory, or if it suits the narrative.
However, I don’t remember anyone discussing that possibility in the Carterton case at the start of the pandemic, which apparently was an important factor in starting us on this crazy never-ending lockdown sequence
David Farlow
Masterton
HUBBARD’S VIEW
COMMENT
Eating outside your comfort zone
THE LIGHTER SIDE
WYN DRABBLE
I like to think I’m a reasonably adventurous eater; you certainly couldn’t tie me with the epithet “picky”.
If I’m in a classy restaurant headed by a skilled chef, I can even go so far as keeping my order very simple indeed. “Just feed me,” I might say to the waitperson and then sit back and wait for the surprises to appear.
Possibly because of that, or possibly because they looked intriguing, Mrs D came home with a packet of rosemary crackers to liven up one of our picnic-style meals. They certainly looked interesting. And healthy.
They were quite dark in colour and specked with little seeds – I could certainly identify sesame seeds – and what we supposed was some other form of compressed goodness.
I thought the fl avour might be a little overpowering for the cheeses on off er so I opted for the safety of trying one by itself fi rst. I bit it in half – it was only small – and started my investigatory mastication.
When you do that, you’re looking for some sort of response which lies along the range bordered by “yum” at one end and “no, I don’t care for that” at the other.
This item fell outside those parameters. “This is horrible!” I said choosing blunt honesty over the softness of understatement. Like tree bark but with less fl avour.
Mrs D tried one; they couldn’t be that bad. “This is horrible!” she agreed.
Occasionally we might say that once was enough and we wouldn’t buy this or that product again. Fair enough! You can’t like everything. But right now I can’t think of any other foodstuff which has prompted a unanimous response of “horrible”.
We certainly weren’t going to eat them so they would need to be passed on to other members of the animal kingdom and here I’m not meaning to malign animals.
We have a bird-feeding station and every morning the feathered ones line up for their daily seed off ering. They’ll love these, we thought. All those yummy seeds lovingly encased in … well … other stuff .
The following morning, to our surprise, we found that even though we had broken the items up into little beak-friendly pieces they remained untouched. Even the birds didn’t like them! “These are horrible!” they were probably chirping to one another.
Mother birds were possibly nudging their young away from the off ending items. Well, you know how picky kids are about food.
So, this called for another contender from the animal kingdom. Madam Dog would be a perfect candidate given that she will eat meat, grass, bugs, dirt, clothes pegs, courier parcels, hosiery, frogs, fi rewood. In fact, she’ll eat virtually anything classifi ed as a noun.
She approached with caution as she knows that treats off ered outside meal times can be medicinal [worm and fl ea tablets and the like] and they are the only noun she doesn’t like. And that’s despite the fact that the manufacturers claim to have turned them into yummy treats.
She took it cautiously in her mouth, obviously not wanting to commit too early. She then asked to go outside [dogs can do that] where she released the food item on to the lawn in front of her and sat barking at things she could see on the property.
It took a while but eventually she consumed the item. I even off ered a second and, with that, she went through the same procedure. Cautious, yes, but, hey, it was food.
So, I certainly encourage you to be a little adventurous with your food purchases but, in case you purchase this item, you will need back-up in the form of a dog.
Also remember that birds may be more intelligent than you think. • Wyn Drabble is a teacher of English, a writer, public speaker and musician
CONTACT US
f
You may share your opinion in print and online. To comment online, visit our website www.age.co.nz or our Facebook page and feel free to comment on any of the stories. Please email letters to news@age.co.nz or post to Wairarapa Times-Age letters, P.O. Box 445, Masterton. Include name, address, and phone number. Noms de plume are not accepted. Letter writers’ town of origin will be published with the letter. Letters should be no more than 250 words, and may be edited for space and clarity.
COMMENT Are we on a road to absolutism?
My six-year-old grandson loves our lakeside playground.
A week ago, some scumbags stole the park equipment worth tens of thousands of dollars. The theft would have required a gang, planning, bolt cutters, and transport.
The community has not hung back in expressing its views.
Who they are and why they did it should not matter. We should hate those who take joy from children.
If the government has its way, then who did the theft will matter.
If it was one of the groups, who the government says should be exempted from criticism, then it will be me who is the criminal. I have incited you to hate them. I will be liable for a $50,000 fine and or three years jail.
Kris Faafoi, is assuring us this will not happen. Faafoi is totally unqualified to be Justice Minister and his assurances are worthless.
The government has published a discussion paper on criminalising hate speech.
The minister’s introduction states “incitement is intolerable” because it makes “people feel unsafe and unwelcome”. This law is to protect our feelings.
The paper cites the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry recommending the existing law be clarified and the penalties
It is not the government’s role to protect us from having our beliefs challenged.
made harsh.
There is no evidence that hate speech was the motivation for the Australian terrorist.
Hate speech laws are always confusing because the concept is subjective. There is no objective test.
What makes you feel unsafe is totally subjective. Some people feel unsafe in the dark. Hate speech will be whatever the authorities decide.
The government wants to add groups that should be exempt from ridicule and has suggested “religion, gender, sexuality, and disability”. The paper does not explain why these groups.
We can easily think of others. Why not the vertically challenged? Height matters. Most US presidents have been over six feet tall.
Then what about the most misunderstood? Old white men, a group with which I feel some affinity. There are university courses on “white privilege” that seem designed to make old white men feel “unsafe and unwelcomed”.
Once we are protecting people’s feelings, the list of groups is infinite.
The government’s second reason for having hate speech laws is even worse. New Zealand has signed some UN treaties banning hate speech.
This government has never seen a UN treaty it did not want to sign. None of these treaties has been approved by Parliament or the electorate.
Cancel culture is sweeping the West. It is identity politics — persuading voters that they are victims who need protecting.
Despite Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s denial that the hate speech ban will extend to politics, that paper asks whether the ban should include “political
PHOTO/STOCK.ADOBE.COM
opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion”.
The proposals are ill-thoughtout and dangerous.
What the government should be doing is examining fundamental principles.
Why is free speech important?
Free speech is the building block on which democracy is constructed. Out of discussion and debate, we test ideas.
Only by allowing the advancement of false propositions can we prove they are wrong.
Faafoi’s claim we can ban some speech but still have free speech for “important issues” is nonsense.
When government decides what are the “important issues” for “public debate” we are no longer free.
Freedom is the ability to say what is not only wrong but vile.
Views we regard as “safe” today were once regarded as very “unsafe” such as having a woman as the prime minister.
It is important that the state protects religious freedom, including the right to hold no religious belief.
Religious freedom does not extend to the state giving special protection to religious opinions.
Fifty-thousand youths and maidens were slain in sacrifice to the god Huitzilopochtli in one year. If he has any believers today, we should be able to express our disgust without being threatened with imprisonment.
It is a shock for some new migrants from countries where blasphemy is a capital offence to discover New Zealanders are free to ridicule their religion.
In a democracy, it is not the role of the government to protect us from having our beliefs challenged, no matter how “unsafe and unwelcome” that may make us feel.
The risk of being offended is the cost we must pay for having the right to say what we think. Once we empower the state to protect us from being offended, we are no longer a free society.
Free speech is our defence against tyranny. It is our ability to say that the government is wrong.
Even if I am wrong in believing that open dialogue results in better decisions and a more tolerant society, I am still in favour of free speech.
I want to live in a society where I am free to incite you to hate the scumbags who took away my grandson’s playground joy. – NZME • Richard Prebble is a former leader of the Act Party and former member of the
Labour Party.
Putting wicked plastic in New Zealand’s rear-view mirror
New Zealanders of an older vintage will remember when milk was delivered in glass bottles and goods weren’t multi-layered in plastic.
Those days may be making a comeback of sorts with an official attempt to put some plastic in the rear-view mirror.
Kiwis have an ignoble record on creating waste. On average, we each throw away an estimated 159g every day. Our households go through about 1.76 billion plastic containers annually, and nearly 100 million plastic drink and milk bottles end up in rubbish bins.
And we are not great at food waste either — we bin $2.4 billion of food waste annually.
Government moves to ban hard-to-recycle products by mid2025 will cull common items such as plastic cutlery, cotton buds, PVC meat trays, and polystyrene takeaway containers. Drink stirrers, plastic plates, and bowls, straws and fruit labels will be phased out.
It has drawn criticism from
PVC trays are to be phased out. PHOTO/STOCK.ADOBE.COM
Greenpeace for overlooking plastic drink bottles, while supermarket chains say they are already phasing out single-use plastics.
Countdown sustainability general manager Kiri Hannifin told RNZ “we do need help with innovation ... it’s not just the packaging, we also urgently need to sort out our recycling infrastructure”.
The new programme follows the ban on single-use plastic bags. People have quickly got used to paper and reusable carry bags.
Environment Minister David Parker said the 2019 move meant more than a billion fewer plastic bags have ended up in landfills or the ocean.
It’s among a range of environmental actions that have fanned out to affect everyday lives.
The concept of low-traffic neighbourhoods has been controversial both in Auckland and in Britain. A trial in Onehunga was cancelled in May after opposition by residents to street closures.
It wouldn’t meet with the approval of the Auckland man who famously likes berms to be mowed, but letting green areas resemble hay paddocks has become a growing trend in England.
The No Mow May effort to help plants, insects, and animals has, for instance, been adopted by Salisbury Cathedral with a decision to stop mowing the lawns once a year during May. Part of the area will be left unmown yearround.
The Australian Capital Territory is also taking aim at plastic with the first phase of its single-use plastic ban starting this week.
Environmental issues are increasingly coming down to personal and mundane levels.
Plastic has long been emblematic of throwaway, disposable societies, yet the phase-out plan is also good news for people frazzled by how much rubbish accumulates in their homes.
The quick, easy plastic option tends to stick around.
It is also welcome for those who like items with a bit of permanence and character rather than of functional but meaningless.
Even old nick-knacks our grandmothers owned tended to be made of metal, china, or wood, while finer things such as plates and cups held their good looks for generations. It takes a bit of effort to find similar items these days that are worth keeping.
As with health problems, the key to avoiding plastic is prevention — providing better alternatives to going down the cheap, thoughtless, and bad path.
Just like reusable shopping bags, the only time we’ll remember our addiction to singleuse plastics will be to wonder why we didn’t change sooner. – NZ Herald editorial published yesterday.
