Letters to Editor: We are blind to Govt hypocrisy

We are blind to Govt hypocrisy

The deception of living in a "democratic" land of plenty has been perpetrated and facilitated by consecutive administrations who, in their selfish efforts to push their own personal agendas, have missed the obvious necessities of good management, social values and the values of forward planning, to the extent where lives, livelihoods and the environment have been lost and compromised.

I am unapologetic in unsettling accepted assumptions within some readers with my opening statement and following text.

Most of us are aghast at the level of natural disasters which have befallen us during the past 18 months and we are sympathetic to the plight of those whose lives have been so badly affected, but we should be filled with anger and revulsion at the responses to most of the disasters.

Being non-judgmental is not an option.

Someone is culpable and should therefore be brought to account.

Government - in collusion with greedy New Zealand and foreign corporates - has been running this country on a shoestring.

I say this because from earthquakes, mine disasters and maritime shipwrecks we have been found wanting and clearly under-resourced.

As a maritime nation, we should have the most up-to-date infrastructure and equipment in place in the event of a maritime emergency, particularly when we hypocritically allow ships flying flags of convenience with badly trained crews to enter our coastal waters.

It is clearly evident that when we have to call on foreign agencies for deep-sea tugs, cranes and barges that we are falling short in our obligations.

Similarly, those poor souls who perished in the Pike River Mine never stood a chance when we had to obtain the necessary rescue equipment from Australia and the United States when it was all too late.

During the Christchurch earthquake, compromised buildings were not condemned after the first shake, leading to the CTV building collapse which unnecessarily claimed so many lives.

Now we are told, in spite of all this, that we are expected to believe that lives will not be lost or the environment compromised in the quest to recover oil from one of the most dangerous areas of ocean on the planet, which in addition has the world's largest undersea trench and line of undersea volcanoes just directly north of the drilling sites.

It is against this backdrop that we can be nothing other than suspicious over the snuggling up to Maori during an avalanche of bogus "Treaty" claims, assisted by the fraudulent alteration of the original documents and a more than sympathetic Attorney-General, making it possible to bypass any rigorous compliance regulations and legal opposition to unfettered mining, above and under the sea.

The railroading of unscrupulous legislation, lack of transparency, cronyism and underhanded deals behind closed doors has become the norm but as a nation of mainly gullible, sheepishly trusting souls, we never question the integrity of those in authority when we should be extremely worried about what is really happening in Aotearoa, the long-suffering land of hypocrisy.

Ken R Taylor, Hastings

Ocean Beach access

I have been visiting Ocean Beach in the early hours for more than 20 years and I am now no longer trusted to park in the public carpark.

This is PC gone crazy. For me and many others, the best time to visit a beach is in the late evening and early morning. It's a time of the day that surfers love, as do other recreational users.

If we let this happen at Ocean Beach, what will be next? Te Mata Peak, a public park? Vandalism and hoon driving is happening everywhere, so why is Ocean Beach being singled out?

Is this a deeper issue and baggage to other access issues to the beach?

Ocean Beach is not only a local gem but also a great tourism asset to the Bay - why are we therefore sending a message that the beach is closed and that it's unsafe?

I am sure the council has bigger issues to sort out.

Damon Harvey, Hastings

MP overload

In the letters published in Wednesday's Hawke's Bay Today, the defence of MMP and attack on my call for fewer MPs seem to be based around two claims.

Firstly, that the MPs from parties such as the Greens work hard to "scrutinise legislation" and "prepare bills, some of which make it into law", to quote Margaret Gwynn.

And secondly that we need at least 120 MPs for the selection-committee process to work well, to improve legislation and ensure it is not all passed under urgency, to paraphrase Ms Gwynn and Paul Bailey.

It seems not to occur to either correspondent that if we didn't have all these extra bills being proposed by this superfluity of MPs trying to justify their existence, then we wouldn't need all these MPs deemed necessary to prevent the selection-committee process being overwhelmed.

I rest my case. (Abridged.)

John Denton, Eskdale