Mia Handley, Ned Peita and Hirini Tau lead the Waitangi Day hikoi to the Treaty Grounds. Photo / Peter de Graaf
We will all pay the price of Auckland floods
The events of the past few weeks have highlighted how vulnerable Aucklanders and other regions are to “the perfect storm of weather event”.
There is a very urgent need for a Government review of the whole house and contents insurance industry and where liability lies. Perhaps a Ministry of Insurance should be established as a priority to over see this review and look at quick options for those who cannot afford house and contents insurance. Alternatively, Toka Tu Ake EQC (The Earthquake Commission) should be given wider powers and responsibility.
It would appear that central and local government may be liable for huge claims by many landowners who were given building consents and codes of compliance by their local council on sections which clearly should never have been given permission to build on because of potential cliff top subsidence and flooding etc.
It would appear council and insurance lawyers, accountants, architects, building engineers, builders, arbitrators and the courts will have a field day trying to sort out potential multimillion-dollar claims, where liability finally lies and who pays.
We will all pay for these claims one way or another either through either increased taxes and/or rates and/or increased house and contents premiums.
The mental and financial and emotional stress this will cause to many landowners and renters is incalculable. It is to be hoped the lessons learned and debacle and unacceptable delays in settling the Christchurch earthquake claims will not be repeated.
Bruce Tubb Devonport
Cannabis crop ‘amazing reading’
The Inside story by David Fisher, “We thought they grew tomatoes” (Herald on Sunday, February 5) was amazing reading.
Six hardworking Vietnamese nationals allegedly growing a crop of 6500 cannabis plants worth millions, and neighbours and locals thinking they were growing tomatoes and/or capsicums in the 11 half-round greenhouses.
Then just over three months from the start of their growing enterprise the police arrived at the remote Northland property, arrested the men, destroyed the crop and dismantled the whole operation. Great work NZ police.
Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth
Atkinson Rd frustration
It was interesting to read the letter from Murray Hunter (Sunday, February 5) regarding Woodfern Cres in Titirangi being used as a detour during Watercare’s work to install a new watermain along Atkinson Rd.
We know that Atkinson Rd carries around 8000 car movements a day and that our minor road cannot cope.
I am the neighbour he spoke with, after attending the community information evening in October 2022.
The community understands how important the work is, and that completing it requires everybody to be considerate and to work together. But it is indeed very frustrating that locals are not listened to.
As a community we offered many reasonable and logical suggestions to avoid a dangerous situation arising, especially once school was back — over 2000 students within a 1.2km radius. None were listened to as they all fell outside the scope of work.
When asked for information about the scope of work, we were advised that it is “commercially sensitive” and confidential.
A shame that they didn’t include some vestige of community consultation with the very people who often know best — locals who live, work and go to school here.
Gillian Howard, Titirangi
Cruise ship terminal support
I was interested in the article by Bernard Orsman re a suggestion by the Ports of Auckland boss proposing a new cruise terminal on port land, costing about $10 million, which I fully support.
Surely Auckland would be on the winning side of this new amenity when the benefits of increased visitors are taken into account and when we look at what Christchurch is doing.
I can’t really see how Auckland benefits from more port land being progressively returned for public use, when we already have a developed area from the ferry building to the Viaduct, which appears to have become, apart from the restaurants and fish market, somewhat neglected.
The Viaduct used to be a vibrant area with art exhibitions, children’s playgrounds, gardens and a conference centre but all those, apart from an unused conference centre, seem to have gone.
So why oh why would Auckland ratepayers want to spend money duplicating what we already have when what is being proposed by the Ports of Auckland boss surely would be a new revenue stream for Auckland, helping to fund more of what we need.
Robin Harrison, Takapuna
Brazen supermarket thieves
The laws need to change fast on these brazen supermarket thieves.
One, staff should be able to handle them to make a citizen’s arrest.
Two, don’t blur their faces in the media; in fact, plaster them all over town.
Three, the IRD oversee getting the money back from their accounts for costs incurred or goods stolen.
Glenn Forsyth, Taupō
Heady
It is of constant amazement that we as a country have in excess of 100,000 work-ready individuals reputably seeking employment — but time and again I hear of employers crying out for labour.
The jobs on offer, while not technically high-grade, are certainly essential and meaningful to both employer and country.
Could it be that these people are work-shy or are they just taking the mickey?
K Ingram, Whakatāne
Water ‘liabilities’
JC Aubrey and AJ Peterson (Letters, February 5) are very exercised about water infrastructure being managed and funded by taxpayers rather than ratepayers. Their anxiety is a result of a misunderstanding of the meaning of “asset”. “Water infrastructure” meets none of the requirements to qualify as an asset.
More properly it should be thought of as all the food you have bought and eaten up until today.
Yes it has cost a fortune and yes it has provided a service by keeping you alive but no one would describe consumed food as an asset. Water infrastructure is a liability, with further costs of $185 billion over the next 30 years to maintain, extend and replace what is there — just like your food bill (though let’s hope that costs less)
Mark Nixon, Remuera
Time for a new Treaty?
Re the Herald On Sunday editorial on February 5: “The Treaty document from one party’s perspective fulfilled its singular original purpose, to allow Hobson to govern. Māori formed their own view of what the Treaty offered or guaranteed which differed among tribes”. So some might have gotten what they wanted and some not. “Some chiefs of large tribes declined to sign. There was more than one version in circulation and subsequently signed.”
The Treaty served its purpose of the day. From the Māori perspective it was flawed then (some didn’t even sign it). It surely must be seriously flawed for use today. It can’t be the basis for a two-peopled nation’s constitution. Better to throw it out and with the benefit of hindsight and where we all are now, today, create a new Treaty that is understood and agreed to by both sides.
Bernard Jennings, Wellington
Emergency services were called to the scene about 8.30pm.