Letters: Public must be heard on Treaty Principles Bill; look overseas for hot house solutions

"We're unintentionally creating heat traps in our pursuit of modern aesthetics." Photo / pixel-shot.com, Leonid Yastremskiy

Letters to the Editor

Treaty bill demands a fair hearing

Why is the office for Treaty Principles Bill submissions now able to cherry-pick only 80 hours of oral submissions for this bill that has rendered hundreds of thousands of submissions?

Apart from weeding out those submissions that did not comply, everyone else who submitted surely has the right to a fair hearing, otherwise why would one bother?

The hearings will be ongoing for the next six months at David Seymour’s request and provision should have been factored in, in the name of democracy, to hear every oral submission that was lodged by the closing date.

How can the public be assured that any bias will not be breached in this cherry-picking selection?

There already was some discrepancy with the timing of the submission period taking place over the New Year holiday period, aimed at discouraging submissions.

Marie Kaire, Whangārei.

Hot houses

The recent article about overheating in new townhouses caught my eye, particularly the story about the woman feeling increasingly oppressive heat as she climbed the stairs in her home (January 17).

It reminded me of when I lived in Spain, where I noticed something interesting – most of the traditional homes had white roofs and shutters over windows. These Mediterranean builders weren’t just going for the postcard look. They learned over centuries that white roofs helped keep homes cooler. Walking into these houses was like finding a cool oasis away from the scorching sun.

With climate change bringing hotter summers to New Zealand and more of us living in townhouses and terraced homes, maybe we could learn something from these time-tested building practices. When I look around our newer developments with their sleek, dark roofs, I see radiators – and wonder if we’re unintentionally creating heat traps in our pursuit of modern aesthetics.

I’m not suggesting we need to repaint every roof tomorrow, but as we build more homes and face increasingly warm summers, perhaps it’s worth considering such simple, proven solutions such as a light-coloured roof and light-coloured blinds. After all, sometimes the best answers to modern problems can be found in traditional wisdom.

James Gregory, Parnell.

Unsuitable design

For people to buy a newly-built home and then find that it overheats (or leaks) in spite of the stringent (and expensive) regulations it had to go through in order to be built is totally unacceptable.

In Europe, buildings centuries old are still standing, safe, habitable and comfortable. They were no doubt built using common sense and the skill of builders rather than regulations set by bureaucrats in offices.

Some years ago I passed a new housing development and noticed homes with flat roofs and no eaves – very fashionable, trendy and smart, in a style as seen in Mediterranean countries. But it seemed obvious to me that the design was unsuitable for the Auckland climate, which is far from Mediterranean.

Sure enough, many of these homes became leaky. If I, just an ignorant member of the community, could predict that, how could the designers and those issuing permits not?

Anne Martin, Helensville.

Necessary regulation

Isn’t it interesting that David Seymour’s opinion piece championed the Regulatory Standards Bill, which he claims will take away unnecessary regulation (January 17).

He may have a point when it comes to situations such as Sir Edmund’s Hillary old school having a notice saying “do not climb” on a climbing wall. Certainly those of us brought up when kids roamed free and took risks are a bit cynical about some of the “PC” stuff.

It’s a different scenario with building, however. In the same publication, there was the article “Poor design blamed for over-heating in new builds.” There may be case for less over-the-top bureaucracy, but surely regulations that actually address the physical building and design can’t be thrown out with the bathwater.

Hamish Walsh, Devonport.

Surreality TV

To those who are irritated by the poor variety of programmes on Freeview TV, keep January 28 free, as Parliament TV is broadcast live when the House sits, and that is the date it starts. And it’s on a Freeview channel.

Here you will find a plethora of variety all in one show. The cast is apparently the creme de la creme of New Zealand’s politicians, some of whom are prone to long monologues, temper tantrums, hurling insults at each other, fashion shows (hats in particular), raucous laughter, many stupid questions and equally stupid answers, and random dancing – the list goes on.

But there are also some serious, well-considered moments when a politician will address the House calmly and with in-depth knowledge pertaining to their ministerial responsibilities.

Furthermore, there is the Speaker who “maintains order and decorum” in the House and if by chance a TV viewer has nodded off, the Speaker’s shout of “Order, order” when trying to get the rabble to behave will jolt the viewer awake.

Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth.