Both have reputations as formidable personalities who do not bow to pressure or kowtow to anyone. Yet Mr Laws' attempts to sidetrack from the issue by penning a letter for publication, which we run today, in which he attacks the Chronicle over Thursday's lead story, which he said was a "beat-up" and sensationalised the issue.
Really? How was it sensationalised, Mr Laws? It's an easy term to throw about but exactly what was factually incorrect? Was the attendance of all parties not duly noted? Sounds like fair and equal treatment to me.
Mr Laws wishes to explain his repeated absences as based on his belief such meetings are a waste of time, and that his views on that were well known before the election last year. Odd, but I don't recall him campaigning on a platform of non-attendance.
He may consider the meetings and workshops to be worthless, and he is entitled to that view, just as he is free to criticise our coverage. But other parties see merit and give up their valuable time to contribute. Mr Laws' refusal to do so shows contempt for the organisation, its systems, and the people who voted him in - unless, like he says, they truly did elect him knowing they would be paying him to attend meetings to which he had no intention of turning up.
As a high-profile personality who has long been involved in politics, Mr Laws knows that what he does will attract attention.
The members of the DHB, like any official voted in, were elected to represent. The onus is on them to do so. Anything less must count as a dereliction of their duty to the public they serve.
And the news media, as a watchdog, have every right to make this public.
Feedback: editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz
