Letters: More details needed on Sarjeant Gallery extension

As reported in the Whanganui Chronicle, the Whanganui District Council has voted to award a $20 million contract to construct the new extension wing component to the existing Sarjeant Gallery.

Before committing to this project, the Wanganui Ratepayers' Association believes there are questions that need clarification.

Why would the council commit to a new extension to an existing building before the main building has had final detailed design or costs estimates finalised? It's like purchasing a building that needs extensive work and adding on a new extra room without first strengthening and renovating the existing building, or even finalising the costs.

Where is the transparency from the council regarding estimated projected costs of the gallery rebuild? Initially, the public were told in May 2015 (RNZ News) the total redevelopment costs would be $31.5 million; $5 million of that amount was budgeted from ratepayer council funding. This was in addition to the $4 million earlier expended in establishing the Sarjeant on the Quay.

Since this initial cost estimate there have been cost revisions of up to $35 million.
If the cost of the new extension wing is $20 million, what level of expense will be required to complete the second stage of construction, involving upgrading the Sarjeant building and seismic strengthening?

Are Whanganui ratepayers expected to bear the burden to pay for a potential debt over and above the current commitment of $5 million from council?

Once work has started, it must then proceed — no matter what the final cost.

The ratepayers' association staunchly advocates a halt before this project commences until the true and final development costs are established and the source of all funding and for this information are publicly divulged. (Abridged)

DAVE HILL
Wanganui Ratepayers' Association

Late tackles

Responses in the Chronicle (Dec 3) to Dr John McMenamin's reasoned analysis of the intrinsic ethical conflicts and significant uncertainties surrounding legislation favoured by people who prefer expedient death were straight out of the playbook of "never mind where the ball is, let's late-tackle the player at neck level".

Where to start? Perhaps with the first mistake, conflating medical integrity with religious opinion. If something is morally right or wrong, it remains so regardless of one's religious beliefs.

It's also curious that only one religion these days is ever dragged into the mire by people who disagree with opinions of its practitioners.

I'm not a believer in any organised religion, so don't bother dragging out the anti-Catholic schtick with me.

Like Dr McMenamin, I resolutely believe doctors should not kill people, even at their request. Proponents of this speed-up-death lawfare ought to be more honest and admit that an unknown, and not insignificant, number of people will be killed who could otherwise have survived; and that a number will be "assisted to die" who may change their minds. Give us your best estimate of lethal mistakes, based on considerable overseas experience. I'll wait.

In a democracy, the majority can impose their view and pass the laws they want; that's a given.

But do you really want to give a government agency the power to kill you off when some of the doctors they employ decide your life is of no value to you or the state?

The last time a group of doctors implemented that policy, some of them ended up in Nuremberg.

It's also a curious argument that only a minority of doctors stood up to be visibly via the NZMA and Care Alliance. I thought y'all were all about the absolute respect for the inalienable rights of even really small minorities in the body politic?

But this time round, being in a minority automatically excludes us having a valid opinion? That's what you've got as an argument?

We should always strive to do the best for the terminally ill, but it doesn't mean a better alternative is, for example, to drown a baby, born with little chance of survival, in virtue-signalling bathwater before we throw it out.

Conflicts of interest to be declared: 1. Like my colleague, Dr McMenamin, I'm a physician. 2. I take guidance on care at the end of life from Hippocrates and my predecessors and teachers, not from many honestly-mistaken, sincere people, sprinkled with a significant topping of emoting virtue-signallers. 3. If a law is passed requiring me as a doctor to assist in dying regardless of my own views, good luck with trying to make me. (Abridged)

RENE DE JONGH
St John's Hill

•Send your letters to: Letters, Whanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Whanganui 4500 or email letters@wanganuichronicle.co.nz