Your say: Council transparency -- tell us who voted for what

Whanganui District Council was split 6 votes to 5 with two abstentions on whether to allow late submissions

A Chronicle front page story titled "Split vote accepts late input" (May 4) reported that district councillors voted 6-5 in favour of accepting six submissions - five by iwi interests - that had missed the April deadline for formal responses to the proposed 10-year plan.

Thursday's meeting moved behind closed doors when it was becoming apparent there was staunch opposition to accepting the late submissions. Mayor Hamish made no secret of his dismay at the prospect of iwi voices being turned away.

In the context of a fraught history of council relationships with iwi, the implications of councillors' views on this issue were rightly considered sufficiently important for it to be given a front-page headline.

Yet only three councillors were quoted in the story and there was no indication of who voted for and who voted against. Not so long ago any newspaper of record would have felt obliged to list the votes of all councillors.

That's because Chronicle-reading citizens are entitled to be able to build up a picture of how councillors stand on key issues during each three-year term, not just expect to be informed by the tailored fluff that candidates publish during election campaigns.

Councillors seeking re-election should be judged on their voting record, if only the Chronicle would accept its responsibility to voters.

CAROL WEBB, Whanganui

Editor's note: Whanganui District Council does not record how individual councillors vote unless requested to do so by an elected member. The Chronicle would like to record individual votes, especially on contentious issues like accepting late submissions where the council is split. Unfortunately, all we get is a flurry of raised hands which make it very difficult to be certain who voted for what.

Respect, please

I never like writing about religion or politics, but I am going to break the rule for a wee comment.

Recent columns in this paper by people who may feel that they are important and enjoy a reasonably high-profile in our community denigrating others who believe in a God does them no favours.

These columnists seem to be reasonably intelligent, but they cannot help themselves when it comes to attacking the beliefs of others.

One aspires to sit on our district council or Horizons, not sure which. Comments dismissing the Bible but then admitting to not have read it shows your shallowness of argument.

We live in a secular community but many of our fellows believe in a higher being. They are voters and they have family and friends who love them and who would not appreciate your comments.

The rightness or otherwise of a person's belief is none of our business. We should accept people for what they are and respect them for what they believe - and expect the same in return.

There does seem to be a worrying trend in the media by people who feel their opinion matters that they have a right to push their atheist views - which, by the way, I respect - by disrespecting the beliefs of others, Christian, Muslim, Jew or otherwise. They would not appreciate the reverse.

Have some respect and you might receive more. I read your columns and while I may not agree with everything, I do enjoy them. You are better than this.

ROB RATTENBURY, Whanganui

'Dictatorial' Rachel

Rachel Stewart is using the disturbing tactic of calling people with opposing views "racist". When this term is used it is inevitably because their argument is weak and politically biased.

The H in Whanganui was instituted against a majority decision, so it was democracy denied in the name of political correctness, with down-on-knee kowtowing to Maori demands.

I thought we were left with the option of inserting it in our organisations at our will.

Why not go the whole hog and just put the F in front of Fonganui.

I suspect that her decision as to who is dumb is the pot calling the kettle black - it had all the hallmarks of a dictatorial person.

G R SCOWN, Whanganui

Let God judge

David Bennett's letter ("Not a good look") of April 24, criticises Steve Baron's April 20 article.

I agree with David Bennett.

Steve Baron's article proclaims his biblical ignorance, making his potentially informative piece into a tirade against the Christian ethic.

In past Chronicle letters, I may have had minor criticism of a David Bennett opinion.

But to borrow a subtle phrase from Fiddler on the Roof "... that is all forgotten now".

Steve Baron should heed Christian David Bennett's letter and accept its pragmatism, excellent subtle advice pertaining to the "wisdom" of alienating an entire sector of society while contemplating a political future.

And there, for Steve Baron, was my one accented word of sarcasm - adding to David Bennett's assistance - to shock him (Baron) into a realisation his article was hindering his earthly future.

Knowing that "God moves in mysterious ways", I suggest that Israel Folau may be joining gays he insists are going to hell.

For Folau proclaimed his assertion like a judgment, a fact sure to happen.

But, er, unfortunately for Folau, God makes it very clear judgment is His domain.

I urge Folau to pray for forgiveness for usurping God's command that He alone makes the rules.

Me? I continue to pray for people, gay, straight, asexual, whatever, to be allowed into heaven, for my God is a God of love.

It's also true those who disallow biblical truth are headed for hell, too.

Steve Baron, stop alienating Christians.

They know where they're going; your earthly future may be less certain.

Try some prayer, you never know ...

STAN HOOD, Whanganui