The rate of increase of cases rose to the highest reported in the developed world in 2005-06 and then halved in 2008 before belated regulations took effect.
Now the burden of campylobacter remains stubbornly high with at least half of all cases attributable to contaminated chicken, with the microbe showing increasing levels of resistance to antibiotics.
MAF displayed its prosecution phobia in 1992 when twins were stillborn in Auckland after their mother ate mussels contaminated with listeria, by Kiwi Mussels in Rai Valley.
The police took and won the case under the Public Nuisance Section of the Crimes Act, even though the company breached the Food Act 1981, an act administered by MAF.
I took and won two animal welfare cases against trucking companies injuring bobby calves during transportation.
I had expected some praise but soon discovered I had blotted my copybook with my superiors.
MAF chose to "work with companies" and "manage their way" through issues, a stance indistinguishable from being captured by its clients.
MPI continues this dereliction of duty.
Peter S Grant, MVSc, PhD
Okoia
Common sense
I am in a festive mood - not one, but three opinions I can agree with in the Chronicle of May 23.
Firstly, the column by Jay Kuten. For once, he has written sensible comments concerning euthanasia. Doctors assisted my father and then my mother-in-law in their departure from this mortal coil. Give them a bloody medal and make it legal.
Secondly, comments about road traffic control by several correspondents. Our council roading bloke is out of touch. Regulations and rules are one thing, but common sense must prevail. The proposed additional traffic lights will cause more mayhem than if roundabouts were installed at each intersection. Mr Leitao, most citizens disagree with your pontifications.
Finally, the cartoon by Emmerson summarises the situation in NZ. It doesn't matter what you say or do these days as long as it is not offensive to those who "bat for the other side" or haven't decided which side to bat for. (Abridged)
D Partner
Eastown
Council charges
As an owner of a commercial building, I was appalled to receive an account for overdue building warrant of fitness charges going back four years.
As a retired chartered accountant, I was concerned that this error could have been missed on three of the last four council audits, so I contacted the Office of the Auditor-General to raise my concerns. I am still awaiting a response.
As part of these communications, I was again appalled to learn building owners are charged $143 per hour for additional time incurred by council officers.
Building owners are required to pay for an IQP to carry out testing of alarms and other systems in the building, and prepare paperwork for the building WOF. That is fine, there is value in that.
I had a change in what was being inspected and this was recorded by the IQP. However, it still seems necessary for a compliance officer to visit my building to check if my IQP had made a mistake - and I got a bill of $140 for this compliance officer to drive from the council building to Taupo Quay and look at the item that gave rise to the changes.
This is on top of the $143 charge for the building WOF, extortion in a thinly veiled form.
Many skilled tradespeople struggle to charge and recover $70 or $80 an hour for their services; nurses and teachers are paid about $30 an hour and, as a country, we struggle to afford to pay what they are worth.
IQPs acting for commercial building owners are charging between $65 and $85 an hour, so how can council justify $143 an hour for admin and paper shuffling? (Edited)
Russell Eades
Whanganui
