Apparently, busy families or neighbours (who may be old themselves) are the first line of defence. I was informed this was due to lack of funding. I would like to know where the extra money has gone. An explanation, please.
FM DONNE
Whanganui
Port plan risk
The Whanganui Port revitalisation master plan is a bold but realistic proposal that already has attracted a half-million dollars of Government funding with more likely to follow. Its initial focus is on recreational boating and support businesses, and, crucially, it provides for relocation of Q-West boatbuilders in order to ensure this important industry remains in Whanganui.
Many MidWest Ferries sceptics focus on the environmental implications for the Motueka Spit bird haven and/or the financial implications for ratepayers. Others, including Mayor Hamish McDouall, are concerned about the company's surprise revelation this month that plans for at least the first three years of operation (after at least three years of preparation) catered only for freight.
This was a dramatic switch from MidWest's earlier talk of a big economic boost through foot passengers and campervan tourists it would deliver to Whanganui's accommodation, tourism and food providers.
And now we've been reminded, via a Radio NZ Checkpoint programme, that we need also worry that the MidWest proposal, improbable as it seems to come to fruition, puts our port masterplan at risk.
Q-West owner Myles Fothergill told RNZ talk of a ferry service was clouding the whole port revitalisation programme and, without a sound business case, could do more harm than good.
Mr Fothergill, who also chairs Whanganui and Partners, said Midwest was piggy-backing on a viable plan and risked scuttling attempts to get Government funding. It would require fundamental changes to the course of the river and its entrance, and dredging out at sea.
The government provided $500,000 to the port revitalisation masterplan as part of its regional growth strategy and is expected to contribute about a third of the $10 million needed.
And Mayor Hamish told RNZ that if the MidWest proposal was "half-baked" the Government and council could effectively say "Well, it's just not going to fly" and jeopardise the rest of [the port plan].
The RNZ programme, "Stoush brewing over Whanganui port redevelopment", can be found here: http://bit.ly/2q40JWX
Finally, a question to your MidWest correspondent, Mr Zangouropoulos: Please explain why two different versions of the "Feasibility Study" seem to have been in circulation, both dated May 5. The version posted on the council website has since been replaced, with apparent note to that effect, and it's devilishly difficult to find, so here's a link: http://bit.ly/2q4stun
CAROL WEBB
Whanganui
Maori rights
Derrick Storey (letters, May 22) opines on the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, insisting Hobson's salutation, "We are now one people", is of greater importance than the Treaty itself.
He invokes a straight line from Hobson in 1840 to "about 30 years ago", insisting that "only then did the 'we are one people' began to erode" and "this ... country, once united under one treaty, and one law ... become(s) almost irrevocably divided".
Derrick cannot maintain this, because from Hobson's day, succeeding governors and settlers' administrations ignored both the letter and intent of the Treaty and distanced themselves from Hobson's salutation.
What we are left with, after a confused start, is a call for us to express "that in our opinion, what is happening ... regarding (why) Maori rights is wrong and why we believe it is wrong".
Essentially, he is asking us to question why "Maori" should have "rights" -- and to answer these leading questions, you have first to accept his premise that New Zealand was a utopia of race relations, until 30 years ago -- ignoring land wars and confiscations.
Actually, "Maori" have the same common law rights extended wherever British-based jurisprudence holds sway -- it's just that they were pretty much ignored, until about 30 years ago.
Also, while the Treaty of Waitangi is not a law, its only import is in discrete legislation passed by our Parliament. So, exactly what would Derrick change that would not be racially discriminatory?
H. NORTON
Kaitoke
