Letters to the Editor: Oamaru House, power and talking rubbish

Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including Oamaru House, power supply and talking rubbish. Oamaru House offers vital support for many
People from all walks of life across North Otago, Southland, and Central Otago have relied on Oamaru House during some of their most vulnerable moments.
This stress-free accommodation, located conveniently close to Dunedin Hospital, has offered more than just a place to stay - it has been a home away from home.
The potential loss of Oamaru House would be deeply felt, not only by those who use it now, but also by future patients and families who depend on the certainty and comfort it provides.
In a time when so many aspects of life are becoming increasingly hard to navigate, especially during medical crises, Oamaru House has consistently been a source of relief.
I've always found it reassuring to simply make a call, book a room, and know I'll have a safe place to stay within walking distance of the hospital, with parking onsite.
That one simple convenience removes a major layer of stress when facing far greater challenges.
We cannot afford to lose this vital support. I urge everyone to remain open-minded and supportive of any collaborative efforts that may arise to ensure this much-needed service can continue for the people who rely on it.
Linda Wilson
Oamaru Penalty excessive
As a Pakeha, I fully support Te Pati Māori doing a haka in response to the appalling judgement of the government regarding the Treaty Principles Bill.
The 21-day suspension is excessive in an institution that is a product of colonisation and which has breached the Treaty of Waitangi many times. It mirrors the lengthy history of disproportionate punishment Māori have endured that has entrenched inequity and institutionalised racism.
There is a lengthy list of government MPs whose behaviour has been appalling but the only consequences have been a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket.
The punching down will continue with the Regulatory Standards Bill. This is a dangerous piece of legislation that I hope millions of us will oppose by sending in submissions.
The government appears to want Aotearoa New Zealand to be an oligarchy so those annoying bottom-feeders won't get in the way of enriching their wealthy mates.
Lou Scott
Dunedin Think of the future
I see Radio NZ has picked up on climate change scientists accusing the government of ''ignoring scientific evidence''. This is a worry as Kiwis need to invest in the future, not a dead-end delusion.
The $15 million upgrade for Milford Sound Fiordland is a case in point, but then the money is easily and most likely to be absorbed in lawyers and consultants before any improvements can be built.
It is a shame that this government could not take the job of governing well as seriously as punitive punishment for people they deem unworthy. When you have the privilege of power you should try to do a good job navigating the world's potential hazards. Please don't just give up on the right direction.
Aaron Nicholson
Manapouri Power supply going right down to the wire
I have been following the growth projections and associated infrastructure issues in the Wakatipu basin with respect to the power supply.
The only power supply to Queenstown is supplied from the national grid at Cromwell to Frankton, Queenstown. The supply consists of two 110kV lines sharing single towers along the route. Every time I travel through the Nevis Bluff I look with some trepidation at the towers located above this bluff prone to failure.
In engineering we design critical infrastructure with a factor of N-1. This is a security rating, i.e. if N = 2 and if you lose 1, there is still 1 remaining. This is true for the individual lines but not the tower line. This exposes Queenstown to a total blackout should the towers fail due to an earthquake or rock fall.
PowerNet is installing larger transformers at Frankton to supply the increased load. To supply them, PowerNet is increasing the temperature rating of the lines. What this means is the lines are going to be redesigned to allow for changed design parameters due to increased line sags due to higher current flow.
The change in tower forces will be calculated and structure changes made but this does not address the N-1 risk.
Steve Tilleyshort
(Retired engineer) Mosgiel A very proud Southlander talks rubbish
In reply to Cr Vandervis' letter (4.6.25) where he gives AB Lime some great free advertising and indicates Dunedin is doing Southlanders a favour by sending us their waste.
There is money to be made from waste. Yipee, it's coming to Southland. Yes, isn't it great Southland has businessmen and women with foresight who can also provide employment for many of its residents and can get on with a job? Perhaps we have a more enabling council.
But one has to remember that every truckload of waste from outside of the province that comes into our landfill is one less of ours in the long term. But I am sure our enterprising businessmen/women have this all factored into their equations because a 200-year timeframe can suddenly whittle away.
Dunedin ratepayers and residents really need to start asking questions of their representatives and getting them to challenge/ask pertinent questions of council staff because having an item of the table or being bandied about for 32 years is rather a long time.
Yes, I know, good things take time - like whisky and cheese - but in this timeframe one could have, potentially, had a child and become a grandparent or planted a forest (pine) and harvested it and had another almost ready for its first pruning.
So, as a child of an ex-ratepaying Dunedinite with family still in your fair city, how much has this exercise cost the council thus far? What is there to show for the money spent?
People need straight answers. In these times ,Dunedin ratepayers and residents need must haves, not nice to haves.
Yes, Cr Vandervis may think I am parochial with his attempted deflective remark regarding rugby and I would just like to remind him we do have the NPC series coming up where some more of our best can shine.
Jacqui Legg
Winton
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Otago Daily Times

5 hours ago

• Otago Daily Times

Counting on the census

One of the great pillars on which modern New Zealand society is based has been scrapped by the government in a move which has shocked many. The five-yearly, or thereabouts, census has seemingly had its day, Statistics Minister Shane Reti reckons. He announced on Wednesday that New Zealanders had, for the last time, needed to scurry about looking for a pen to fill out the forms or pray that the more recently online documents would work as intended. Citing the need to save time and money, Dr Reti signalled the census will be replaced with "a smaller annual survey and targeted data collection". This will, according to the somewhat breathless Beehive media release, provide better quality economic data to underpin the government's "growth agenda". In line with this thinking, there will be no census in 2028, with the new approach starting in 2030. The new method of collecting nationwide statistics will sharpen the focus on delivering "more timely insights into New Zealand's population", the minister reckons. Good luck with that. While we should not automatically kibosh something before it has had a chance to prove its worth, it is difficult to see how what may effectively be a scattergun approach will be superior to the system which has developed over more than 170 years. The census has, of course, never been perfect. There were well-publicised issues with the 2018 and 2023 counts, and the five-yearly spacing has been interrupted several times, due to such events as the Depression, World War 2 and the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011. There were also concerns about the robustness of responses when the 2023 census was held the month after Cyclone Gabrielle. Dr Reti also has some justification for being concerned about the cost of the census, which has ballooned during the past decade. According to government figures, the 2013 census cost $104 million, but outlay for the 2023 one was $325m, and the now-ditched 2028 one was expected to cost around $400m. The huge leap in price is certainly concerning. Based on those government numbers, there can be no doubt running a census is a very expensive business. However, we need to remember, and perhaps remind the government, that the policies which are meant to benefit everyone across the country in healthcare, education, housing, transport and so on, actually cost many billions of dollars. The price-tag for a census which informs those policies is definitely not chicken feed, but money generally well-spent. Reaction to this week's announcement has largely been negative and expressing surprise at the move. There is particular concern about how cherry-picking data and using smaller sample sets will affect the rigour of information about Māori and Pasifika communities, and also people with disabilities, rainbow communities, and smaller ethnic groups. Dr Reti's promised land of a "sharpened focus on quality" when it comes to statistics will be extremely difficult to achieve. There are crucial questions to answer around how people's existing data within government agencies will be appropriately and sensitively used, who decides what to use and when, and who will oversee the process to make sure it is as comprehensive and fair as such a potentially fraught new system can be. We are uneasy that this move appears to be another example of this government not being especially interested in the science or data necessary for good decision-making and for making policy which is evidence-based, instead careening ever-more wildly across the political landscape in pursuit of zealotry-driven outcomes. We unapologetically support the census system we had, and believe in the provision of proper statistical data sets for modern-day needs and as a source of valuable information for the historians of the future Beware the old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out."

Otago Daily Times

5 hours ago

• Otago Daily Times

MPs scrutinise the cream cheese latte, among other things

Another Scrutiny Week is done and dusted, although some ministers and ministries came under more scrutiny than others. Take Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson, for example. Under the benign and avuncular chairmanship of Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson, the biggest tension of Mr Patterson's appearance before the primary production select committee came even before proceedings began, from the revelation there was such a thing as a cream cheese latte. It would be fair to say this discovery divided MPs' opinions as much as the likes of the Treaty Principles Bill — and not down party lines either. The Taieri New Zealand First list MP's appearance was primarily with his Minister for Rural Communities hat on, although no appearance anywhere by Mr Patterson would be complete without a mention or two of wool. Of which, more shortly. Mr Patterson's opening remarks emphasised rural communities is not a Cinderella enterprise set up to keep a backbencher busy: last year it reviewed more than 120 Cabinet papers to advise how decisions might impact country folk, as well as engaging directly and regularly with 12 other ministries. Mr Patterson — a farmer himself — said the four main issues he had focused his team on were health, education, connectivity and law and order. Now, it can be argued they are almost everyone's four main areas, but not everyone lives up the road from a school, down the road from a medical centre, has ultra-fast broadband or is within minutes of a police station. "Rural communities is not all about agriculture, it is about the needs of about 860,000 people," Mr Patterson said. Wellbeing — in particular mental wellbeing — was a focus of Mr Patterson's presentation. In the recent Budget the Rural Wellbeing Fund received an extra $2 million to double its funding over the next four years, and the government also committed $3m to Rural Support Trusts. "They have proven their worth, not just during adverse events but also managing farmers facing mental health issues ... there is a real issue with isolation and the issues that come with that," Mr Patterson said. "The trusts have credibility and are well led, we have confidence in them ... a lot of this is driven by volunteers, it is genuine peer-to-peer, farmers talking to farmers. That's their secret sauce and it is us leaning into that and saying you have something here that works, what can we do to help it?" The previous week Mr Patterson, along with almost every MP, had been at the annual Field Days event in Hamilton. There he got to push many things, not the least of which was wool — he and Finance Minister Nicola Willis were there as the not at all coincidental announcement was made by Kainga Ora that it had signed a deal for wool carpets to be supplied to state houses. A week later, Mr Patterson was keen to stress this was likely to be only the start — which was music to the ears of committee members like Mr Anderson, who until entering politics was a sheep farmer. "There are 130 procurement arms in government so there is significant ability to be able to leverage government procurement to assist the wool industry," Mr Patterson said. Scrutiny Week is an innovation of this Parliament and in the run-up to last week's hearings each select committee released a report as to how members thought it was going. The primary production committee noted it had spent eight hours on estimates hearings in 2024-25, and under the previous regime it heard from the relevant ministers and officials for just four hours. Even more impressive was the amount of time spent on annual reviews — up from four hours to 13-14. "Our committee has enjoyed the opportunity Scrutiny Weeks provide to dedicate time to hearing from ministers or entities, with that being the only focus for the week," the report said. "It has meant that we get to drill down on particular matters of concern, current issues, and spending without having to squeeze this in around normal business. Being able to focus on scrutiny, and take our time with hearings, has made the process less challenging than the previous approach of scheduling scrutiny hearings within normal meeting times." So far so good, but not everyone was happy. Opposition MPs — some of whom seem to feel that scrutiny was invented just for them — have complained (and not just on primary production) that they are not getting enough time for supplementary questions. Although not endorsing the idea, the committee suggested consideration be given to having an Opposition MP become its chairperson for scrutiny hearings could help avoid that perception. The social services and community committee (chaired by National Southland MP Joseph Mooney) reported in a similar vein, saying it had also increased its time on scrutiny, but warning its workload was already considerable so it had not been feasible to double that allocation of time. The report also noted that while Mr Mooney had allocated the majority of questions to non-government MPs, "some of us consider that a culture shift is still needed to honour the Opposition's role in leading scrutiny of the executive". The committee resolved to "continue to reflect on this over the parliamentary term," although good luck coming up with a definitive answer. The general tenor of all the reports was in similar vein: great concept but needs some tweaking, which seems a fair call. Anything that obliges the government to fully explain what it is up, to to the people who put them there, is welcome accountability — but it only means something if the level of questioning actually makes someone accountable. In the meantime, cream cheese latte anyone?

RNZ News

13 hours ago

• RNZ News

Scrapping national census raises data sovereignty, surveillance fears for Māori

By Lara Greaves, Ella Pēpi Tarapa-Dewes, Kiri West, Larissa Renfrew of An administrative census will use information collected in day-to-day government activities. Photo: 2023 Census, Stats NZ Analysis - Wednesday's announcement that the five-yearly national census would be scrapped has raised difficult questions about the effectiveness, ethics and resourcing of the new 'administrative' system that will replace it. An administrative census will use information collected in day-to-day government activities, such as emergency-room admission forms, overseas travel declarations and marriage licences. The move is not necessarily bad in principle, especially given the rising cost of the census and declining participation rates, but to make it effective and robust, it must be properly resourced - and it must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi), as set out in the Data and Statistics Act. The transformation process so far leaves considerable room for doubt that these things will happen. In particular, there are major ethical and Māori data sovereignty issues at stake. As Te Mana Raraunga (the Māori Data Sovereignty Network) advocates, data is a living taonga (treasure), is of strategic value to Māori and should be subject to Māori governance. Changes to census methods risk compromising these values and undermining public trust in the official statistics system in general. Because the new system takes census data gathering out of the hands of individual citizens and households, it also raises questions about state surveillance and social licence. Surveillance means more than police stakeouts or phone-tapping. The state constantly collects and uses many kinds of data about us and our movements. For more than a decade, the Integrated Data Infrastructure has been the government's tool to patch gaps in its own data ecosystems. This administrative data is collected without our direct and informed consent, and there is no real way to opt out. The safeguard is that information about individuals is 'de-identified', once it enters the Integrated Data Infrastructure - no names, just data points. Stats NZ, which administers the system, says it has the social licence to collect, cross-reference and use this administrative data, but genuine social licence requires that people understand and accept how their data is being used. Stats NZ's own research shows only about one in four people surveyed have enough knowledge about its activities to make an informed judgement. The risks associated with this form of surveillance are amplified for Māori, because of their particular historical experience with data and surveillance. The Crown used data collection and monitoring systems to dispossess land and suppress cultural practices, which continue to disproportionately affect Māori communities today. Meaningful work to address this has taken place under the Mana Ōrite agreement , a partnership between Stats NZ and the Data Iwi Leaders Group (part of the National Iwi Chairs Forum). The agreement aims to solidify iwi authority over their own data, and ensure Māori perspectives are heard in decision-making around data and statistics. On the face of it, repurposing administrative data seems like a realistic solution to the census budget blowout, but there are questions about whether the data and methods used in an administrative census will be robust and of high quality. This has implications for policy and for communities. Administrative data in its current form is limited in many ways. In particular, it misses what is actually important to Māori communities and what makes life meaningful to them. Administrative data often only measures problems. It is collected on Māori at their most vulnerable - when they're in crisis, sick or struggling - which creates a distorted picture. In contrast, Te Kupenga (a survey by Stats NZ last run in 2018) included information by Māori and from a Māori cultural perspective that reflected lived realities. Before increasing reliance on administrative data, greater engagement with Māori will be needed to ensure a data system that gathers and provides reliable, quality data. It is especially important for smaller hapori Māori (Māori communities), which need the data to make decisions for their members. Stats NZ plans to partly fill the data void left by removing the traditional census with regular surveys, but the small sample size of surveys often makes it impossible to obtain reliable information on smaller groups, such as takatāpui (Māori of diverse gender and sexualities), or specific hapū or iwi groups. Photo: RNZ /Dom Thomas It is not clear the implications of this have been fully been worked through in the census change process, nor is it clear whether the recommendations from Stats NZ's Future Census Independent External Review Panel - from Māori and a range of experts - have been fully considered. This included crucial recommendations around commissioning an independent analysis informed by te Tiriti principles, meaningful engagement with iwi-Māori and the continuing implementation of a Māori data governance model developed by Māori data experts. We are not opposed to updating the way in which census data is collected, but for the new approach to be just, ethical and legal will require it to adhere to te Tiriti o Waitangi and the relationship established in the Mana Ōrite agreement . Lara Greaves is an Associate Professor of Politics, Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington Ella Pēpi Tarapa-Dewes is Professional Teaching Fellow, Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Kiri West is a lecturer in Indigenous Communication, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Larissa Renfrew, is a PhD Candidate, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. - This story originally appeared on [ the Conversation].