Letters to the Editor: electricity, flatting and the Oval
Contact Energy's CEO says they know homes are doing it tough at the moment and that they are doing their best to keep prices down ( ODT 8.8.25).
What he fails to mention is that Contact Energy along with the other major gentailers (Genesis, Meridian, and Mercury) have for the last decade dramatically reduced their investment in future sources of energy alongside skyrocketing dividends.
The long-term impacts of underinvestment have become clearer in the past 12 months: high power prices for families; factories and mills shutting down, leaving workers jobless.
The gentailers are required to look after the interests of their shareholders, not those of struggling New Zealanders. A shortage of supply is good for their bottom line. Nevertheless their PR machine will continue to promote public good falsehoods.
This is well illustrated by Contact Energy's fast-track proposal to lower the operating level of Lake Hāwea. This will result in significant adverse environmental outcomes. Their justification is security of supply — which they historically underinvested in.
If approved this will be a financial windfall for Contact as it requires no capital investment. The electricity reforms introduced by National have been a disaster. It is ironic that a National minister, Nicola Willis, is struggling to control the cost of living crisis bought about in part by her National predecessors. No problem
What is the problem with the latest reforms to the electoral system? Everyone who is eligible to enrol in the elections has access to do so before the shut-off time. How many years have we been doing it now, without issues?
It has nothing to do with race, or trying to prevent people having their say. Maybe some people should look in the mirror to see where the problem lies. Stop blaming everybody else, get off your butt and enrol before the cut off time. It is called personal responsibility. The majority of us do the right thing.
Was it not the previous Labour government who, in 2020, changed the electoral system rule and bought the cut off-time to enrolling and voting to the day of the election when it really did not need to be changed at all.
And by the way I do not have a problem with prisoners who are serving time, not allowed to cast a vote.
Reading the opinion piece article of Metiria Stanton Turei (Opinion ODT 8.8.25) draws me to the conclusion that it is not "their people" (as she calls us colonials) that are the ones creating division in this country. You just need to read the said article to see where the fuel that sets that fire is coming from. Meeting deadlines
I totally disagree with Metiria Stanton Turei. The government is not preventing a 100,000 people from voting: all they are doing is setting a reasonable date for people to enrol.
We all have expiry dates, acceptance dates, and multiple times and dates we have to keep on a daily bases. I don't see any difference in setting an enrolment date.
There will be plenty of advertising, social media and individual communications between communities and different racial groups. The government is not preventing people from voting it is just setting a date.
Why not let people vote who forget to vote after the ballots close? Finding a warm flat for next year is possible
As an elderly computer incompetent it took me about two minutes to find a variety of double-glazed new (as in no more than about 10 years old) student flats for $180-$250 approx a room for 2026.
I found a bargain 1990s two-bathroom, six-bed flat — not double-glazed, but low ceiling wall and underfloor (because it was the law from the late '70s) insulated flat in Opoho Rd at $147 a room for next year.
Heatpumps need to be on all day at 18°C or 20°C in cold weather: it's what most older people do. This works especially well if you have wall insulation — double glazing is not even required.
Previous generations wouldn't believe that you can get 6kW or 8kW of heat by only using 2kW of power. Many are as cheap to run as an old one- or two-bar heater and heat the whole house, not just part of one room as the old heaters used to.
Also to the girls who turned down a good flat because of ceiling cracks: unless they're as wide as a pencil, 99.9% of homeowners have them, due not least because of normal settlement but also because we live in an earthquake zone. We have so many we don't even notice ones that terrify overseas visitors. Past time for Oval evictions
I am in utter disbelief at this current council's hypocritical incompetence — the trigger being the now year-long occupation of the Oval by vagrants who have chosen to pitch tents on council land where the local by-laws expressly forbid doing so.
This action not only seems to be tolerated by the council, but seems to be free from any infringement notice, fine or prosecution. Instead, the council would rather hypocritically divert their attentions around the Oval to putting up an extensive collection of newly installed, expensive, "No parking" signs obviously directed at parents coming to the ground for weekly children's sports.
How these rate-paying parents must have their blood boiling when they are confronted with these new signs and additional concrete bollards placed by the council to threaten them about the legalities of them parking for an hour while their children play on the sports grounds that their rates have paid for. Adding insult to injury is having their view of the said sports event corrupted by vagrants in their tents being left to do what they want.
Ironically, even when they park one of their own cars outside their tents they do so with some impunity.
Can I remind current councillors running for re-election that such incompetence on their behalf to deal with this now long, ongoing situation of illegal squatting on council land has been noticed by the voting public.
As a passive protest I would like to encourage every person who receives a parking ticket from the council to refuse to pay it, and simply write "Oval" on it, and return it to the council. The law must be consistent.
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:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Royal Commission On COVID-19: They Are Not Even Good At Applying The Whitewash
The refusal of several former Labour Ministers to voluntarily appear before New Zealand's Royal Commission of Inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic response is a serious affront to transparency, accountability, and the public's right to know. The Royal Commission of Inquiry was established to examine and report on the decisions, policies, and actions taken in response to COVID-19, with a mandate to learn lessons for future emergencies. Under the Inquiries Act 2013, the Commission has clear procedural powers, including the authority to issue summonses that compel witnesses to attend and give evidence under oath. Royal Commission Powers Under the Inquiries Act 2013: Section 23 gives the Commission the power to summon any person to appear and give evidence under oath. It can require the production of any relevant documents, records, or data. Witnesses must answer questions; refusal can result in prosecution. Powers extend to individuals no longer in government or public service. Evidence forms part of the official historical account and recommendations for future emergencies. Given the gravity of the pandemic's social, economic, and health impacts, it is not acceptable for those who held primary responsibility to decline engagement. The public expects, and the law provides for the appearance of all key decision-makers who shaped the national response. The Commission's credibility depends on its willingness to compel the participation of those with the most direct knowledge and authority. New Zealanders endured unprecedented restrictions on movement, business closures, and extraordinary government intervention in daily life. These were extraordinary powers, and they demand extraordinary accountability. We call on the Royal Commission to exercise its full statutory authority and issue summonses without delay to all former Ministers and senior officials who held responsibility for COVID-19 decision-making. Failure to do so will leave critical gaps in the historical record, undermine the public trust the Commission is meant to uphold, and confirm that it is nothing more than a whitewash operation.
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Must Come Clean On Plans To Restrict Public Sector Collective Bargaining
The Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi is calling on the Government to come clean on plans to undermine the rights of public sector workers, after Judith Collins hinted the Government was looking at options to restrict collective bargaining and the right to strike. In comments made on Radio NZ this morning, the Public Service Minister suggested the Government was exploring "a lot of options" for public sector workers when it comes to collective bargaining. "The PSA is seeking an urgent assurance the Minister will not be restricting the fundamental right of workers to collective bargaining and the right to withdraw their labour," PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said."The right to strike is a cornerstone of our democratic workplace relations system and the Government must come clean on any options they are looking at that could undermine this right." This Government has already demonstrated a pattern of undermining workers' rights without proper notice or consultation. It removed pay equity rights with no warning, changed the law to financially penalise workers for taking partial strike action, and Minister Collins has already deployed replacement labour during the Defence Force strike. "We're seeing a concerning escalation in this Government's anti-worker agenda," Fitzsimons said. "The timing of these comments comes as bargaining is underway in health and the public sector and the Government is offering below-inflation pay offers. "This is the same Government that recently increased board directors' pay by 80%. If the Government wants to avoid public sector strike action then it should negotiate in good faith and offer fair pay increases that recognise the rising cost of living and the valuable work our members do." The PSA is seeking an urgent meeting with Minister Collins to discuss these concerning comments and the Government's intentions regarding public sector workers' rights. "We call on Minister Collins to clarify exactly what options the Government is considering and to rule out any moves to restrict the right to strike," said Fitzsimons. "The right to strike is protected under international law and is a fundamental principle of free and democratic societies, for workers in both the private and public sectors. Any attempt to restrict this right would be a backward step for working New Zealanders." Transcript from RNZ interview: COLLINS: "...we're fully aware that the unions have said that they are going to continue strikes and they want to have strikes that we'll see across the public sector and that's probably more political than it is in the interests of their members because don't forget these partial strikes bring about a partial drop in wages as well. DANN: "… do we just need to cut to the chase and get back to arbitration and leave it to an independent panel to make the call and then move on?" COLLINS: "Well I think there's going to be a lot of options that we're looking at as a government as to how to move away from this basically yearly attack on students and also what we're seeing with the..."
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Chris Hipkins to speak on decision to skip Covid-19 Royal Commission inquiry public hearings
Labour leader and former Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins is to discuss his decision not to attend the second set of public hearings for the Covid-19 Royal Commission. He is set to speak to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB at 7.07am. You can listen live below. The hearings have been called off after key witnesses, including former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern, refused to appear. Those witnesses, including Hipkins and former ministers Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall, are still co-operating with the inquiry. In June last year, a 'phase two' of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons was established by the National-led coalition Government. It was scheduled to take place after the completion of the original inquiry set up under the previous Labour Government, which ministers have already appeared before in private. Chairman Grant Illingworth has the power to summon people to appear before the inquiry, but said he would not use it on Ardern and the other ministers as there weren't any grounds for it. 'On balance, we are of the view that a summons is undesirable, given that the former ministers continue to co-operate with the evidence-gathering of the inquiry. 'It is our opinion that the use of summonses to achieve their participation at a public hearing would be legalistic and adversarial, which our terms of reference prohibit,' Illingworth said. He said he still believed public hearings would enhance public confidence in the inquiry's processes by enabling the public to see former ministers, who have critical insights into the pandemic response, questioned in public. Hipkins, appearing on Herald NOW last month, said he had issues with the way the second phase of the Royal Commission had been set up, particularly the decision to exclude from consideration the years that NZ First was governing with Labour. 'The fact that the [Royal Commission] terms of reference specifically exclude decisions made when NZ First were part of the [Labour-led coalition] Government … I think the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views. 'That seems to have been specifically written into the terms of reference that they get maximum airtime.' Objections of Ardern and the other ministers, published in a minute of the inquiry, included the convention that ministers and former ministers are interviewed by inquiries in private, and departing from that convention would undermine confidence. They were also concerned that the livestreaming and publication of recordings of the hearing creates a risk of those recordings being 'tampered with, manipulated or otherwise misused', a risk the inquiry 'ought to have foreseen and planned for'. Other witnesses raised concerns that providing evidence at public hearings might bring risks of abuse being directed at them and their families. Hipkins is standing firm on the witnesses' decision. 'We have shown up to the inquiry, I have shown up to the inquiry. I have been interviewed by them twice,' he told reporters yesterday. 'I have provided written evidence to the inquiry, I answered every question they had and I attended the interview they scheduled for me. 'They asked for two hours, but they ran out of questions after an hour.' Hipkins said he did not co-ordinate his approach with Ardern and would not speak on behalf of her. 'She is still a very close friend of mine. We have people representing us in common, but any suggestion we colluded with this is wrong.' 'Deserve the basic respect of accountability' National MP Chris Bishop accused Hipkins of running from his record. 'Fresh from fobbing off Treasury's report into Labour's spending, [he] is avoiding accountability by refusing to front up to the Royal Commission,' he said. 'By first dismissing Treasury's report and now refusing to front, Chris Hipkins is telling New Zealanders he does not care about the effects his decisions have had on Kiwis.' Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said Ardern, Verrall and Hipkins' refusal to publicly appear before the commission was a change from 'invading our living rooms daily'. 'Hipkins and co loved the limelight at 1pm every day. They wielded extraordinary powers over citizens' lives, dismissing those who questioned them as uncaring. Now they're refusing to even show up, what a contrast,' he said. 'Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have already engaged with the inquiry, sharing experiences of how their lives were upended. 'They deserve the basic respect of accountability,' Seymour said.
