Letters to Editor: cycleways, Gaza, mining
Poor Councillor Jim O'Malley.
He's facing a life ahead of him without an important part of his anatomy, his backside, having "worked his arse off" on the Albany St cycleway committee, only to have people, God forbid, disagree with him.
Spectacularly tone deaf to the pleas of the business community's complaints of more disruption, the loss of 68 valuable parking spaces on campus, and the cycling community stating they don't need or want it, Jim seems mainly offended by the suggestion that his conclusions might just be wrong.
He is so aggrieved he's threatening to give up politics. Yeah, right.
It may be time for the councillor to realise that committees alone don't make a bad idea good, and that the everyday operation of the city may be more important than costly and damaging leisure and vanity projects for a tiny minority.
Ian Pillans
Dunedin Stand up
Wars may be far away, but their repercussions will affect us now and into the future.
New Zealand's mild remonstrances on the Gaza genocide do not reflect our strong stances in the past, where we stood up against South African apartheid, nuclear armed ships and the white supremacy of the mosque attacks.
We are allowing Israel to destroy a people and a culture.
It is conceivable that a Trump-like character might arise in Australia in the future, who fancies a bit of choice agriculture land across the Ditch.
Who will protect us — not the US, whose leader covets Greenland among other places?
There are alternatives. The Hague Group is standing up for international law with real action. BRICS is an alternative non-aligned trading group that is trying to bypass the extractive US dominated WTO and IMF.
These countries are not perfect, but why are we following the US which continually dabbles in regime change and endless failed wars around the world?
Peace and diplomacy are rhetorical flourishes at the moment. Building trust is a hard road which requires listening to the perspectives of others, especially when they are in danger of annihilation, and not pattern-matching our own misconceptions.
Ann Mackay
Oamaru
[Abridged — length. Editor.] Take the offer
Cole Martin lists many reasons why there's no peace in the Holy Land (14.7.25) but omits the most obvious.
Solely blaming a supposed "system of domination," he ignores critical historical context, ongoing Palestinian violence, and Palestinian leadership's refusal to recognise Israel.
The West Bank was occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Israel gained control of it in a defensive war. Large portions of it are governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), created through the 1990s bilateral Oslo Accords with the goal of establishing a Palestinian state.
Those hopes were dashed when Palestinian leaders rejected generous Israeli peace offers that would have given them control over most of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Instead, they launched the Second Intifada, a wave of terrorism that left thousands dead and hardened attitudes on both sides.
The violence and restrictions Martin laments largely stem from these actions.
Palestinians were offered more opportunities for sovereignty than other Middle Eastern minorities. Yet, they squandered each one, attempting to destroy Israel rather than pursuing statehood.
Real change can only come when Palestinians choose to stop the violence, recognise Israel, and build the state they were repeatedly offered.
A. Levy
Dunedin
[Abridged — length. Editor.] Historic tale of ironclad ship battle questioned
Tuesday's Today in History (8.7.25) describes in 1862 the use of the novel gun turret on USS Monitor being used "to good effect in a decisive battle with CSS Virginia".
Wrong on both counts — the ships fought at close range for three hours, inflicting minimal damage on each other, then returned to their bases. Ineffective and indecisive, black-powder muzzle-loaders firing solid shot achieved little in this historic engagement, the first between ironclad vessels.
Richard Lea Clough
St Leonards
[Today In History is based on old ODT files and is updated annually. We welcome reader feedback on omissions and possible inclusions.] Debt and Covid response
RE R John Wilson's letter (15.7.25), what would he have done different so as not get into debt? Remembering every other country spent their way out of Covid.
Henry Schakelaar
Dunedin Saving our species but losing land
Wonderful to read of the "Tireless work to save our native central species" (Central Otago News 3.7.25).
Sad then to also read of the proposed Santana Minerals Open cast gold mine with its blasting, digging, trucking and carting away of hillsides to leave "open pits a kilometre wide and hundreds of metres deep" across a swathe of our outstanding natural landscapes (Opinion ODT 9.6.25).
Sad as we'll lose the stunning landscape many thousands of tourists fly in to admire or millions of people view on TV.
Expecting a second series of the murder mystery drama A Remarkable Place to Die to be shot here from November till the end of April, will be so incongruous with the noisy polluting open-cast gold mining and the arsenic and cyanide that'll leak from the unlined toxic sludge dam it leaves.
Or maybe they can incorporate this and the waste of native habitat for native birds and lizards in the series for the German, American, Australia and New Zealand audiences?
Lynne Stewart
Earnscleugh Overseas plunder
RE Gavin Dann's letter (18.7.25), His points re jobs, boost to local economy etc, are valid, to a degree.
However, if one is to google Tui Mine Tailings Dam, there is a prime example of the perils of an overseas company mining in New Zealand.
Since the days of flax and kauri, we have allowed Australian interests to plunder our resources with little return and no regard for the consequences.
By all means, allow mining but not at the expense of our environment, and pay well for the privilege.
Jerry Lynch
Mosgiel
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
7 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Counting the costs of tariffs
What an arbitrary and unfair world. While New Zealand might not be stung as badly as many others, it is still being penalised by capricious and unjust tariffs. This nation has virtually no tariffs (about 0.8%) on goods from the United States, while US-owned giants like Meta, Microsoft and Google extract billions of dollars through tax avoidance. New Zealand, long a close friend internationally, has been forced to tread carefully around US President Donald Trump. It recently welcomed an FBI office in Wellington and has held back on pledging recognition of Palestinian statehood. Nonetheless, the baseline 10% tariff imposed by the US earlier this year rises to 15%. Why? New Zealand recorded a trade surplus with the United States last year. If food prices had not been high, or if New Zealand had imported a few US aircraft, the balance might have been reversed — and the 10% might have stayed, as it has for Singapore and Australia. However, the US might still have made dismantling Pharmac a condition of a better deal. It is, of course, futile to appease bullies. There are effectively no real negotiations. Mr Trump issues decrees, and only afterwards might there be limited room to move. The might of China may have muscle, especially because of the US debt it holds. Puny New Zealand is simply too small. If there were just a little fairness, New Zealand could also apply 15% to US imports. Nobody, however, is seriously proposing that. New Zealand has staked its reputation and its interests as a trading nation on free trade. It also dares not provoke the Trump tactic of responding with another ratchet of the rack. It says much about the state of play that wily Foreign Minister Winston Peters and others advocated keeping this country's head down. Mr Trump has so many big fish to fry — discussions are continuing with China and the European Union on the trade front alone — this seemed the wisest course. In a flurry of action, New Zealand's head trade official is now off the Washington, and Trade Minister Todd McLay will follow. Unsurprisingly, there is scepticism that this will do much good. Previously, such efforts failed to reduce steel and aluminium tariffs, and tiny New Zealand will struggle to receive much air or ear time at the highest levels. Politically, however, it makes the government look as though it is doing something. Despite Labour's criticism of poor tactics, it is doubtful whether proactive and public lobbying in Washington would have made any difference. The resulting 15% tariff matches that applied to US allies Japan and South Korea and is slightly lower than much of Southeast Asia. However, it is higher than the rate for fellow beef exporters Argentina and Uruguay. The US is also New Zealand's largest wine export market. Wine receipts are expected to suffer, and F&P Healthcare, one of New Zealand's largest companies with manufacturing in Auckland and Mexico, will be disadvantaged as it competes with a major US rival. Exporters were reconciling themselves to 10%, and 15% might not sound excessive. But it represents a 50% increase on the earlier amount and is far harder to absorb. The result will be lower returns for exporters and higher costs for consumers, while the US collects tariff revenue. Trade Minister Todd McLay estimates the tariff cost to exporters at an additional $500 million. Fortunately, this coincides with strong global food demand and prices. Unfortunately, it comes at a time when the New Zealand economy is struggling to recover from prolonged doldrums. Although not catastrophic, it dents confidence and removes another brick as the government tries to rebuild economic growth and salvage its electoral prospects. The US has overtaken Australia as New Zealand's second-largest export market, worth $9 billion last year, though still well behind China. New Zealand will bear the costs of President Trump's disruptive trade policies, both directly through tariffs and indirectly through their dampening effect on US and global growth.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Diplomatic Merchandise: Exploiting The Issue Of Palestinian Recognition
They have been the playthings of powers for decades, and there is no promise that this will end soon. Empires and powers seem to come and go, yet the plight of the Palestinians remains more horrific than ever. Now, in the next instalment of the grand morality game, France, the United Kingdom and Canada promise to recognise Palestinian statehood at the September meeting of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. From the perspective of soothing the conscience, this is a mighty thing – for those in Paris, London and Ottawa. It does not save a single life on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, provide a single meal for a starving family, or rebuild a single destroyed school. But President Emmanuel Macron, and Prime Ministers Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney can all commune as a triumvirate of principled statesmen. Macron, the first of the three, had been making signals on the issue earlier in the year. The French leader had hoped that a UN conference sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia would be the venue for joint recognition, but it came to naught with the resumption of hostilities in Gaza and Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. In turning to the G7 nations, he hoped to amplify the urgency of recognition. In doing so, the onus was also on the Palestinian Authority to make certain concessions to add momentum. A letter from PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent to Macron duly came, condemning the attacks of October 7, 2023 by Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages and pledged the holding of elections and reforms to governance. Hamas – not that Abbas had any claims on this point – would also 'no longer rule Gaza' and would have to surrender 'weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian Security Forces, which will oversee their removal outside the occupied Palestinian territory, with Arab and international support'. On July 24, Macron confirmed in a letter to Abbas conveyed via France's Consul General in Jerusalem that recognition of a Palestinian state would follow in September 'in light of the historic commitments that were made' and the threatened two-state solution. On July 28, in his opening speech to a plenary session of the High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement on the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Nöel Barrot stated the 'prospect of two States, whose rights are recognised and respected, is in mortal danger.' But assurances and momentum had been achieved, with Barrot acknowledging the condemnation by the Arab League of the Hamas attack and the insistence by its members on the release of the remaining hostages, the disarming of the group and conclusion of its rule in the Strip. Of the G7, Starmer was the next to be swayed, but with a notable proviso: 'the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two-State Solution.' To this could be added the need for Hamas to release the hostages, accept a ceasefire, disarm and 'play no part in the government of Gaza.' In shabby fashion, room is left to withdraw the offer for recognising Palestinian statehood. 'We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps.' Carney, the latest addition, claimed on July 30 that the two-state solution growing from a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority had been eroded as a prospect by four factors: the threat of Hamas to Israel; accelerated building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including numerous instances of Israeli settler violence; the E1 Settlement Plan and the July vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank; and the ongoing failure by the Israeli government to arrest 'the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with impeded access to food and other essential humanitarian supplies.' The Canadian PM, in reasons almost identical to Macron, had also been swayed by 'the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms' in governance, including the promise to hold elections in 2026 that will exclude Hamas, undertaking anti-corruption measures and the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state. A resounding theme comes through in the latest flurry of statements: Palestinians continue to be lectured and harangued under the guise of humanitarian understanding, told who can represent them or not (a reformed Palestinian Authority promisingly good, Hamas decidedly bad), and whether they can have any semblance of a military force. 'Recognising a State of Palestine today,' states Barrot, 'means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.' Standing, it would seem, with a certain type of idealised Palestinian. The Palestinians have become diplomatic merchandise or bits of currency, to be gambled with in the casino of power politics. Starmer is the worst exponent of this, hoping for such returns as Israel's halt to the slaughter and famine in Gaza and the release of the hostages by Hamas and its disarmament. But the idea of Palestinian recognition remains, at this stage, a moot point. At the end of any diplomatic tunnel on this lies certain requirements that would have to be met, not least the criteria of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. Despite gathering some dust over time, it outlines the relevant requirements for statehood: any recognised state in international law must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a discernible government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In the UK, some 43 cross-party peers have sent a letter of warning to Starmer arguing against recognising a Palestinian state, citing such familiar, legal grumbles. There was, for instance, 'no certainty over the borders of Palestine' nor 'a functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies'. Neither could enter into relations with foreign states, with one entity having not held elections for decades, and the other being a 'terrorist organisation'. Despite the UK not signing the Montevideo Convention, recognising Palestine 'would be contrary to the principles of governing recognition of states in international law,' the convention having become part of international customary law. On the bloodied ground, where legal abstractions dissolve into fleshy realities, Israel is doing its level best to make sure that there will be nothing left of a Palestinian state to recognise. For Israel, the case is not one of if or when, but never. The machinery of slaughter, deprivation and dislocation is now so advanced it risks smothering the very idea of a viable Palestinian entity. Israeli policy till October 2023 was engineered to stifle and restrain any credible progress towards a Palestinian state, crowned by feeding the acrimonious divisions between Hamas and Fatah. After October 7 that year, the sharpened focus became one of expulsion, subjugation, or plain elimination of the general populace. Palestinian sovereignty remains, to date, incipient, a bare semblance of a political self. This egregious state of affairs continues to be supported, even by those wishing to recognise Palestine. In some ways, those sorts are arguably the worst.
Otago Daily Times
12 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Former National Party MP likely sexually abused children
By Sam Sherwood of RNZ Former National Party Cabinet minister Aussie Malcolm likely engaged in coercive and/or criminal sexual conduct with "multiple young boys", a police review reveals. Anthony 'Aussie' Malcolm died in September last year aged 83. Following his death it was revealed there had been at least three police investigations into alleged sexual abuse. Police then launched a review of historical complaints in relation to Malcolm. A summary of the review was released to RNZ on Monday under the Official Information Act. The document says review was initiated following referrals from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Car concerning historical sexual assault allegations against Malcolm. Allegations spanned from 1992 to 2018 and involved multiple complainants, all male and underage at the time of the alleged incidents. The review concludes that Malcolm "likely engaged in coercive and/or criminal sexual conduct with multiple young boys". "While no charges were laid during his lifetime, the cumulative evidence - had it been available and considered together - could have supported prosecution, particularly in the Complainant C case." "The review highlights systemic issues in historical file retention and inter-agency communication, which hindered earlier detection and action." Malcolm was first elected as MP for Eden in 1975 defeating the then-upcoming politician and future Prime Minister Mike Moore. He held one of New Zealand's most marginal electorates for three elections, but was defeated when National lost power in 1984. A staunch supporter of then Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, he was promoted to be a parliamentary under-secretary in 1978 and to Cabinet in 1981. He served as immigration minister from February 1981 and was also appointed to the contentious health portfolio after the 1981 election. As immigration minister he approved the visas given to the South African rugby team, allowing their controversial tour of New Zealand to go ahead. After his election defeat he set up one of the first immigration advice consultancies, Malcolm Pacific Immigration, and was prominent in the Association of Migration and Investment, cowriting its code of ethics. In 1986 and 1987 he was one of the businesspeople backing New Zealand's first America's Cup Campaign.
