logo
Letters to the Editor: voting, pubs and mining

Letters to the Editor: voting, pubs and mining

Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including non-resident ratepayer voting, backing the local pub, and trashing our heritage for overseas mining interests. Candidate claim runs counter to principle
Green Party mayoral candidate Mickey Treadwell is mistaken in his opinion that non-resident ratepayer voting violates New Zealand's democratic principles ( ODT 11.7.25).
"No taxation without representation" is a fundamental principle of democracy. This principle has been established as far back as the Boston Tea Party of 1773, which triggered the American Revolution and the establishment of the first truly democratic modern state.
For Mr Treadwell to claim that long-term holiday home owners and non-resident owners of say, commercial property in Dunedin city, have less of an interest in the future of the city and "less investment in public good" is just plainly untrue.
Compared to a bunch of students living in a rented flat for a couple of years, each of whom has a residential vote and who will all likely depart the city forever on graduation, who does Mr Treadwell think has a greater stake in the city?
I suspect the real reason for Mr Treadwell's concern is that he (rightly) believes that non-resident ratepayer electors are less likely to vote for a Green Party candidate.
And just for the record, it doesn't matter how many properties a non-resident ratepayer elector owns within a local body territory: they only get one vote in that territory, even if the property or properties within that territory are jointly owned. Power and votes
Green Party mayoral candidate Mickey Treadwell complained that non-resident ratepayers had disproportionate power because they can vote in the council elections.
He is quoted as saying: "it's a pretty direct violation of our one-person, one vote democratic principle".
I am sure that Mr Treadwell, as a Green Party member, is a supporter of unelected Māori having voting rights on council committees.
How he and many liberal lefties reconcile this with his above quote I don't know.
I am afraid that we have far too many ideologues as councillors and would-be councillors, who as the above quote reveals are quite happy to foster democracy, but are quite prepared to ignore their principles, when their ideology demands it. We did great
There has been a surfeit of grizzling and faux outrage from the right wing and the ignorant regarding Jacinda Ardern, Ashley Bloomfield, and the excellent public health team who led our Covid response.
Aotearoa saved 20,000 lives due to the border closure, mask mandates and our vaccination programme, according to statistician Michael Planck and epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker.
Official statistical sites reveal that the US suffered 3493 deaths per million people (as at July 2025), the UK 3404, France 2613, Canada 1424 and New Zealand 834.
Our economy came out of Covid strongly with low unemployment and with Triple A or Double A plus ratings from Moody's and Standard and Poor's.
Yet there is a barrage of often hysterical criticism of the Ardern government's brilliant response to a major pandemic.
Perhaps next time a pandemic arrives, the coalition apologists and the egotistical show ponies should go and live in the US and watch as hospitals split at the seams and morgues overflow into the streets while mass graves are dug, as in 2020. Local customer backs his local establishment
In the ODT (8.7.25) article regarding the on-licence and off-licence renewal application for Mackies Hotel, Port Chalmers, the Dunedin City Council licensing staff were insinuating Mackies was poorly run and opposed the renewal of the liquor licence.
On the contrary, this hotel is a well-run and well-maintained spotless pub.
I question the decision made by DCC licensing inspector Tanya Morrison and medical officer Aaron Whipp suggesting Mr Sefton was not a suitable applicant to hold a licence.
He admits he got slack with ever-changing compliance, but no need to make a mountain out of mole hill. A word in his ear would have sufficed.
Publican Wayne Sefton and his family have been a big support to the Port Chalmers community and sports clubs over the last 40 years. Mr Sefton, like most community publicans, also takes an interest in the wellbeing of his patrons.
DCC licensing staff should be supporting and help promote our community pubs: most of them are managed well with no trouble.
I would love to see more young people use these establishments. Whilst having a beer or two they would meet a lot of interesting people of all ages and demographics and walks of life. Mining and its legacy
I was shocked to hear about the proposed Santana mine at Tarras.
Do we really want a Central Otago where the noise of explosions, trucks and stamping machines echoes across the quiet Lake Dunstan, where 24/7 flood-lighting blots out the stars, where carcinogenic arsenic is released from the smashed schist and hangs around in the air and coats the soil, where toxins from a massive tailings dam leaches into the Clutha, where three huge open-cast mines are highly visible?
Eventually the Santana mine will expand through the Dunstan mountains and the Maniototo. Everyone who lives, works and plays in Otago and will feel the irreversible effects of the Santana mine.
The proposal is being fast-tracked, with diminished local or environmental input. We don't have much time.
Parliamentarian Shane Jones has ranted in respect of digging up our landscape and trashing our cultural heritage in favour of carte blanche access for Australian mining interests.
In Chillagoe, a one-time mining centre in far north Queensland, there is an abandoned smelter. This small centre is the acknowledged "start-of-the-outback", with something of a character of its own.
The place has been suspended in time, in the condition which probably existed on the day the last worker quit the site, no doubt to seek alternative employment at another mine.
My argument is: if that is the condition in which Australian mining conglomerates leave their own landscape, what assurances of remediation of our own landscape in the wake of gold, or whatever, finally giving out in New Zealand may be relied upon?
We as a country with much less territorial area able to be trashed than Australia, exist in their eyes with only one justification for our existence: our potential to be exploited, for their rapacious gain.
[Abridged — length. Editor.]
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why the Regulatory Standards Bill matters for property rights
Why the Regulatory Standards Bill matters for property rights

NZ Herald

timean hour ago

  • NZ Herald

Why the Regulatory Standards Bill matters for property rights

Every member of the United Nations has pledged to uphold the Declaration. Most have embedded property rights into their constitutions. Property rights are a cornerstone of liberal democracy: a principle of Magna Carta, enshrined in the US Constitution, required for membership in the European Union, affirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court and protected in the Australian Constitution. The two major exceptions? Communist states, where the state owns everything – and New Zealand. In 1990, a Labour Government deliberately excluded property rights from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That omission is no accident. It has consequences. Taking property without compensation is not an aberration. It is a recurring feature of New Zealand governance – from settler governments seizing Māori land to modern 'regulatory takings'. Often, Māori land that remains undeveloped is designated as an 'Outstanding Natural Landscape' – in effect, a park – rendering it useless to the owners but still subject to rates. Councils have even sold ancestral Māori land for unpaid rates, often for a fraction of its true value. Now, those who want to continue these regulatory takings urge Māori to oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill – because it lacks a Treaty clause. Yet the bill upholds the Crown's Treaty promise to respect property, restrains the state's claim to unfettered sovereignty, and enforces the citizenship guarantee. It is not only Māori who suffer. Under the Public Works Act, private land is seized for 'public purposes'. Compensation is often delayed or set below market value. Ask the owners of land taken for Transmission Gully or the Waikato Expressway. After the Christchurch earthquakes, homeowners in the red zone were presented with take-it-or-leave-it 'voluntary' buyouts. Those who refused were cut off from basic services. Only years later did the courts rule the red zoning unlawful. These are not historical wrongs. They are present-day injustices. The Regulatory Standards Bill does not create new rights. It simply restates principles that our governments claim to uphold but routinely ignore. Critics say the Cabinet manual offers sufficient protection. But the manual can be amended – or ignored – at the whim of ministers. History shows it often is. The European Union's robust climate policies disprove the notion that property rights and environmental protection are incompatible. The bill should be much stronger. Courts should have the power to strike down legislation that breaches its principles. Governments can ignore it. What message will be sent if the bill is not passed? The critics are not objecting to process. They object to principle. What they oppose is private ownership. Their vision is one of 'collective rights' – where property belongs to the state and citizens live on sufferance. This is not a technical debate. It is a fundamental question: What kind of country do we want to be? The Regulatory Standards Bill proposes six principles that all laws should meet: To most people, this reads like common sense. To the critics, it's dangerous ideology. Our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, sees the bill – as he sees everything – as a management issue: 'Improving the long-term quality of regulation.' But this is not about better drafting. It's about what we believe: individual liberty – or the tyranny of the majority. Opposing the bill are a who's who of the political class: Much of the bureaucracy, a coterie of activist academics and Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Their goal? Unfettered state power. Christopher Luxon wants efficient government. But the real question is not whether government should be efficient. It is whether its power should be limited. If the bill is defeated it will be a licence for the state by regulatory taking to expropriate property; to trample on the principles we helped draft in 1948 and pledged to uphold. It is time we practised what we preach.

Byelection: Te Pāti Māori candidate contender cops flak for supporting Labour MP's selection
Byelection: Te Pāti Māori candidate contender cops flak for supporting Labour MP's selection

NZ Herald

timean hour ago

  • NZ Herald

Byelection: Te Pāti Māori candidate contender cops flak for supporting Labour MP's selection

'The party was quite disappointed at that, to be totally honest. I've just gone, well, I'm just going to sit back here and ... we have to allow the people to speak.' Panapa had worked in Parliament for former Tāmaki Makaurau MP Takukai Moana Natasha Kemp before her death after a battle with kidney disease. Takutai Moana Natasha Kemp with Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere on election night in 2023. Photo / Mike Scott Continuing Kemp's work had motivated Panapa to offer himself to be her successor. However, he was narrowly beaten by Kaipara by about 30 votes from a crowd of up to 350 people, he estimated, during Te Pāti Māori's selection process last week. Over the weekend, Labour selected Henare - a former Tāmaki Makaurau MP of three terms - as its candidate to contest the byelection set for September 6. Panapa attended Henare's selection event at Ngā Whare Waatea Marae in Mangere and posted to social media, congratulating the Labour MP and thanking him for acknowledging Kemp. A few days later, Panapa again took to social media to 'clear a lot of the noise' having been 'hammered, good and bad, from all ends' for his comments. 'It's okay to be passionate, but let's keep the discourse respectful,' Panapa wrote. 'To clarify, Peeni is my whanaunga, and before politics, we're whānau and Māori first. 'However, Takutai's influence led me to Te Pāti Māori, and I've come to appreciate and support their unapologetic stance on being Māori in spaces that often threaten our existence.' Panapa said his post had prompted some to believe he had left Te Pāti Māori and was joining Labour. 'Peeni had some beautiful words to say about Takutai, so I tended to listen to that. 'It was never about going against the party.' Panapa said he hadn't heard from Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere, also his grandmother's first cousin, about the matter, saying he believed Tamihere 'understood where I was coming from'. Former Manurewa Marae youth advisor Te Kou o Rehua Panapa in Parliament. Photo / Supplied Tamihere has been approached for comment. Still a Te Pāti Māori member, Panapa said he had not decided whether to endorse one specific candidate. He had also not considered whether he would contest next year's election, despite being asked by Te Pāti Māori if he would want to run in an Auckland general seat. Panapa said it remained an open question whether, should he run, he did so for Te Pāti Māori, Labour or the Green Party. As for the byelection, Panapa suspected Kaipara would 'give it a good go' against Henare, whom he had worked for previously across three campaigns. 'Peeni's done some amazing work here in Tāmaki Makaurau but I personally think [Kaipara] could win this on the party, on the back of the party.' Citing his experience working with South Auckland youth, Panapa explained what might have been considered 'radical' views from Te Pāti Māori in the past were now attracting a growing young Māori audience in Auckland. '[Previously], it was grandparents-driven and you voted for Labour and that was it. 'That's changed now, I think it's more the young people making decisions for themselves to vote.' He encouraged candidates to avoid political sparring and focus on improving what was typically a low voter turnout. 'What both parties don't realise is that our people, especially South Auckland people, if there's too much narrative and it's too complicated, they don't turn up and vote. 'That's the problem, so the focus must be on getting people there to vote.' Adam Pearse is the Deputy Political Editor and part of the NZ Herald's Press Gallery team based at Parliament in Wellington. He has worked for NZME since 2018, reporting for the Northern Advocate in Whangārei and the Herald in Auckland.

Coalition rift opens over UN letter as Seymour defends rogue response
Coalition rift opens over UN letter as Seymour defends rogue response

The Spinoff

time5 hours ago

  • The Spinoff

Coalition rift opens over UN letter as Seymour defends rogue response

The Act leader's unilateral reply to the UN has exposed fresh cracks in the coalition – and created a clean-up job for Winston Peters, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Letter row underscores coalition strain David Seymour's fiery response to a United Nations letter has turned into a full-blown coalition controversy, exposing divisions over both diplomatic conduct and the ideological direction of government. In June, UN special rapporteur Albert K Barume wrote to the government expressing concern that Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill failed to uphold Treaty principles and risked breaching Māori rights. Without consulting his coalition partners, Seymour fired back, sending his own letter to Barume telling him his remarks were 'presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced' and branding the UN intervention 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. As RNZ's Craig McCulloch reports, prime minister Christopher Luxon yesterday described Barume's letter as 'total bunkum' but agreed Seymour had overstepped and should not have responded directly. What the UN said – and what Seymour wrote back In his letter, Barume said he was concerned about reports of 'a persistent erosion of the rights of the Māori Indigenous Peoples… through regressive legislations' that may breach New Zealand's international obligations. Seymour's response was uncompromising. 'As an Indigenous New Zealander myself,' he wrote, 'I am deeply aggrieved by your audacity in presuming to speak on my behalf and that of my fellow Māori.' He dismissed concerns about Māori exclusion from consultation as 'misleading and offensive', and accused Barume of misunderstanding both the bill and New Zealand's legislative process. While Seymour has since agreed to withdraw the letter to allow foreign minister Winston Peters to respond officially, he has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, insisting that 'we all agree the UN's criticisms are crazy' and that the official response would be essentially the same as his own. When asked if that was the case, Peters sounded aghast, reports The Post's Kelly Dennett ​ (paywalled). 'That's not true,' Peters told reporters. 'Why would he say that?' The government's position would be made clear only after consulting all affected ministries, Peters said. 'We don't do megaphone diplomacy in this business,' he added acidly. 'Don't you understand diplomacy? You don't speak to other countries via the media.' Māori opposition to the bill runs deep Behind the diplomatic drama lies the more substantive issue: widespread Māori opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill itself. Writing in Te Ao Māori News, former MP Louisa Wall says Seymour's claim that the bill doesn't weaken Treaty protections is 'demonstrably false'. In fact, she says, 'the Bill is silent on Te Tiriti. It elevates a monocultural legal standard based on private property and individual liberty while excluding Māori values like tikanga, mana motuhake, and kaitiakitanga. This is not neutral. It is erasure.' Wall also defends Barume's intervention, arguing that he was fulfilling his mandate to monitor Indigenous rights worldwide and that his concerns echoed those already raised by Māori leaders and legal scholars. 'Dr Barume is not imposing an external ideology,' she writes. 'His letter reflects what Māori across the motu already know: our rights are being undermined.' Coalition fault lines widen over Seymour's bill The clash over the UN letter comes at a tense time for Act's relationship with NZ First, which has made no secret of its discomfort with parts of the bill. Seymour has 'made it clear behind the scenes' that the regulatory standards legislation is 'as bottom line as it gets', writes Thomas Coughlan in a fascinating piece for the Herald (paywalled). Translation: '[Seymour] is willing to walk away from the coalition over it, bringing down the Government and triggering an election' if he doesn't get what he wants. While that's an unlikely scenario – especially since the coalition agreement commits the government to passing some version of the legislation – Seymour's passion for the bill speaks volumes about the junior coalition partners' divergent ideologies, writes Coughlan. 'Act is willing to risk short-term unpopularity, even losing an election, for long-term foundational change; NZ First is not.'​

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store