If questions are to be asked, the first should be whether Clean Stream and Northland Waste were offering the same service. One would imagine that they were; certainly there has been no suggestion that Northland Waste is offering a reduced level of service, enabling it to undercut Clean Stream.
If Clean Stream had any inkling of that it would surely have said so.
That begs the question as to how one firm can undercut another so substantially. Commercial sensitivity being what it is, we don't know how they managed it, but the council will be aware that we will be watching to see if corners are going to be cut in order to make the contract sustainable for Northland Waste.
No would-be council contractor should rely on the fact that it is local for preferential treatment, at least when substantial sums of money are involved. The important thing now for the community is that the jobs created by Clean Stream are retained.
Obviously Northland Waste will need to employ people on the ground, and hopefully those who have been employed by Clean Stream will at least have the chance to claim those jobs. Like the company that has employed them until now, they have done a good job, and deserve to be retained. It would seem logical that they will be needed to deliver the new contract, so in terms of local employment it might well be a case of business as usual.
Certainly this newspaper is in no position to criticise the council. It has argued with three mayors, including the incumbent, that the council has a moral obligation to spend its/our money within the Far North at every opportunity. The council has not always done this, and while the current Mayor needs no persuading, it is far from a given that it is doing it now.
The Northland Age believes the council is justified in spending a little more for goods and services supplied from within the Far North than might be achievable by shopping elsewhere, given that the benefits of spending locally will outweigh some degree of savings. However, there must come a point where additional costs cannot be justified, and while there might be some discussion regarding where that point lies, it would surely be this side of $8650 a week.
Many in this district are already struggling to pay their rates, and any reasonable opportunity the council has to at least slow the rate of increase must be taken. We have been told, and can hardly be surprised, that a lot of deferred maintenance needs doing, and that that is going to cost a lot of money. Every dollar the council can save elsewhere for restoring basic infrastructure to an acceptable standard must be taken.
Perhaps the council will tell us where the $450,000 per annum it says it has saved by this change of contractor will be spent, and perhaps that will deflect some of the criticism it is receiving. In the meantime, those who don't like rate increases, and are not always happy with how the council spends their money, might at least consider the possibility that on this occasion the council has acted in its ratepayers' best interests.
No painIt's been a while since we've heard the phrase 'No pain no gain.' That was once the standard response to those who questioned the radical changes that began in 1984, and continue in various guises today. Our willingness to accept pain in the hope of some future gain seems to be waning, however.
Certainly it is unlikely that the government's goal of reducing domestic violence will achieve much, because it won't take the one step that really could make a difference. If politicians want to start making the societal changes that must be made if men (mainly) are to stop abusing women and children (mainly), the first thing they should do is abolish the DPB.
Social welfare has done enormous damage in this country over the last 50-odd years. What began as a well intentioned, workable method of supporting those in real need has morphed into a monster that has changed the degree to which many people are prepared to accept responsibility for their own lives, and those of their dependents.
The potential for reducing welfare is limited, however. Those who are genuinely unable to support themselves obviously need help from the state, and should receive it. The DPB is a different story. In many cases it is a benefit of choice.
It has played a massive role in the destruction of the nuclear family, and the extended family that was once one of our society's strengths.
Originally it was available only to married women with children who had been abandoned by their husbands. Children born 'out of wedlock' were the responsibility of their parents or their parents' families, or were given up for adoption.
We've all heard how babies were torn from the arms of their unwed mums, but many unmarried mums had families of their own, and were supported by them. And of course there was the option of the 'shotgun wedding,' not ideal for the bride and groom, perhaps, but a sight better than what we have now.
If real progress is to be made in reducing domestic violence we must re-establish the value of family, and that won't happen while the state offers unquestioning support for those who want to go it alone. Not a simple fix, but better than any politician is likely to come up with.
