Letters: Fair questions

It's a sad day when people who wish not to be identified are bullied into doing so, says a reader. Photo / 123RF

Shaun Reilly and Mike Rashbrooke miss the point. Perhaps wilfully so?

In their haste to pour scorn on my whistleblowing, and to ascribe ulterior motives, they fail to address my original questions and concerns. How is it that combined views of the associations representing all the ratepayers of Kerikeri and Paihia echo precisely the views of a single individual?

Do the ratepayers of these towns know, or even care, about what is proposed for Kawakawa? And if so, how can we be sure that the stated view of these associations actually represents the views of the ratepayers themselves?

We haven't yet heard from these ratepayer associations. Let them assure us through these pages that the processes they follow to ensure that they speak with the genuine and combined voice of the people they represent are rigorous.

Let them describe to us how they ensure their autonomy and avoid being co-opted by individuals in support of personal views and agendas. Let them prove to us the depth and validity of their community representation.

If they do all that I shall retire from this conversation, content that the right questions have been asked and answered.

For the record, I have no opinion on whether or not the points raised in the combined objection are right or wrong. And I don't particularly care.

What I care about is the possibility that not just one but two of our ratepayer-representative organisations are being led into supporting the views of an individual. If there is even an outside chance of this being the case, the questions are worth asking.

Neither do I have any beef with the individual concerned submitting her objections. I love the fact that we live in a society where she can. And if she wants to assist our ratepayer associations to prepare their own submissions, then good on her.

But 'their own submissions' they should be - and inherent in that is the condition that those submissions should reflect the views of the wider ratepayer group they purport to represent.

It's a sad day when people who wish not to be identified, but who have whistles that perhaps the wider community are not aware need blowing, are bullied into not doing so. In such febrile conditions dictatorships are born.

By allowing us to use the 'name and address supplied' convention, this newspaper ensures that we more reclusive community watchdogs are able to function.

"Don't shoot the messenger," Reilly says. Indeed. The vitriol and way off-beam conspiracy theorising with which these two gentlemen greeted my original attempt to blow the whistle justifies entirely my decision to remain anonymous.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED