Letters: Senior citizens deserve better healthcare; abolish Auckland’s council-controlled organisations

'It is a sad state of affairs when those who have given so much in the past to their country now lie in their homes in pain waiting, waiting and waiting.'

Letters to the Editor

I can’t lead a hīkoi, I can barely walk

On the eve of going for surgery for a total hip replacement, I am reflecting on the promises from Dr Shane Reti and his Government regarding health services for seniors.

My situation would match hundreds in NZ at this time, needing hip and knee surgery. While in the Emergency Department in hospital, the fantastic doctor apologised for the situation, that it would take 300 days to be seen in the public system – and then he could not say when or if even I would ever have surgery. My situation deteriorated, I can barely walk very far. My only option was to seek a private hip replacement. This makes me so mad, I paid my tax for over 60 years, I served my community, and I was given a QSO for service to my community. But still, Dr Reti is prepared to leave the hundreds of seniors waiting in pain for their replacement surgery. I would lead a hīkoi, if I could, of those waiting for surgery, but sadly we would not make it, so many are now unable to leave their homes, but this is okay with Dr Reti. He wants us to pay for our surgery privately, that’s his nasty little plan. It is a sad state of affairs when those who have given so much in the past to their country now lie in their homes in pain waiting, waiting and waiting. One is graded when requiring replacement surgery, I was graded a two, as was my friend Aaron, who is also waiting 300 days. My GP asked that I be graded a one, but was curtly advised that at present there was no reprioritisation, no discussion, no debate, not even being seen by anyone, the answer was no. There seems to be something unfair when people have accidents or go and get drunk and have a motorbike accident and they can all get ACC-funded replacements, no problems. ACC is awash with money, surely you can reprioritise some of that money and get your endless waiting lists of seniors under control. Heather Tanguay, Glen Eden.

Abolish CCOs

Well done Mayor Brown. It is a relief for ratepayers that in your third year in office, you are seeking abolition or at least major reform of CCOs, except Watercare.

Auckland Transport (AT) in particular has inflicted major damage on the city in the last 14 years. AT has had a closed-minded approach: cars are the enemy, and we should all ride bikes or use public transport.

Simon Wilson’s article on March 19 this year reported an Auckland Council-initiated survey which found 81% of Aucklanders rated public transport “much less convenient” than cars; 74% considered it more stressful than driving; 58% considered it less safe from crime.

The same survey found more than 80% of Aucklanders considered bikes less convenient than cars – 58% said they would never ride a bike.

The survey proved what Aucklanders already knew, as they observed Auckland’s empty cycle lanes built at a vast cost: AT has pursued policies which are contrary to what the majority of Aucklanders want. The massive cost of this wasted expenditure has imperilled the council’s finances.

Please, mayor, abolish AT and reform the other CCOs just as soon as you can.

David Schnauer, Milford.

Hidden dangers

It appears the proposed Bill to define the principles of our founding document and enshrine these into law has some hidden dangers.

What may be a current issue may not be at all relevant at some future date, with as yet unthought of issues. Far better to live with a little uncertainty and apply the clauses of the Treaty to each era, as interpreted by the citizens of that era.

The constitutional straitjacket of the US and its now outmoded Second Amendment on the “right to bear arms” provides a clear warning.

Tony Parlane, Waiheke Island.

Modern decorum

In the commentary following the haka in Parliament last week, there have been various positions taken as to whether this was appropriate or not.

Much of this has revolved around the inclusion and expression of tikanga Māori within the Westminster structure and order of our Parliament. This is a reasonable discussion to have.

However, there is an asymmetry to this discussion which is not being considered. All institutions, eg the judiciary, and places of worship, have their own norms which are enacted to ensure respect and decorum. For example, the entrance onto a marae and who is authorised to speak is dictated by tikanga.

It would be completely inappropriate and offensive if anyone was to contravene the established way of practice and order on a marae. The same standard and expectation needs to also be afforded to Parliament.

The issue for Parliament is to ensure that its way of practice and order is protected. This should, ultimately, incorporate aspects of tikanga Māori. Yet whatever the outcome, order, respect and decorum need to be protected in what is the highest court, even marae, in the land. Paul Hamilton, Timaru.