My plea is that your readers are not brainwashed by the deliberate misinformation and emotional blackmail that these people have vomited over all of us in past weeks.
Their incessant rants speak of an irrational fear that by strengthening the indigenous voice in local government somehow their own voice will be weakened. Their preference is a continuation of the disrespectful lip service paid to tangata whenua in former times. This thinking is self-centred and backward.
The proposed model is an improvement on the last. In time, an even better model may emerge.
In the meantime, what is proposed has a clear rationale, a sound structure, and transparent systems to allay any fears that anyone might hold.
Please be positive and [give] feedback on the proposal!
ERANA HOND-FLAVELL
Rotorua
Considering the continuing budget blowouts at the (Rotorua Lakes) council, the mayor certainly needs lots of advice. But why from Te Arawa? Are they the experts we desperately need? Seven of them? Putting seven advisers on the payroll, paying them top salaries, has created division in the community. At what cost? The mayor does not seem to mind.
Why just Te Arawa? They are only 30 per cent of Rotorua Maori. The mayor could not possibly deny the other 70 per cent the same right. If she did there would be another division in the community.
Of course, there are more sectors in our community that have made their contribution to making Rotorua what it is. Do they want to send advisers? There is no doubt that after wasting millions and dividing the community, the mayor and some councillors won't be re-elected. Can we get rid of all these advisers and get back to normal? We can only hope so.
HARRY BRASSER
Rotorua
John Rika claims (Letters, April 6) that "MMP recognises that unelected representatives are capable of making a valued contribution". Well, it does no such thing.
Political parties select both their list and electorate candidates well before a general election with the public having no say. Whatever the appearance, when almost all of us cast an electorate vote, we choose the party, not the individual, just as we do with our list vote. So what is the real difference? Answer: none at all, even in cases of "tactical voting". None are "unelected representatives", so bang goes John Rika's argument. If we don't defend democracy, we'll come to regret it sooner or later.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
Once again the fiasco that is Easter trading! Just when are they going to get it right?
The date for Easter is totally wrong - IF Jesus was resurrected then it had to be on a certain date!
It could not have been on a different date every year - that is plain stupid! And why does it affect four days?
We have had the stupid regulations messing up Friday to Monday - to prove what? So you can go to places of entertainment, watch films, watch DVDs, drink alcohol, fish and swim, mountain bike ride, and climb mountains; you can drive cars and fill up with petrol, or fly to distant countries - but you cannot eat! How stupid is that?
It is high time we joined the rest of the civilised world and did away with this Easter nonsense once and for all! [Abridged]
JIM ADAMS
Rotorua
Re: Moment with Paul Hickey, April 6.
I wonder if this writer has ever paused to ponder why he is living on earth as a conscious, intelligent human.
If his parents had never copulated he wouldn't exist. This thought surely points one to the spiritual.
Real-life rights and wrongs are based on the "true life" principles from the very book he mentions, which is more correctly a "book of books" to enlighten us, published more than any other.
It is surprising that a person of his status wasn't aware that shops wouldn't be trading on Good Friday, in which case he could have planned accordingly.
This law is not based on religion. If he fully understood the "real" reason for Easter, as he claims to, he would not be an unbeliever and would know why unbelievers are condemned; unless they repent, of course, which one hopes he will for his sake and that of many others.
TOM SPENCE
Galatea
At last, a coherent riposte to those calling the Te Arawa Partnership Proposal "anti democratic".
I cannot but think that underlying these claims are thinly veiled racism, vociferous denials not withstanding. If these people who make up this so-called "pro democracy" group do not value, let alone understand, the history that makes Rotorua, let alone Aotearoa New Zealand unique, may I kindly suggest they can leave and find the "democracy" they are looking for elsewhere. From one middle-aged white male.
DAVID DORNAN
Rotorua
Mark Oliver is correct that there is a serious conflict of interest issue (Letters, April 6). However, it is not about the proposed future appointees, but about the councillors who are the creators and prime movers of the Rotorua Pro-Democracy Society.
They hold office in a society established with the specific purpose of influencing the council decision. Through meetings, mail drops, billboards and other means, they have made their predetermined positions very public ahead of council consideration of the submissions.
Most seriously, through their mail drops and public meetings, they have attempted to influence the consultation process by persuading members of the public to make submissions to the council expressing a particular viewpoint, even to the point of giving coaching on specific wording. It is most inappropriate for them to then participate in the council's consideration of those submissions.
In terms of the Auditor-General's guidelines for councillors on non-pecuniary interests, it is clear that they have well overstepped the mark at which they should declare an interest and stand aside from council deliberations on the submissions and the Te Arawa proposals.
The guidelines are there to protect the integrity of the democratic process and protect councils from legal challenge on grounds of predetermination and bias.
These councillors who are so keen to protect democracy have a moral obligation to declare an interest and stand aside. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
Worse, if their participation is seen to influence the council decision, it could be challenged in court at an inevitable cost to ratepayers.
KEITH GARRATT
Rotorua
Your editorial (How long will we be shut out at Easter?, April 7) perpetuates the widely held misconception around Easter trading when you say: "If their staff want to work, let them, if they don't, let them have the choice".
The simple fact is every employee has an employment contract, most of which contain a clause to the effect "an employee shall work public holidays if that is the person's normal day of work".
Of course they can apply for the time off but all holiday leave is at the sole discretion of the employer. Staff have little choice.
ROSS ALLEN
Rotorua
