Whanganui letters: Ohakune courthouse should have stayed open

The Ohakune District Court was closed without warning on September 16. Photo / Bevan Conley

The sudden closure of the Ohakune courthouse (Chronicle, October 29) raises a number of concerns for our local community.

As a support worker who has attended this court for the past 20 years, I am concerned about the effect this closure has on the Ruapehu district. The courthouse is a beacon of bad behaviour and removal of this ready access to justice will require our people to travel out of the community for court appearances.

Many do not have the financial resources to do so. Some will not have a valid driving licence. Is the ministry going to reimburse people and/or provide a shuttle service? I am not able to travel to Taihape for court.

The Ohakune courthouse is centrally located with the police station 50m away, and likewise local lawyer offices. Support services are available locally and the court is well served with excellent court staff, security services and community probation.

I am not aware of any consultation with the local community prior to the closure. It seems odd the building is no longer suitable because it has remained in the same state for the past 20 years.

Although there are no interview rooms, we have managed over the years. Security staff are in attendance and lockup is available and used at the police station.

I have observed staff operating the court on occasions without heating, no power and no computer systems. I recall one visiting judge from Auckland expressing surprise the courthouse had a fax machine!

The courthouse is part of our local community and should be retained to provide easy access to justice.

ROB THOMSON
Parapara

Why so late, Ken?

I was surprised to read Ken Mair's emotive objections to the newly consented bottling plant in Anzac Parade (Chronicle front page, October 3).

Emotive? It seems so, given Ken had four years and several opportunities to respond to the consent application. Only now, after consent has been approved, the general public learns that Ken Mair "would take action to stop it"; "... you are stealing and confiscating a taonga - water ..." and "... It's like a juggernaut just running over the top of us". Ken states his case adamantly, but I wonder, is he now a bit late? Why didn't he make public his perceived "fire and brimstone" attitude in the article, years earlier?

Ken didn't participate directly in the consent process, but I concede that is not unexpected for a leader (it's called delegation). However, I believe iwi had a responsibility to keep Ken informed as negotiations proceeded. What happened - or didn't happen - in any such communications over years between iwi and Ken Mair?

A previous, related Chronicle article (front page, September 28) had a different, quite positive [comment from independent commissioners] to the consent for the applicants to take water from this Anzac Parade bore. Here's one quote: "the applicant has demonstrated ... genuine desire to work ... with iwi and hapu for the benefit of all".

To be best informed, try to re-read the September 28 article. I feel there are unanswered questions on both sides, over this consent. [Abridged]

STAN HOOD
Aramoho

Editor's note: The application by Aquifer 182 was made to Horizons Regional Council on September 26, 2018. It became publicly notified on February 4, 2021, and submissions on it closed on March 5, 2021.