There is surely a need for less bureaucracy and greater economy of scale.
V GREGORY-MEREDITH, Whanganui
Licensing fiasco
Further to my earlier comments regard firearms licensing:
When I looked more closely at the official firearms licence renewal form as received, I discovered it had been written two days prior to the end of the registration renewal period allowed.
Even if this document had been posted on the day it was written, there is absolutely no way it could have made my rural mailbox in time for me to comply with the time parameter.
To be fair to the (civilian?) official who received my bold capital email and the lovely lady at the "Bell Street Blues" who had to deal with me face to face, both were most helpful and reassured me that there had been a cock-up: "Just work to the expiry date of your licence." Wonderful, thank you.
But wait - there is more.
When I read further, I was informed that if my licence was forfeited (because I had failed to renew on time), or I chose to surrender my licence, then I was required to deliver the document to a police station, declare my intention and hand over the licence. Fair enough.
But what about the firearms I may have owned in association with my licence?
There is no database record associating them with my licence.
If asked: "Where are the firearms you possessed as a firearms licence holder", I can say: "I reported them missing five years ago, but the police investigation has been unsuccessful. They are gone."
In reality, I could have sold them to a criminal or, if sensible, I would simply keep them myself, deny possession and avoid paying an outrageous licence fee.
The only net gain inherent in registering as a firearms owner is to government coffers.
Nobody knows for sure where the firearms are, and whether the possessors of those weapons can be trusted with weapons or not.
So don't bother being a registered and licensed firearms owner - the crims don't, so save yourself some money.
What a joke, who is responsible for this ineptitude? One of the Donalds - Duck or Trump?
JOHN THURLOW, Whanganui River
Legacy of 'H'
Re: Article by Rachel Rose - "It's time we all moved to use the 'H'" (November 18):
She says it is one of the legacies of Annette Main's mayoralty that the district name has been corrected.
At the time, I did research and sent it to the council, the Land Information Minister and the NZ Geographic Board, but they all rejected it.
The name Wanganui did not have an 'H' in the spelling in 1840. At the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs of Wanganui signed the treaty document without the 'H' in the name.
The paramount chief of the Waitaha people told me the name Wanganui belongs to them.
Broken down - according to this Waitaha chief - Wa is energy; nga is many; nui is large. Even the coastal Maori from Taranaki to Wanganui did not use the 'H' sound, only the 'W' was pronounced.
There is a pa site just out of Wanganui called Waitaha Pa where some Waitaha people lived.
The name Wanganui is entirely valid and should have stayed that way.
It was our deceitful council at the time wanted it changed.
IAN BROUGHAM, Tawhero
Poisoned hawks
Landcare Research's investigation of roadkilled hawks revealed 78 per cent of the hawks scraped off the road and tested for anticoagulant poisons had at least one - and as many as four - types of anticoagulant toxins in them.
Penny Fisher, who did this research, has recently returned to Australia because there was little interest in New Zealand in pursuing this kind of research.
Please, new Labour Government, review our laws relating to use of toxins such as brodifacoum and 1080 before we lose the precious wildlife we have left, and commit to using pest control alternatives that are more humane and more ecosystem-focused. Please do this or I will need to leave this lovely country of ours one day.
MERV SMITH, Bulls
Question time
A critic (Opinion column; November 30), after watching one television programme, slates the National Party for over 6000 information requests.
A quick view of some of those questions would indicate why the number is so high.
Here is a small sample of requests and answers between National's Chris Bishop and the Police Minister Ron Mark.
Question 1: What meetings, if any, has the Minister attended between 26 October 2017 and 15 November 2017, including subject, attendees, and agenda items?"
Answer 1: I meet regularly, formally and informally, with officials and various stakeholders.
A range of issues are discussed.
If the Member would like to be more specific I will endeavour to answer the question.
Question 2: (More specific and smaller time frame). Did the Minister have any meetings in his capacity as Minister of Police on October 27, if so, what people and organisations did he meet with on that day, where were the meetings held and what were the main items of business?
Answer 2: I meet regularly, formally and informally, with officials and various stakeholders. A range of issues are discussed. If the Member would like to be more specific I will endeavour to answer the question.
Question 3: (1-hour timeframe). Did the Minister have any meetings in his capacity as Minister of Police on October 27 between 8 and 9am, if so, what people and organisations did he meet with at that time; where were the meetings held and what were the main items of business?
Anybody detect a trend in those answers?
The Coalition Government ministers have only themselves to blame for the high number when they prevaricate in this way.
Little wonder at the large number of questions which, incidentally, are nowhere near as many s the 8791 questions asked by Labour MPs in July 2010, with over 7000 of those from Trevor Mallard.
VERNON BALLANCE, Westmere
