We did not part ways, I was exited on issue
I refer to the article: "Mayoral hopeful dumps candidate over karakia critique" (ODT 26.3.25).
The article describes the events surrounding my removal as a candidate from the Future Dunedin ticket. Mr. Simms, the mayoral hopeful in question, is not being accurate if he said that: "he had spoken with Dr Hamlin and the pair had decided to part ways."
The precise sequence of events is that I spoke with your reporter about my karakia critique at about 1pm that day. Immediately after this conversation, at 1.36pm, I e-mailed Mr Simms giving him full details of the situation. I did not offer to resign.
Mr Simms responded promptly at 1.52pm with a short e-mail that contained the following statement: "… I consider it best if we part company at this early stage."
I have had no other written or verbal communication with him or the group on this matter. It would therefore be more accurate to state that Mr Simms alone decided to exit me on this specific issue, and that I accept his decision.
Standards of behaviour
I note with considerable regret that mayoral candidate Andrew Simms appears not to want candidates able to hold personal opinions and engage in debate over contentions issues such as calling on the deity for spiritual guidance before a council meeting. It appears not to have assisted our parliamentary standards of behaviour over the years, so I wonder if the words tokenism and patronising should be noted.
I was under the impression that public bodies should always be secular in nature, yet this decision of Mr Simms is more disturbing by offering deference to only the Maori deity.
I believe Dr Robert Hamlin is a free thinker who is prepared to express his views without fear or favour as he has done over many years on many issues. A great candidate in other words.
You have just lost my vote Mr Simms.
Only kow towing tolerated
The story about Dr Robert Hamlin’s resistance to compulsory karakia is evidence of life in New Zealand in an age of angels and others. An age when respect is not enough, when acceptance is not enough, only kow towing is tolerated.
Dr Hamlin appears not to subscribe to religious faith and finds the idea of mouthing such beliefs hypocritical. Mr Simms, on the other hand, in banning Dr Hamlin from his political group comes across as a man who puts ambition before principle. .
Anti proliferation
Bravo to Robert Hamlin for voicing his disquiet about the proliferation of karakia in every part of local and central government business.
The thing that disturbs me, is that one culture’s religious beliefs are being forced on people who do not want a bar of it. If you object to it, you are classed as a racist and it is likely to affect your employment status.
The purpose of local and central government workers is to be 100% productive in the fields they are employed in, not wasting time on cultural pursuits and virtue signalling.
I know many workers who have had to bend the knee to this cultural takeover and are very upset that nothing is done to arrest its proliferation.
Mr Hamlin you have my vote if you choose to run for the council. Mr Simms your pathetic response to the complaints of a few has shown why many of your potential voters will not vote for a person with the same warped values as our current council, Lee Vandervis excepted.
Mural fine addition to city’s street art portfolio
My congratulations both to street artist Koryu Aoshima and the young designers of the brilliant new mural "Ōtepoti" which now adorns the wall beneath the Pine Hill Rd overpass. It brings back memories of the opening of the overpass in 1957 when I was a university student in Dunedin and lived in George St, within 100 metres of the road which became State Highway 1. The new mural is an outstanding addition to the many murals which can now be seen on walls throughout our city.
Me too
Can I add my voice to Graham Bulman’s (ODT 25.3.25).
It is difficult to see how bats will have anything to fear from Southland wind farm blades. That other far from endangered species, the NIMBY, is the driving force.
Building costs and budgets
I have just read the ODT article on the farcical spend of a quarter of the hospital budget without building anything (21.3.25).
The article covers two topics common to almost all works.
The first is the unconstrained costs of engineering design and planning consultancies and the second the loss of our previous culture of accountability where every "project" had a "project manager" who was responsible and had authority to execute the project budget. The two issues are closely related.
First the engineering and planning cost explosion.
At no point in the process is it in the interests of the "competing" consultancies to reduce the budget, or find fit-for-purpose standards. Cost overruns lead to further consultancy work. Surely such inefficiency can’t be routinely tolerated? Well it is, and even encouraged as our civil servant "managers" are paid on the basis of the budgets they control.
So what trick are we missing? The solution always was with the project manager, the single individual who measured his success by the success of the delivery of the entire project.
When I have asked questions related to road works I am routinely directed by the government agency to then contractor’s project manager.
So the project manager is responsible for the contractor’s performance (getting paid) not the performance of the asset.
Why does this matter? The cabal of consultants have, by accident or design, driven the standards we work to through the roof, our buildings are constructed to standards well above world best practice and at costs likely double what most countries pay.
Solution. Institutions should employ and empower a project manager for each major project. He/she has control of budget and expenditure as well as the tendering and contracting process and is rewarded for on time and within budget performance.
[Abridged — length. Editor.]
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
