27th August 2000

Open Letter to the CEO of the Clutha District Council - THEIR REPLY (precis):

The essence of the CEO's reply was that the surveying cost and also the cost for the ground penetrating radar survey was commissioned and borne by the CDC with the note that "some of this cost may be recoverable".

Our comments is that the only people who this could be recoverable from is Mr Kelvin Read and his friends.

The CEO says, of the GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar Survey) that those testing to see whether there were graves there, when striking an anomaly, only decided to dig down (40cm they say - without having the full report in front of them) after ascertaining there was no grave there.

Our comment is that in their preliminary report, they only dug down when they didn't know what the "object" was! Further, why dig down if they knew it wasn't a grave? The CDC cannot tell us of any other instances where this method has been used to find graves in cemeteries - except for trying to locate old Maori grave sites - which we submit, is archaeologically based - nothing to do with established cemeteries where a body would be buried at least 6 feet down.

The CEO says the council authorised the exploration of "all options" to resolve the matter. They only took one, the GPR survey, as the survey they did was merely to establish the amount of ground around and including the house that might be retrospectively obtained from the Ministers of Conservation and Health, to pass over to Mr Read.

They did not take the obvious line of exploration - that is, to establish whether there were existing graves in and around Mr Read's house by studying existing cemetery records. It should not be forgotten that the CDC secretly sacked the existing trustees recently and assumed that role itself. They should be in possession of the Sexton's site maps which indicate row and plot numbers, plus the financial records. Our own examination of the burial transcripts (available from the library) show that the "main cemetery area" bounded by a fence, and with gravestones visible in it, contains plot reference numbers from 1 - 80 only. Numbers from 81 - 228 (with some numbers missing) are not accounted for. Some 24 of those buried outside the main section (high numbers) after 1882 are not accounted for except for some names on the Knight's Memorial which the CDC says has nothing to do with the cemetery. Another 36 are burials before 1882, (1861-1882) ranging from 86 to 170. There are only ten burials in the main section which have numbers 18 - 76, of people who were buried before 1882.

This suggests that there must have been a fairly large area outside the present main cemetery area where there must be graves. The 'top section" Block 1 Section 4 was not gazetted as a cemetery reserve until 1907 and there is evidence that although it was used prior to 1907, it was found to be too difficult to dig down into. In fact, two Chinese miners were later re-interred from there to the present main cemetery area. The remainder of the graves - over 60 of them, must have been in and around the area of Mr Read's house.

In the burial transcripts there are a number of people who are still alive (41, to be precise), who appear to have bought plots for later use. There are only 6 of these in the main part of the cemetery - the other 35 are "high number" plots, from 171 - 229. We want to know where the cemetery map is that shows where these are. Also, we consider these people have a contract with the CDC (as trustees) in that the land in which they will want to be buried will not be taken away from them and that there will not be a large two-storied residence immediately overlooking them.

There is evidence - anecdotal and in letters, that there were indeed graves there. Since the CDC cannot or will not produce the site maps and other cemetery records to say that there are no graves there, they cannot say with any certainty that there are no graves in the vicinity of Mr Read's house. In that case the house should be removed forthwith. That is quite apart from the fact that it is quite illegal to issue permits for structures on cemetery reserve land without a notified land use resource consent, and without having first had the land released under the Reserves Act 1977 and the Burial and Cremation Act 1964. To carry on all deliberations towards a solution in secret is undemocratic, particularly when such secrecy is being used to try to conceal the effects of illegal actions on the CDC's part.

Regarding cemetery maintenance, Section 57 of the Act states, according to the CDC that animals grazing on cemeteries is regularly allowed and is "common practice", with council approval.

Certainly it is not, and even a very liberal interpretation of the B & C Act would not allow this. Not allowing animals on cemeteries is in the Act for obvious reasons. People place flowers on graves. Sheep eat them. Sheep like to rub against things - cemetery posts, crrosses, gravestones trees, plants etc. They knock them over. This is just another example of the CDC's callous disinterest in the rights of its ratepayers in their attempts to save themselves the the maintenance costs.

In the meantime, Mr Read is completing his house. No doubt with the "tacit approval" of the CDC

---

The Save Mahinerangi Society Inc. has approached the Ombudsman who has agreed to do a full investigation into the actions of the CDC in this matter. Also, into the actions, or one should say the non-actions or the Ministers of Health, Conservation and Internal Affairs. In four months of writing to them, there has not been one substantive reply. Requests for official information under the Act have been ignored. Following the result of the Ombudsman's investigation, the SMS Inc may instigate a High Court Writ to have the house removed forthwith and/or seek an investigation from the Auditor General. Our estimate of the cost so far to the Clutha Ratepayers in this matter is probably more than $20,000. Here is the Ombudsman's description of the Read House problem in his letter to us:

"I have formulated your complaint in terms of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 as the Clutha District Council (the Council) having acted unreasonably in permitting intrusion on the Waipori Cemetery Reserve. I understand the position to be that the Council gave consent for a dwelling to be constructed on the reserve on the basis of "existing use" rights given that it replaced a crib destroyed by fire. The crib was subject to an earlier tacit approval by the then Commissioner of Crown Lands on the basis that the Council ensured that the building was removed at an opportune time. There are other related issues such as the possibility that the new building has been constructed over old unmarked graves and the likelihood that all the cemetery reserve may be needed for burials in due course."