Vince Theunissen

I read the article in the paper about the RSA and the "honest mistake" it made in seeking a new pokie consent.

It appears the council finds itself in a precarious position regarding this consent and it seems that rather than assessing the merits of the application, the council is contemplating whether an administrative oversight - "a failure to pay and to not send in an application for a licence" - should be grounds for granting consent.

This approach, if adopted, could set a troubling precedent. It could suggest that an administrative error or oversight, regardless of intent or impact, could potentially override established rules and regulations.

Maybe this could have far-reaching consequences for various council services.

Could a ratepayer who misses a payment due to an oversight expect the council to waive late fees or penalties?

Could a motorist who receives a parking ticket due to their honest administrative error of not paying it anticipate that no further penalty will apply?

Could businesses seeking other council licenses and permits exploit such leniency?

While understanding the community's and my desire to support the RSA, it's crucial to maintain consistency and fairness in council decision-making or the council could find itself in a far trickier situation when facing further decisions due to various "honest mistakes” in administrative errors and oversights.