Treaty of Waitangi and Sustainability

Article the second in the Treaty of Waitangi is the part that relates to the pollution and sustainability, it says “the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.”

There are many ways that modern civilisation could pollute the land, the sea and the air. The most common are automotive and industrial emissions that cause air pollution, modern cleaning chemicals and soil contamination by excessive deforestation that cause land pollution; and wastewater from commercial and industrial waste as well as oil spill that cause pollution to the sea. The worst pollution will be nuclear waste from nuclear plants as it is highly toxic and can pollute the land, sea and air simultaneously if it wasn't shield properly.

In New Zealand, the Resource Management Act 1991 is the principal legislation for environmental management. Under section 15, it stated that no individual is allowed to discharge any contaminant into water, land or air regardless where they are unless such action is approved by a resource consent or being granted permission by authorised organisation or the regulations. Then in section 17, a law is enforced as a duty for everyone to prevent, correct and reduce if an act of a person is polluting or harming the environment.

Customer Story of a Bad Experience

Based on a true story.

The year was about 1958, in California, before there were strong consumer laws. Don Higgins owned a laundry and dry cleaning business, in which he used one of the new Volkswagen bus trade vans for his deliveries. He would pick up dirty clothes from businesses (like restaurants and auto repair shops), clean them and deliver them back. He liked his Volkswagen van: it had lots of space to hang the clothes and it got good fuel economy. Up until recently, it had been very reliable. But lately the engine wasn’t running very well. The engine was regularly missing and had low power. So in the morning, Don took his van to his local auto repair shop. He told them it needed fixing, maybe just a tune up, and he got a ride back to his cleaning business. Then in mid-afternoon, he went back to pick up his van. To his surprise, the van wasn’t ready. If fact, the repair shop owner showed

Don the engine that was now out of the van. The exhaust valve for number 3 cylinder was burnt, causing the poor running engine and lack of power. The shop owner said he could have the engine fixed and back in the van in 3 or 4 days. And the bill would be about $400.00. (In 1958, this was a lot of money. Don’s monthly mortgage on his house was only about $120.00 per month.) Don was very upset. He was so upset that I (Steve McAfee) heard about this as the little boy who lived next door to Don.

From Don's point of view, the shop just went ahead and did the repair without notifying him in advanced about the issue and repair cost is very upsetting. High bill will be the major factor that upset Don the most as he has to spend the money of more than 3 times of his monthly home mortgage and this burden is too heavy for Don. Moreover, 3 or 4 days out of vehicle for delivery has caused a huge impact for Don to make a living. He probably needs to spend more money to rent a van to do his delivery. If the shop called Don and informed him prior doing anything on his van, he would have time to think and decide what option suits him best.

From the repair shop owner's point of view, they probably think that Don shouldn't be upset at them as they have fixed the problem on Don's van. The repair shop does not develop a good communication with their customer and never consider about each individual's preference and circumstances, this is completely wrong in business practice.

In this circumstance, the repair shop should apologize to Don, compensate him if Don can provide proof of extra expenses (e.g invoices of rental car) he spent due to his van needed 3 or 4 days for repairing. If I were Don, I will sit down and talk to the repair shop owner calmly. Explain to him what he has done wrong to cause myself so much inconveniences or even losses in my business. And due to all the issues, I wanted the repair shop to pay for my compensation accordingly.

When the repair was finished, and Don went to pick up his van, he took the van and did not pay the whole repair bill. The repair shop has no right to hold the van until the bill got paid because no one or company can withhold any individual's properties or belongings according to the Consumer Act.

If Don took the repair shop to court, and if I was the judge I will make a verdict of the repair shop to pay Don $1000 for compensation, to cover for replacement rental vehicle, lost business and the mentally stress caused to Don.

If this was to happened in New Zealand, the repair shop would have broken the law under the Consumer Guarantees Act section 36 (a) Failure of substantial character as the repair would not have agreed by Don if he has been advised with the nature and extend of the failure. Since the repair shop has failed to comply with guarantees, Don will have the right of redress to refuse to pay more than a reasonable price.