Act leader David Seymour was told off by Parliament security for attempting to drive a historic Land Rover up the steps of Parliament this week. Photo / Adam Pearse
Driven to regulation distraction
Isn’t it slightly ironic that Regulation Minister David Seymour ignored the regulations outside Parliament?
There were no standing orders, “what are they going to do?” he was heard asking. Wouldn’t the police prosecute me being in an “equality-driven” Land Rover?
The message that Seymour sends as an Associate Education Minister to every parent of school children is to test the system. If they can’t stop you, or do anything about it, just do it. One rule for all right?
Being outlandish is fashionable though: exploding paper straws within the realms of presidential cognisance, aid for the world’s starving quashed for efficiency by a billionaire, while his boss wants to stop Ukrainians dying but clean out Palestinians.
Seymour should have no difficulty writing regulations for a suitable deterrent for skiving off on an overseas trip in school terms. How dare they?
Teaching our kids right from wrong is surely a hopeless dream, let alone assisting our teachers to nourish kids’ souls with math, while hungry, waiting for the cutdown efficiency-driven Seymour food truck to arrive.
Steve Russell, Hillcrest.
Seymour’s intervention
I’m sorry correspondent Mary Hearn (Feb 14), but I couldn’t disagree with you more on your belief that an MP should not intervene in cases involving the police and their constituents - if the situation warrants it.
After reading David Seymour’s letter to the police multiple times, I found no indication that he was being disrespectful toward their actions in the case against Philip Polkinghorne, nor was he defending him against the charges laid.
Rather, he was raising legitimate concerns about the police’s conduct during the interview process. These concerns included being left alone in a locked police car for an extended period, potential breaches of the Bill of Rights and being classified as a criminal in Customs and police records before a court hearing had even taken place. Last I checked, we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty - but that does not seem to have been the case here.
If I found myself in a situation where I felt unfairly treated by the police, and my concerns were being ignored, I would certainly hope that my local MP would be willing to step in. If they believed my case had merit, they should pursue it to ensure a fairer, more just process.
MPs are elected to represent and advocate for their constituents, and let’s face it - they have far more influence than the average citizen. So, if not them, then who?
Alan Walker, St Heliers.
Lost in translation
It may well be a great idea to accommodate rich foreign investors to enter our beautiful country. This Government has obviously found a great way to entice more millionaires into the country, by dropping any language barriers and previously slightly stricter visa requirements.
For Labour to criticise the new entry conditions for these millionaires is - of course - a bit rich, when many of their promises to their existing voters had sunk before they had entered the ramp.
Nevertheless, there is this hard-to-swallow knowledge that we may end up with more empty holiday homes, driving up real estate prices for long-time hard-working Kiwis.
What is also slightly annoying is that without any basic English language skills, we will have to put up with an increased number of passive Kiwis, who may not be bothered to integrate into an English-speaking nation, just because they have more cash than the majority of Kiwis, who have shaped this country long before these new immigrants got their free lunch ticket to set up shop or holiday accommodation in a country, where a reasonable level of English language skills benefits all of us.
René Blezer, Taupō.
WFH works
Is correspondent Gary Carter joking or does he not understand what working from home entails (HoS, Feb 9)?
He infers that public servants do not achieve anything when they work from home. As a recently retired public servant, I can assure him that WFH is no free ride and can actually be more productive than working in the office.
The office I worked in was a huge, overcrowded, open-plan area and was too noisy and distracting for work that needed full concentration. My quiet WFH space allowed me to fully concentrate and I was very productive.
Like most public service groups, our team had a good balance of office time and WFH, with most staff only doing one or two days of WFH per week. Our managers could easily monitor staff productivity, whether at home or in the office.
WFH has many wider benefits too, including less commuter traffic, less office overheads, plus increased staff retention. A smart balance of office time and WFH is ideal for all concerned.
Cheryl Clarke, Algies Bay.
Which NZ do we want?
Discussion of political issues usually fails to focus on the essential question which is, what kind of country do we want to live in.
If we, as a population, have a vision of what we want NZ to be, debate would then focus on how best to get there. For example, do we want a country where a smaller and smaller number of people own a larger and larger share of the country’s wealth?
There are measures we can take to make that happen. We would adopt different policies, however, if we prefer the wealth of the country to be shared more equitably. Which do we want?
Regarding crime, will we accept high levels? There are ways to ensure we’ll get that. If we want to reduce criminal offending, however, we would choose a different path.
The evidence of how to achieve any outcome you want in any aspect of life is there to be seen. All we have to do is pick what outcomes we want, to produce the kind of country we prefer. If you listen to Parliament you will not hear MPs discussing that vital question.
Susan Grimsdell, Auckland Central.
Finnish solution
Reading Shane Te Pou re findings that public ownership of social services has virtues both of efficiency and egalitarianism (HoS, Feb 9) alongside “Zones where top marks meet affordable housing” (Feb 10) recalls Finland’s solution for affordable, excellent education.
In the 1980s they insisted on research Master of Arts degrees for teachers at all levels of education. Within a generation it didn’t result in teachers with lesser qualifications being shut out, crying foul or suffering inadequacy feelings.
Rather, with gradual replacement of the more highly educated, it produced three startling results, even to the Finns. First, excellent standards within an education system all had access to; second, innovation resulting from competition for higher standards, not for roll numbers or resources; third, they achieved top of the international PISA tables across all levels and measures.
Surely this is what true choice and long-term planning efficiency looks like.
Steve Liddle, Napier.
Public vs private
Shane Te Pou makes an excellent point against privatisation with regard to health and education.
However, the usual candidate is an under-performing SOE (state-owned enterprise). Hence the price of the dud is low. A buyer will shake up management, streamline procedures, and fire some staff.
The resulting rise in profitability leads to a rise in value. This is what happened in the late 1980s and what gave privatisation deservedly a bad name.
The question then is: With our Prime Minster being such a self-proclaimed business wizard, why can’t the Government do what a private owner can? Political cowardice, incompetence, or perhaps just the lazy way out?
K H Peter Kammler, Warkworth.
