Labour’s soft approach to these sort of social housing tenants resulted in a marked increase in debt and highly anti-social behaviour that unfairly impacted others because the perpetrators knew there was no consequence. It has to change.
Fiona McAllister, Mount Maunganui.
‘Arrogance’ or reality?
Correspondent Marie Kaire (NZ Herald, March 19) assails Winston Peters for his “arrogance” in blaming Labour for issues relating to non-maintenance of infrastructure, a declining education system and a broken health system.
Housing could have been added to that list, but she conveniently overlooks that Labour had six years to make improvements in all of these areas but failed to do so.
Peters is also said to have ignored Māori inequities and defiled the Treaty through comments made in his State of the Nation speech.
He probably went too far when comparing co-governance with Germany under Hitler. But that said, the attempt by activists to enable co-governance broadly on the basis of “tino rangatiratanga” is unacceptable to most.
That issue alone played a significant part in Labour losing the election; the majority of New Zealanders do not want to grant leverage and authority to a minority on the basis of race.
Bruce Anderson, Christchurch.
Consult a dictionary
Winston Peters is clearly losing it in comparing New Zealand to Nazi Germany. If anyone is exhibiting signs of fascism, it is the coalition Government, which is ramming through laws which will inevitably largely benefit Pākehā.
Christopher Luxon has shown he cannot control what Peters and David Seymour say. When he tries to lump Chris Hipkins into his little lecture on politicians’ rhetoric for calling his Government a ”dictatorship”, he looks even more ridiculous.
What else can you call a Government that is ignoring democratic parliamentary procedures and giving the people of this country no chance for debate?
I think Peters and co need to consult a dictionary before they throw words like “Nazism” around, because then they will find the preposition “co” means “with” - so “coalition” and “co-governance” have very similar meanings.
Sue Rawson, Tauranga.
Landlord lucre
Tax claims for landlords are justified on the grounds other businesses can make similar claims.
However, owning a rental is nothing like owning a business. Is there any other business that requires so little input from the owner?
Most MPs own rental houses. Yet they surely are fully occupied in their Parliamentary role.
What other business can be run on the side while being assured of an endless stream of customers? What other business is guaranteed a tax-free profit (not loss) when sold?
Borrowing to buy a rental incurs a much lower rate of interest than borrowing to start a business. Owning a rental has nothing in common with owning any other type of business, and there is no justification for pretending it does for tax purposes.
Susan Grimsdell, Auckland Central.
Back the experts
In my experience of 12 years on Auckland Council, nearly every crossing installed was as a result of a request from the local community, often parents who wanted their children to be able to walk or cycle safely to school.
The evidence shows raised crossings save lives and reduce serious injuries, at minimal inconvenience to drivers. They also make our neighbourhoods more liveable and accessible to more people. Auckland Transport has a statutory duty to make our roads safe for everyone.
Rather than respond to bullying and baseless reckons, the CEO and AT board should follow the evidence and their own safety guidelines.
What is the mayor actually advocating for (NZ Herald, March 19)? Signalised crossings at 10 times the cost (or more)? Paint, which is insufficient in our driving network? Or for just more death and serious injury?
He should be backing his experts to deliver more of what works more efficiently, not undermining them.
Pippa Coom, Grey Lynn.
