Letters: Is this how the Government treats our vulnerable disabled?; Kāinga Ora tenant supports crackdown

Disability Issues Minister Penny Simmonds said support funding had been spent on frivolous items such as massages or pedicures for carers. Photo / Phil Smith

Letters to the Editor

Is this how the Govt treats the vulnerable?

An expectant parent dreams of a perfectly formed baby growing up with normal development, but, sadly, for some parents that is not their reality.

Their loved child may be disabled in some way and their expectations of their child growing into independent adulthood may be dashed. This can put a huge stress on a family who must care for their child - and for some this means a family break-up.

Whether parents are together or apart, there is a need for one or even both parents to give their child fulltime care, so this puts financial burdens on the family unit.

This Government’s latest decree - that money spent on children with disabilities be monitored by the ministry - means these parents will have to fight even harder to obtain what they and their children need.

There is a saying that a government or country is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable residents.

Patricia Guptill, Wattle Downs.

Kāinga Ora crackdown

As a Kāinga Ora tenant, I support the Government’s moves to evict “unruly” tenants in state housing. I know first hand the insecurity of living with neighbours who behave unpredictably and sometimes violently.

Kāinga Ora as a landlord must uphold the Residential Tenancies Act, which addresses behaviour such as intimidation and physical assault. Talk of punishment here is misplaced. Words without follow-up action won’t deter the hardened bullies.

Further, focusing too much on consequences for the family of tenants who break the law I feel is a bit misplaced. Would a judge let a murderer walk free because the children would suffer if she/he went to jail?

When mitigating factors for deviant behaviour come into play, the interests of the wider community should be considered too, including those of neighbours who can show good evidence for their fear.

Ellie Carruthers, Grey Lynn.

Foot in mouth

Since the beginning of February, we have had the three leaders of the coalition Government parties front and centre in awkward situations.

First, we had David Seymour and his position on the Treaty of Waitangi. Then we had Christopher Luxon and his entitlements.

Now we have Winston Peters and his position on co-governance. I’m wondering if they drew straws on who would go first, second and third.

Each has succeeded in diverting the attention of the country from the preferred messages about the successes of the present Government. Maybe in the next political poll, we can ask who should receive gold, silver and bronze medals for their efforts.

One has to wonder whether this coalition will succeed in having a full term in Government or will they succumb to foot-in-mouth disease.

Dunstan Sheldon, Hamilton.

Cheap and divisive

The day we trivialise the horrors of the Holocaust by comparing it to well-meaning, fair and reasonable democratic ideology and the values of equality is the day we diminish the pain and suffering of marginalised and persecuted peoples.

Winston Peters doesn’t need a reminder that the ideals that drove the Nazi Party led to the state-sponsored systematic execution of roughly six million people. There is no reality where the words co-governance and its policies equate to the annihilation of minorities.

But this is the political landscape in which we find ourselves in 2024. I pray the Jewish people of New Zealand and their ancestors are not seeing this.

Nothing but shame to NZ First for not challenging this vile rhetoric. For those with the privilege to be elected by the people, good governance should be the order of the day. Not cheap and divisive politics.

Daniel Gada, Northcote.

We need houses, not land

Your editorial (NZ Herald, March 19) correctly points out that many young people “think they have no hope of ever owning their own home”.

However, this is because we have a shortage of affordable housing. Despite what the minister seems to think, that is not the same as a land shortage.

Both Auckland and Wellington have plenty of residentially zoned land. What the Wellington Independent Hearing Panel said (quite rightly), and the council ignored, is that where there is already an over-capacity of residential zoned land, adding more capacity to that by zoning yet more land to residential will make no difference to housing shortages or affordability.

It’s houses we are short of, not land, residential zoned or otherwise. The answer is not to tinker with land use zoning. It is to build more houses on the residential-zoned land we already have.

John Burns, Balmoral.