Aligned with libertarian ideals, we find it in partnership with a conservative party, which at its core, emphasises personal responsibility - all at odds with a group identity-centric perspective, particularly noteworthy in a country without a constitution.
The prospect of implementing a constitution, potentially encompassing Treaty of Waitangi principles, remains improbable, much like severing colonial ties represented by our head of state. In fairness, Seymour’s call for accountability in the school lunch programme signifies a nuanced approach, not outright rejection.
Similarly, critiques of youth offender programmes, including boot camps, would be stronger if linked to specific concrete alternative solutions.
Russell Hoban, Ponsonby.
Pie in the sky
I read of the scheme of the mayor and his acolytes to sell assets worth billions and to invest in “investments” that will make Auckland rich - not that it was ever really poor. I am astounded. Is this for real?
A 7.5 per cent annual return on investment? Please tell me where I can get this and I - and most others - will go there as it is way above where reality is at present.
And then of course there is the unspoken element: Tax on the investment and how that diminishes the 7.5 per cent - if the 7.5 per cent is truly attainable forever as the schemers suggest.
“Scheme” is a good word because that is what this is: A scheme.
And who benefits? Not Auckland because all our assets would be sold off and when the investment hits a bad patch we would have no assets to fall back on. But then rates could always be hit upwards. In that case, the bad investors walk away and we ratepayers pay - again. A bit like leaky homes, it is a leaky scheme ... scam?
This seems to me like selling off the assets to private individuals so that they can benefit - why else would they buy in?
To this citizen, it seems like a rort. Some individuals will do well out of it and Auckland City will have to pick up the pieces when it all falls to bits.
It is time this mayor and his council started doing council business and fixing this broken city rather than pie-in-the-sky schemes with our hard-earned assets.
Kevin Menzies, Onehunga.
Sensible scrutiny
I think we all acknowledge that some children are going to school hungry and this being the case why are we then waiting until lunchtime to feed them?
Would schools not be better to provide breakfast, rather than lunch, and schools should be able to request the number of meals they require instead of being forced to be supplied with food for every student resulting in waste.
The scheme is good, however, the funding was not assured by the previous government and it is therefore sensible to have a re-look at the scheme before extending it.
Mike Baker, Tauranga.
Lunches for all or none
Limiting school meals to those children in need is both short-sighted and shows an abysmal ignorance of real life. School meals should either be offered to all children or none at all.
To identify and isolate those children in real need separates them socially from the rest of the school and exposes them to bullying or straightforward degradation by their classmates.
There is sufficient political separation between the rich and the poor at the adult level so do we really have to do the same to our less fortunate children? Surely they have enough problems to bear without adding to them.
Gerald Payman, Mt Albert.
Preserving Premier House
Premier House deserves preservation for its heritage value, both architecturally, and for its significance as a connection with much of the nation’s history.
The gardens, themselves a heritage exhibit, must have provided a backdrop to many special occasions over the years - more recently, for example, during the tenure of PM Jacinda Ardern, while Chris Hipkins chose to stage his wedding there.
Perhaps a fundraising opportunity exists for the mansion’s restoration in its formidable grounds given the potential as a functions venue.
Jane Livingstone, Remuera.
