Letters: Mill closures will devastate the region – why isn’t the Government stepping in?

Workers heading into the Winstone Pulp International meeting about the closure of two of its mills in the Ruapehu District. Photo / Alexa Cook, RNZ

Letters to the Editor

OPINION

Workers pay for politicians’ error

I’ve just heard the news of the closure of the two mills. The effects of this will devastate this region, with more than 200 people unemployed.

The actions of the Key Government in selling shares in the energy companies to pay for tax cuts are coming back to hurt the country. The $4 billion received for the sell-down has been dwarfed by the $11 billion in shareholder dividends since then and is another example of poor decision-making.

Why hasn’t the current Government stepped in and provided a solution to keep the mills open? We’re almost 12 months into this Government’s term and I believe a lot of New Zealanders feel the country is going backwards. The tail has continually wagged the dog in this coalition, and this is seriously impacting New Zealanders’ lives.

Paul Kenny, Ponsonby.

Rio v the rest

Over the last 20 or so years, there have been many times when the owners of the Tiwai aluminium smelter have negotiated lower power prices in order to stay in business and save jobs for many workers in Southland.

The smelter does not purchase electricity at the wholesale spot price. It actually receives a subsidy from other retail power users.

So how is it that Winstone Pulp has to buy power at the wholesale spot price? Why can’t Winstone get a similar deal to that obtained by Rio Tinto at Tiwai Point?

Would it not be better to retain those 230 workers’ jobs? The most-skilled workers will probably leave New Zealand; the least-skilled will probably end up on the dole.

Peter D. Graham, Helensville.

Bill offers path forward

I am in complete agreement with correspondent Alan Walker (NZ Herald, September 10). The fact that there are so many different “protest groups” arguing against the Treaty Principles Bill, even though the articles of it are as yet unknown, shows there is uncertainty in many people’s minds regarding parts of the Treaty.

Surely if those opposed to the bill feel certain of their ground, they would welcome the chance to robustly promote their points of view? I am left wondering what they are so afraid of. This bill they are so opposed to is to “debate” the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi – not to change them. An ideal opportunity for New Zealand, as a whole, to come to a common consensus and move forward as one people, all understanding and agreeing on the meaning and terms of our founding document.

Failure to have a debate will leave us in the same highly unsatisfactory situation we are now in – a “them and us” position, with each side following the version of the Treaty that they maintain is the correct one.

Philip Lenton, Somerville.

Devil in the detail

Correspondent Alan Walker is very keen to take part in the proposed referendum on the Treaty Principles Bill. But what exactly would the question be? Given the different texts and the widely divergent views on the meaning and relevance of the Treaty, it is difficult to think of how any poll could possibly avoid ambiguity and confusion.

It also ignores the fact that when the chiefs signed the Treaty in 1840, they were comforted in knowing that they substantially outnumbered the newly arrived Europeans. It is estimated that there were about 80,000 Māori (some reckon many more) versus about 2050 settlers, plus scattered sealers, whalers and sailors. But today there are over 900,000 Māori versus 4.3 million non-Māori, so the planned Treaty referendum could hardly be fair or helpful.

Graeme Easte, Mount Albert.

Long live democracy

In his opinion piece on the Māori ward legislation (NZ Herald, September 10), Simon Wilson stated “assuming there are no successful legal challenges to the act”. By this, Wilson appears to assume that acts of Parliament can be overturned by the judiciary.

Thank goodness this is not the case in New Zealand. The Government makes the laws and is accountable to the people. The judiciary interprets and applies these laws but is not accountable to the people or the Government. If the laws are interpreted by the judiciary in such a way as not to meet the intent of the Government, the Government can amend that law so that the intent cannot be misconstrued. This process is part of what we call democracy – and long may it continue in New Zealand.

David Crickmer, Henderson Valley.

Misfire on crime

In the last election, New Zealanders voted for change. One of the major policies that influenced this change was the new Government’s promises to be “tough on crime”.

We now have a minister advocating for less stringent gun laws, contrary to the wishes of the majority of voters who elected this coalition. Perhaps the minister should read the news where, in the space of a couple of weeks, there have been four murders in Auckland alone.

Ian Doube, Rotorua.