It will be nice to see these same industries racing forward with some cash in the form of sponsorship of New Zealand's defending team. Photo / Simon Watts
I'm looking forward to the next America's Cup series when many commercial interests including the hospitality, tourism, airline, property development and boat-building industries will be profiting from the success of Team New Zealand in Bermuda.
It will be nice to see these same industries racing forward with some cash in the form of sponsorship of New Zealand's defending team. I noted there were few, if any, of these industries forthcoming in the last series.
John Henson, Whitianga.
With Apec as well as a likely America's Cup challenge in 2021, not to say the growing tourism influx through the Auckland gateway, the need for a rail link from Auckland Airport is very apparent. The planning needs to start now. The Government has the power to "fast track" both the planning phase and the building phase. It should be conventional heavy rail. The route should be either extended from Puhinui or Onehunga.
If the Onehunga route was chosen the building of much of it would be over tidal mudflats, therefore no impediment to houses, roads and traffic. At the same time fair and reasonable relocation of those displaced should be fast tracked by legislation.
Auckland Council is a major shareholder of Auckland International Airport. Auckland Airport should limit its growth plans for yet more land development for freight and logistics, which will only intensify road traffic congestion, and co-develop the rail link. Perhaps even the Government might join the co-development to spread the load.
The time for procrastination is over. Do we have the leadership in Auckland to step up and make it happen?
D. W. Howarth, Mellons Bay.
Some time ago Judith Collins admitted (smilingly) that people were indeed being somewhat overcharged for their vehicle registration and that the oversight would be corrected in the many months to come, ensuring the Government raked in a tidy amount before correcting their mistake. But sorry, there would be no reimbursement of our overcharging. Now she admits (grinningly) that we are paying too much for petrol. But fear not, dear citizens, Judith is going forth to bring the price fixers and monopolisers to account. Yeah, right.
Chris Hallums, Whangamata.
The AA/BP tie-up is a most uncomfortable alliance for the motoring public. Surely, on behalf of its members and the ordinary motorist, the AA should be more vociferous against high petrol prices. During a personal trial in my locality, Tauranga, over several months I found BP was the dearest for 95 octane. Not having to display the cost of higher octane petrol is, I believe, an invitation to higher prices. Forecourt display for high octane petrol should be made compulsory for the sake of true competition.
Uel Young, Mt Maunganui.
Zero waste to landfill is indeed an ambitious goal when our local recycling depot states, "no polystyrene taken", "no window glass" and now, no plastic bags and no facility for anything metal except cans. Ask a council adviser what to do with polystyrene and (some of them at least) will say, "Hide it in your rubbish". Really responsible. And if you have inorganic waste, book it in for November or pay $30-plus to take it halfway across Auckland. No wonder people dump stuff. And Warkworth?
If the council want zero waste to landfill, it needs to produce a service that meets people's needs when and where they are.
Paul Parker, Stanmore Bay.
A few days ago I watched the TV parliamentary speeches on The Local Government Act Amendment Bill #2. All the National speakers hailed "amalgamation" as a success. Really? From my perspective it's an abject failure. The Auckland Council has an approval rating of 17 per cent. Mayor Goff says the council is bloated and unwieldy, ignores the views of citizens and amalgamation has not delivered the promised economies of scale. Council-controlled organisations (CCOs) are far from being controlled.
The council spent $500,000 on a five word Auckland promotional logo, yet can't afford to cut berms. While saying it's cutting costs, the wage bill is heading towards $1b a year. Is that sustainable? One has to deal with council "teams" that are not based locally so have little feel for issues. Local boards are kneecapped. Power and funding is gripped in "City Hall". The council's loan interest payments are well over $1m a day. The council's focus is metrocentric. We still have unsealed roads in Rodney.
So what can be done? Some of us have asked for an independent audit of the council's performance in accordance with recommendation 32G of the royal commission on Auckland governance. We've been stymied. Whichever party undertakes to improve the council's performance should win a lot of votes in the upcoming general election.
John Clements, Orewa.
The police are going to re-open the storm-in-a-teacup over the resigned MP Todd Barclay. How much more can he be made to atone for his error in judgment given that he has resigned from his position already? Can some one explain what is to be gained from this expensive exercise in wasting police resources when so many more real crimes of violence and theft go unaddressed?
Max Wagstaff, Glendowie.
Last Friday Boyd Swinburn of lobby group "Fizz" accused the Taxpayers' Union of being an advocate for corporate interest because we oppose his taxpayer-funded campaign for a sugar tax. The claim is completely unsubstantiated. The Taxpayers' Union is the only group in New Zealand who have consistently campaigned against corporate welfare and subsidies (accounting for around 10 per cent of our media releases versus the 1 per cent which mention sugar taxes). We rally against any private organisation being granted special treatment or being unfairly targeted because a few bureaucrats or politicians single them out as "good" or "bad". Swinburn weakens his academic credibility by resorting to cheap shots and personal attacks on our staff. A taxpayer-funded academic should be expected to keep to a much higher level of debate.
Jordan Williams, Executive Director, New Zealand Taxpayers' Union.
Rachel Stewart is wrong to say the Government's Irrigation Acceleration Fund has "so far seen half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money funnelled towards said [irrigation] infrastructure, and with more to come." It seems Rachel has confused two different funds, neither of which has paid out half a billion dollars, and doesn't realise major irrigation infrastructure investment by the Government has to be paid back by farmers with interest. It is not "free" money.
The Irrigation Acceleration Fund, does not pay for large-scale infrastructure, it pays up to 50 per cent for water management studies that investigate win-win scenarios for local communities - improving freshwater management (with a particular focus on resolving over-allocation), alongside the development of water infrastructure. It has $25 million available for this in the period 2015-2018.
The other fund is Crown Irrigation Investments which does provide funding for large-scale infrastructure, all of which (apart from some initial scoping activity) has to be paid back by farmers with interest. To date, two investments have been made totalling $72.5m. The Government has committed "up to $400m" but this money has not been spent. We are not aware of any more funding that is "to come".
Finally, it is also incorrect to say ECAn "haven't enforced environmental breaches like cows standing in rivers". They have, and continue to take enforcement action, including eight dairy farm cases between January and mid-May.
Irrigation New Zealand has calculated what farmers and other irrigators, such as horticulturalists and viticulturists, have spent on irrigation infrastructure and upgrades (to make the systems more efficient, which is good for the environment), which is $1.7 billion since 2011. Irrigators pay more not only for infrastructure but for water consents, permits, annual environmental monitoring by local councils, and higher rates. All of this money goes back into public coffers. As an example, a 100ha irrigated sheep and beef property pays over $2000 per annum more in rates than the equivalent dryland property.
Andrew Curtis, CEO, Irrigation New Zealand.
Inflation is the top issue for Kiwis and they think Labour is best to keep prices down.