A few weeks before Christmas 1935 – yes, 85 years ago – a crucial question was being debated in Parliament. Should our means of exchange, our monetary system, be responsive to the democratic decisions of our elected representatives, or should it be entrusted to a fewprivate directors?
Now Bryan Gould (December 9) confronts us with the same question – why such an important area of economic policy is removed from democratic accountability?
According to Hansard, the newly elected Prime Minister, Michael Joseph Savage, accused an Opposition member of "being afraid that the people's representatives are not capable of thinking rationally or of representing the true interests of the people – a curious attitude to take."
He added :"Presumably he thinks that Ministers of the Crown are incapable of using their judgement. That seems to be curious reasoning, Ministers of the Crown have come here with responsibility. I happen to be one of their number...."
The Bill being debated was one designed to assert state ownership of the Reserve Bank in order to enable direct funding of projects which would feed household incomes via wages and salaries.
It was enacted in 1936, having a transformative effect on the economy, but since then the RBNZ has acted more like a private institution, in spite of the Prime Minister often displaying Savage's photograph in her office.
The Chronicle must be commended for printing Bryan Gould's comments.
HEATHER MARION SMITH Gonville
Your letters
Lady Diana interview
The story of Princess Diana's famous/infamous interview (Prime TV, Wednesday) is as much a story of the mercenary nature of media journalism as it is about the tragedy of Diana's life, I believe.
As part of my own training as a journalist years ago, I was coached to condense within the first paragraph of any story highlighted facts that would be eye-catching and likely to get the readers' interest, increasing the likelihood they'd want to read on.
The reading or listening public has a voracious appetite for what is sensational and eye-catching, so much so that I suspect the highlighted condensed versions of news we see on TV, hear on radio or read in newspapers can become rather like serial thrillers at times, with accompanying emotional arousal.
I find the same sort of fascination myself with the regular rhetoric of US President Donald Trump.
The outright bizarreness of the outbursts catches the attention and never fails to gobsmack.
Unfortunately, as in the case of Princess Diana, a journalistic success does not depend on happy outcomes in terms of the reality for a story's players and such news can victimise further.
I think we are all culpable in one way or other, we the recipient public with an appetite for this kind of "entertainment," journalism for its aspirations to high ratings and ultimately dollars, cashing in on often tragic circumstances and perhaps responsible also is the profit motive and capitalist democracy that fosters that.
Is it all just human nature? Or human nature flawed?
