Labour squanders legacy

Steve Plowman (Letters, December 16) finds it convenient to forget that it was his preferred Government which took New Zealand into a recession in their last year in office even before the global financial crisis struck and in spite of the best trading conditions New Zealand had had for decades. National had to pull us out of the poo.

They did this without any major disruption, but by being judicious and careful with all money in all sectors – small increases in most, with very few contractions, and much encouragement for growth and expansion, and brought us back to living within our means again.

I recall when Bill English finally announced we were to achieve a return to surplus after nearly eight years of careful recovery, after Labour had taken us down the gurgler, the MP who cast the most derision – that it was false accounting and smoke and mirrors etc – was Grant Robertson, now merrily spending the surpluses.

Tom Burton, Snells Beach

So again Stacey Kirk (‘‘Promises can return to bite’’, Focus, December 16) infers that she would prefer our Government not to attempt bold initiatives because of the risk of failure. Would she really have preferred the previous Government to plod on pretending that there wasn’t a housing shortage, that more motorways would fix congestion, that our health system was fine and there was no child poverty?

Many New Zealanders are pleased that the Government is attempting to tackle these ambitious and very worthwhile projects head-on.

Bill Mathews, Auckland

Kiwis and cars

In order to combat and reduce the appalling road deaths and injuries in this country we have to face up to and somehow change the way New Zealanders relate to their cars.

Many see cars as part of the family and have fond memories of the cars their parents drove when they were young. While there is nothing intrinsically harmful in such attitudes they do help to create a common sense view of the car as natural, a thing that it would be unthinkable to be without, as well as a source of pride and competitiveness.

Cars should be seen as useful tools, not as part of our identities. Nor as a thing that we absolutely have to own and use every day for every single outing. Obviously we need more extensive and more efficient public transport systems for the latter to be at least possible.

But the public also needs to undergo a massive, transformative change in attitudes. Driverless cars, when perfected, may be a partial answer to the problem of simply extremely bad driving, which is the cause of most avoidable accidents.

Mike Green, Wellington of the

Back local vaping

It was heartening to read your story about Australasian vaping company Vapoureyes targeting beneficiaries when looking for new employees. It’s great that nine of their 15 full-time staff are former beneficiaries. As a New Zealand owned and operated vaping company, we also employ some great Kiwis.

As your article showed our industry is creating great local jobs. Our company, Alt New Zealand, employs around 60 people and by the end of next year we expect to employ over 100. Sadly however growing local employment opportunities cannot be taken for granted.

Big international tobacco companies are set to come into New Zealand with their own vaping and e-cigarette products. Not only will ‘big tobacco’ soon be throwing their weight around, but any of their profits are sent straight offshore.

New Zealand vapers have a choice to make in the coming months and years – to support local manufacturers and local employees, or not.

Jonathan Devery | Director, Alt New Zealand

Give care priority

Esther Richards (Letters, December 16) says ‘‘surely the individual has the right to choose’’. Well, they already do.

What she is campaigning on is something quite different. David Seymour’s bill would force all New Zealand doctors to be complicit in the deaths of some of their patients.

Doctors with a conscientious objection would be forced to refer patients to colleagues with no such scruples. No right to choose there.

Richards seems not to understand the difference between palliative care and assisted dying. Well, here it is: they are polar opposites.

Palliative care keeps patients comfortable until nature takes its course, while assisted dying actively brings lives to an end.

They cannot exist side-by-side without one predominating. It is easy to see which one would do this. Once assisted dying is established it becomes very difficult for palliative care to be properly researched and funded. Robyn Jackson, Hamilton

Viva STRUMPets

As a Trump supporter it gets more and more tedious to read the usual mantra by media columnists slamming his actions, who refer to them as failings rather than the process of cleaning up the mess that