Luxon can’t just blame Labour

Prime Minister Chris Luxon’s State of the Nation speech failed to outline any policies by National/Act to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, which has suffered a decline as a result of the worldwide Covid pandemic reduction in economic activity.

All he could come up with was that the previous Labour Government was to blame for New Zealand’s current economic problems as a result of their stupid policies (NZ Herald, Feb 19).

He pointed out how wages in Australia are higher than in New Zealand, but seemed to forget it is National that is overturning the Fair Pay Act to enable employers to be able to pay lower wages to New Zealand workers.

He says National has stopped work on infrastructure expenditure in an effort to reduce waste, but did not outline any alternative policy to finance the building of muchneeded infrastructure such as the reduction of congestion in Auckland and other New Zealand cities.

If Luxon just carries on and repeats his State of the Nation speech, year after year, as he did for his Waitangi speech, then in three years’ time there will still be no sign of urgently-required infrastructure being completed, and Luxon will still be blaming the previous Labour Government for the lack of action by National, during its term of office.

David Mairs, Glendowie.

Why bash beneficiaries?

We are all aware of the “fragile state of the nation” as enunciated but it appears beneficiaries are being made the scapegoats here.

The most vulnerable demographic in the country is being unfairly targeted. Many will have their benefit slashed and it is not as if they have reserves they can draw on amidst a crushing cost of living crisis.

Yes, many are capable of working but many are also in a desperate situation. Temporary accommodation, barely enough money to pay for essentials, and now the enormous stress they must now endure could create a massive mental health problem.

The minimum wage is hardly an inducement and nor is the recently enacted 90-day trial period incumbent on all employees. Add to that the inability of workers to unite under a fair pay agreement and it doesn’t look encouraging for those seeking to transition from a benefit to paid work.

Miles Langdon, Remuera.

No we can’t

Christopher Luxon’s speech to the nation was pathetic to say the least. Instead of a “yes we can” it was “no we can’t”.

He and his minister of finance infer they inherited so-called nasty surprises without actually articulating them. This Government gained the benches by spreading fake news and they are at it again. The truth is that they have made promises and haven’t got the tax revenue to achieve them. Just how can they now say tax cuts are affordable? Yes we want a PM who is upfront, but one wonders when that will be.

Reg Dempster, Albany.

Strangling debate

Remember how open and critical our public debate used to be? Whether it was halting racist rugby tours or banning nuclear ships, we got to hear both sides of those arguments loud and clear.

We are now strangling the right to speak and hear conflicting arguments. When it comes to discussing what the Treaty of Waitangi means to our future, the topic is being declared too toxic to discuss.

This is a dangerous precedent. The implication is that a view different to my own is upsetting and without merit so I don’t want to hear it — and no one

else should hear it either.

We have abandoned a key principle of free speech: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Andrew Tichbon, Green Bay.

Do cameras save lives?

I can appreciate that increasing the amount of speed cameras will increase the revenue stream but I would like to see the evidence that it saves lives (NZ

Herald, Feb 19).

Reducing speed limits certainly didn’t reduce the road toll, people who like to speed have sophisticated radar detectors.

The placement of speed cameras will catch out the average driver who has a slight lapse — not the speedsters.

Geoffrey Slack, Silverdale.

Harder work

What’s with these office worker luvvies. They demand a work-life balance, perhaps a four-day week, flexible hours and at least three days “work” from home. No wonder productivity in this country is so low.

What about the real workers who are essential to us all? The checkout operators, cleaners, rubbish collectors, nurses, police, bus drivers, maintenance staff and many more we rely on.

I think some reality is needed by the office workers, so they get the message: 40 hours of work means just that.

Vince West, Milford.