AT needs a change in attitude

As I understand it, a more careful and efficient use of ratepayers’ money has been requested of Auckland Transport (AT) by pretty much everyone, including Mayor Brown (NZ Herald, May 14).

AT’s response has been to increase charges — parking, infringement fines, you name it.

I recall that this bureaucracy became the recipient of extra funding in June 2018, in the form of the Regional Fuel Tax (RFT), which will be wound up next month.

As of September 2023, around $780 million has been collected and some $341m unspent.

So how was the RFT funding used? According to Transport Minister Simeon Brown, it was used for “many non-roading projects, including more cycle lanes, red light cameras, speed humps, and lower speed limits”, to which we can add the cost of new signs, road painting and — of course — orange cones by the thousands. We appear to have a bureaucracy that is not reading the room. An attitude change is overdue.

Barry Watkin, Devonport.

CBD money-grabbing

Mayor Wayne Brown seems helpless when asking/telling AT to not charge night rates to inner-city residents for parking.

He says he is “unhappy” with the proposed changes.

He is not the only one.

Many workers on the lower pay scales will be adversely affected, costing them thousands more a year to park.

It seems to me that AT is moneygrabbing; Brown cannot just keep saying “I’m sick of it, they’re not listening . . . ”

Chris Blenkinsopp Beach Haven.

Manipulating justice

Reading “Three Strikes is Government putting victims first” (NZ Herald, May 13), I agreed with Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee until I read the following: “We are proposing a reduction of up to 20 per cent below the mandatory sentence for a guilty plea at a third strike.”

How can a victim feel they are being put first when they see a violent offender on a third strike getting a reduction in their sentence by pleading guilty?

And advising those who wish to avoid a lengthy prison sentence to “stop committing violent and sexual crimes” will go in one ear and out the other.

Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth.

Energy user pays

Surely it’s in the Government’s best interests financially not to invest in additional power sources if Transpower can get away with running the grid system right on maximum capacity.

That way they can keep the power price right up there as they do now, with power cuts being a part of the risk model factored in — as airlines do in overselling seats on a flight.

If the opposite were the case, with an over-supply of power, then there would be a valid argument to lower the price — which would not be in their interests. In short, make the consumer pay.

Paul Beck, West Harbour.

Rooftop solution

Thanks Ian Summerfield for your letter (NZ Herald, May 13) on the lack of support from Government and power producers for rooftop solar energy generation. Even the Greens have been silent on this.

A forward-thinking government would recognise the opportunity that locally-generated solar power presents. Flying into any of our large towns and cities, we see enormous warehouse roofs which could be used to power much of a community’s daytime needs, saving the hydro batteries for peak demand and periods of no wind or sunshine.

Money would be well spent subsidising solar on public and private buildings plus new builds, making solar an overwhelmingly positive option. Pressure also needs

to go on power generators to provide more reasonable buy-back prices to rooftop solar providers. Does the Government not maintain a majority shareholding in these companies?

Every kilowatt of solar used is a kilowatt of storage that remains in the dams. There’s your battery. The amount of rooftop solar power that could be generated in a region is proportional to the population/usage in that region — so there are minimal transmission costs.

Increasing populations need more roofs, private and public, which means more power — so it is future-proofed.

Am I missing something here?

Nick Rowe, Greenlane.

Training teachers

The Education Review Office has revealed the vast difference between theory and practice. The pattern of past decades to base primary teacher training on university degrees is proving far less effective than the old style of teacher training colleges, where the emphasis was on hands-on experience in the classroom.

Even that was a change from my mother’s days when — in the 1920s — you did not even start at training college until you had spent at least one year as a “pupil teacher”, assisting a full teacher in the classroom. This meant that those unsuited to the job were weeded out before time and money was wasted on trying to train them.

Jeanette Grant, Mt Eden.