$60 solution to poverty simple, achievable

Limited facts

Thank you, Graeme Colman, for your Kiwis back basic benefit for all kids (Dec 20). This is the first time I have seen data used to offer a solution to child poverty in a simple, direct and achievable way.

Yes please, a $60 a week payment for every child in New Zealand as a basic child income similar to the Family Benefit of old. I remember relying on this much-needed $4 weekly payment for each child until it was stopped.

Families today are struggling to provide the basic needs of housing and food for their kids and need it more now. This $60 is affordable, according to Graeme, and is fair because all our children will get it.

There will be those who say families where there is sufficient income will get it too. We could see this in another light though and just call it tax cuts for richer families.

It shouldn’t come at the expense of other targeted help for kids and their families in poverty, though. What it would do is show we seriously believe in investing in all children and that they are our taonga. Such a payment may even help alleviate child abuse to some extent. Teresa Homan, Upper Hutt

Unfair punishments

It’s fair to say our justice system isn’t – fair that is. It’s totally acceptable that a man caught taking too many pa¯ ua should be punished, absolutely no doubt. I also absolutely agree that the woman who drove drunk and high and killed someone as a result deserves punishment.

Here’s where I get confused . . . how come the pa¯ ua stealer got two years in jail and the woman who killed an innocent young man got 11 months’ home detention?

Now, you don’t have to be Einstein to figure out there is something desperately wrong with this picture. Factor in one of them is a Ma¯ ori man and the other a white woman, and the picture starts to look pretty bad, no matter how you try to justify otherwise.

Statistics already back this up, and JustSpeak chair Julia Whaipooti, who spoke at the UN recently, gave even more scary stats around this issue. Something smells methinks, and it ain’t the pa¯ ua! Tracey Steel, Pukerua Bay

Name confusion

To all you PR branding – change agent – supremos: ‘‘Vic’’ becomes ‘‘Wellington’’?

I used to go to ‘‘Vic’’, as in ‘‘which university did you go to?’’ Me, ‘‘I went to ‘Vic’.’’

Change the name of Victoria University to University of Wellington and I used to go where? I used to go to ‘‘Wellington’’, as in, ‘‘I went to Wellington’’.

And, ‘‘Vic Council’’ will become ‘‘Wellington Council?’’

Helene Ritchie, Wellington

Human violence

Writing against violence by men against women (Implicit protection of abusive men has to end, Dec 21), Michelle Duff shows that her concern for people is selective.

We should really focus widely on violence of humans against humans – so long as we’re thorough and no-one is left out. After all, we all know most victims of violent crime are men.

Some, however, see male-to-male violence as something that happens outside civilised society, like criminal gang wars. We’ll allow them to fight among themselves, comfortable in the belief that they are all brutes, so long as there are no innocent (‘‘civilian’’) casualties. This is wrong: men are in the midst of society and many male victims of violence are innocent.

In addition, we should be curious about male violence: what’s up with men!? Moral judgment is fine, but it’s not enough.

Gavan O’Farrell, Waterloo

Health support

We are surely blessed by our hospitals and the people who work in them.

I had occasion recently to be the recipient of their care. I met people who are personable, caring and professional, displaying the finest of human qualities.

It is a great shame, and I do mean ‘‘shame’’, that they, as a sector, have found it necessary to strike to demand recognition through better pay and more people to carry the load. Their goodwill and dedication should not have been taken for granted for so long.

Selwyn Boorman, Waikanae [abridged] Once again we see the call for a lower blood alcohol limit when driving. This time, zero.

The question then is, why? It was claimed that reducing the limit from 80mg to 50mg would reduce accidents and deaths. In fact, since the lower level was introduced they have gone up.

If police want to argue on scientific grounds, then they should justify themselves based on proper data.

A long time ago Dr John Bailey at the DSIR chemistry did such a statistical analysis, and his analysis showed no significant effect would be expected.

It should be realised that a number of deaths occur with zero blood alcohol, and the data must be normalised to account for this if an effect is claimed.

So, rather than make assertions, why not publish the data upon which the assertions are made, and then some of us with the necessary skill could determine whether the claims are based on logic and facts, or whether they are merely made up to be seen to be doing something.

Activity is not required; it is effectiveness.

Ian Miller (Dr), Belmont

Catholic influence

Each of the opposing sides in the End of Life Choice debate quotes data to bolster its case. Opponents quote the fact that over 90 per cent of submissions to the select committee opposed the bill, and supporters quote the results of repeated public opinion polls showing support for voluntary assisted dying has remained steady at around 70 per cent. Each side is correct, so what is going on?

The answer may lie in a letter by Catholic bishops to all parishioners on Jan 23, 2018, part of the last paragraph of which reads: ‘‘There is now an urgent need to let Parliament know your views about David Seymour’s bill. Therefore, we urge each of you to get personally involved by sending a submission to Parliament’s justice select committee before the closing date of 20 February 2018. Instructions on how to make a submission will be handed out with the fact sheet.’’

Of course, not all submissions against the bill would have been from Catholics, but if only a quarter of those regularly attending mass obeyed the bishops’ directive, it would be more than enough to account for a substantial proportion of the submissions against the bill.

Martin Hanson, Nelson

Brexit equals bleak

Guy Dobson writes (Dec 19), regarding Brexit, that it is essential to preserve values and safeguard jobs. That is just the sort of reactionary populist opinion that creates isolation and bigotry.

I worked in the City of London in the construction financial sector and I can safely say there were no good moral standards to be seen, and that is where, for decades, the UK has made the bulk of its money.

That in recent years the UK has seen an influx of East European migrant workers (mostly doing unattractive lowpaid work) is partly the result of historic injustices – you can guess by my name I might have some knowledge on that point.

The UK has always been resilient, and its people hard working, so yes, it will survive, but what an unnecessary and stupid mistake Brexit would be. Let’s hope for their sake they do reverse the decision to leave or they will have some very bleak times ahead.

Marek Plesner, Napier

Media Council

The Dominion Post is subject to the NZ Media Council. Complaints must be directed to editor@dompost .co.nz. If the complainant is unsatisfied with the response, the complaint may be referred to the Media Council, PO Box 10-879, Wellington, 6143 or info@media council.org.nz. Further details at presscouncil.org.nz

Letters

Email: letters@ dompost.co.nz

No attachments. Write: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 1297, Wellington, 6040. Letters must include the writer’s full name, home address and daytime phone number. Letters should not exceed 200 words and must be exclusive. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.