Intellectual woolliness

Your political editor Luke Malpass (A Budget that will touch lives like few others, May 9) offers the following description of Finance Minister Grant Robertson: ‘‘unlike some of his more intellectually woolly colleagues, he has a firm grasp on the reality that New Zealand is an open, trade and currency-exposed nation, and that running Budget surpluses is a vital insurance against external downturns’’.

As an intellectually woolly nonsequitur, this is hard to beat. The notion that a fiscal surplus automatically makes a nation stronger is the old mercantilist fallacy that Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations to debunk, back in 1776.

I doubt that Malpass would accuse Smith of intellectual woolliness, so it would be nice if he could extend a little more courtesy to those of us on both Left and Right of the political spectrum who follow Smith’s lead in looking to the performance of the nation’s economy as a whole, rather than to the narrow Crown balance sheet, as the true source of resilience in the face of global shocks.

Robertson’s continual focus on Crown net debt, rather than on the nation’s conspicuously weak consolidated balance sheet, suggests a possible lack of intellectual rigour in the advice he is receiving from Treasury.

Geoff Bertram, Karori

‘‘Shambolic’’, ‘‘a debacle’’, ‘‘disarray’’, ‘‘political suicide’’, ‘‘unbridled power’’, ‘‘traumatic’’. A selection of words from Parliament’s Epidemic Response Committee sessions. All painting a pretty dire picture.

If New Zealand was in the same situation as the US, we would have had approximately 1250 Covid-19 related deaths by now. Our unemployment rate would have already risen to about 14 per cent and our ICU facilities would have been overwhelmed. Given the extreme vocabulary that has been used to describe our situation, what could we use if we had the US’ predicament?

Simon Bridges’ epidemic committee, regardless of whatever useful purpose it serves, has become a megaphone for the ‘‘catastrophisers’’, and a megaphone to which the media in general has had its ear closely pressed.

At the same time there has been a marked absence of positive vocabulary to describe the work done so far by the Government and their agencies. Were I not cautious about the use of extreme words I might be suggesting ‘‘outstandingly courageous’’, ‘‘unprecedented excellence’’, or maybe ‘‘heroic endeavours in the face of extreme adversity’’. Geoffrey Booth, Pukerua Bay

Louellen Bonallack (Letters, May 9) should take her/his own advice to ‘‘pull your head in’’. Instead of criticising Andrew Borrowdale for challenging the Government’s exercise of powers to deal with Covid-19, Bonallack should be praising him.

Borrowdale is not ‘‘squeaking and protesting about the nuances of law’’, as Bonallack complains. Rather he is insisting that the extraordinary powers the Government has exercised to deal with the current crisis have a proper basis in law.

I don’t know whether Borrowdale is right or not. But surely the point is that all powers must have a lawful basis, however serious the situation might be. I am sorry that Bonallack regards this as a mere ‘‘nuance’’. I think it is very much more fundamental than that.

John Bishop, Karori

It is unbelievable that ageism still exists. Economist Tony Alexander suggests that more older people should step out of the workforce to ease unemployment (Over65s ‘could quit to ease unemployment’, May 9).

It is surprising that he also does not suggest women should go back into the kitchen to make it easier for men to find employment.

Many older people enjoy employment not always for financial reasons but to continue to be part of the community. Their experience can also be beneficial and their attendance record is apparently also superior.

It is time that people like Alexander appreciated that his attitude is discriminatory. I’m 93 and still enjoying work.

Boyd H. Klap, Thorndon

In all of the commentaries on Andrew Borrowdale’s legal challenge of the Government’s actions in implementing a lockdown to control the virus, no-one has commented on the importance of fiduciary duty when administering statutory powers.

The fiduciary duty obligation requires an administrator to exercise a duty of care when administering legal powers. That duty requires the administrator to genuinely consider the best interests of those affected by the application of those powers.

In implementing the lockdown did Dr Bloomfield and the Government meet their fiduciary duty obligations when using the powers that exist under legislation? Undoubtedly, yes.

With approval ratings of over 90 per cent from the public for the lockdown, the public have overwhelmingly accepted the urgent need for it. The management of this crisis has been a classic illustration of Lincoln’s famous dictum: government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Given the rapidity of the virus spread before the lockdown, time was of the essence.

Whilst the management of this crisis has not been perfect in every respect, I will be astonished if any court rules that Bloomfield and the Government operated ultra vires (beyond their powers) in managing this crisis.

Warren Taylor, Johnsonville

Correspondents Alex Gray (May 8) and Randall Hughes (May 9) have rightly questioned Police Commissioner Andrew Coster’s explanations regarding community checkpoints (Why police used discretion in permitting iwi checkpoints, May 5). I would also like to question Coster’s explanations on two points.

The first is the matter of Ma¯ ori culture. We do seem to see and hear more often in any introduction to an issue many unnecessary references and flourishes towards Ma¯ ori culture. Equating modernday Ma¯ ori culture to that of pa¯ and rural life as it would have been in 1918 is stretching a long bow.

Coster’s mini-history lesson ignores the fact of today’s educated, fully urbanised, and more genetically diverse Ma¯ ori. His references may even be marginally patronising to Ma¯ ori.

The second question expands on a point raised by Gray. Quoting Coster –

‘‘. . . communities moved with urgency to establish community-led checkpoints to discourage movement not permitted under the level 4 controls. This was an approach that police actively discouraged’’ and ‘‘. . . police will not tolerate the establishment of further selfinitiated checkpoints where these have not been previously discussed, consulted and agreed’’.

This latter quote partially contradicts the first, but certainly opens the door to approval of future checkpoints, wherever for whatever purpose.

Eamon Sloan, Elsdon

Which is more important? The rule of law or preventing the questioning of officials?

The prime minister asked Simon Bridges to chair the Epidemic Response Committee. This was established to cast light into the dark corners of a government using emergency powers. I fully support the lockdown and government actions to keep us all safe. After all, the primary role of a government is to protect its citizens.

However, when Attorney-General David Parker calls the wish to question key officials advising on and enforcing the lockdown a ‘‘constitutional outrage’’, is he really going to go down the same road as Donald Trump by refusing to allow officials to appear before the select committee? That process is a fundamental part of a Westminster democracy and the most senior legal officer of the government needs to protect, not undermine it.

Perhaps he should reflect on the adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

David King, Mt Victoria

Danielle van Dalen (Healthy distrust better than blind faith, May 11) makes a valid point about New Zealand being a trusting nation, but equates active trust with ‘‘healthy distrust’’. I’m not sure that distrust is terribly healthy. While her warnings are well made, if very obvious, you don’t have to look far to see what happens when distrust is pursued as a political tool.

Perhaps ‘‘questioning trust’’ would be better. The fact is that every nation is still flying blind. Trust that our leaders are doing their best for us is an important factor in our recovery. Vexatious and pinpricking criticism is not. The Opposition, think tanks and civil lawyers should understand that.

Peter Wood, Lower Hutt

Does the step to level 2 mean that, from Thursday, we do not have to be friendly with our neighbours any longer?

Does this mean that I’ll lose my neighbour doing my weekly grocery shopping for me, as well as the friendly delivery? Will I lose the luxury of the attention and help offered?

Thank you, Paula, thank you, volunteers, thank you, emergency workers.

Paul Franken (aged 84), Strathmore Park