‘New Zealander’ fine in theory

Jordan Watson suggests (I’m Kiwi-as and I know I feel the burn, Jan 13) we consider entering ‘‘New Zealander’’ as our identity for census returns and the like, instead of identifying with an ethnic group.

The idea may sound attractive to many, but it’s worth considering the implications for government and policy.

For example, the census also asks us to state our job. Imagine if half the IT employees decided all workers were equal and they objected to being put in a category, so under ‘‘other’’ they just wrote ‘‘worker’’. What would the effect be? Well, policy makers and education managers would conclude we don’t need to train so many IT workers since the industry is smaller than they had thought. The IT sector would be seen as less significant for New Zealand.

Now, what if 50,000 Ma¯ ori decided not to state their ethnicity but just wrote ‘‘New Zealander’’? The Ma¯ ori population would appear to be shrinking. Clearly, less funding would be allocated to Ma¯ ori health and education initiatives and Ma¯ ori populations around New Zealand would be understated, affecting the funding allocated to many agencies. In short, they’d become (apparently) less significant.

What if (much more likely) 200,000 white people objected to being called Pa¯ keha or NZ European and opted for ‘‘New Zealander’’? Same result.

It’s also interesting to note what actually happens to ‘‘New Zealander’’ responses in the census. ‘‘New Zealander’’ is not a reported ethnic group. Statistics NZ says they are listed under the category ‘‘other’’ for ‘‘very small groups not included elsewhere’’, such as Inuit. That’s right – those who opt out of ethnic categories and list themselves as ‘‘New Zealander’’ award themselves exactly the same policy clout in their own country as Inuit. Marty Pilott, Johnsonville [abridged]

Apathy over fire risk

Wildfires a risk in city fringes (Jan 12) again highlights the depth of public and political apathy towards this everincreasing threat to our homes.

Many Wellington suburbs are constantly under threat of urban-fringe fires, surrounded as they are by pine plantations and native bush. It’s only a matter of time before a fire, whether deliberately or accidentally lit, coincides with a dry and windy day and Wellington has its own Christchurch Port Hills disaster. Do we need a whole suburb to be wiped out before reacting to this threat?

Why do politicians pass laws and regulations to ensure city buildings have adequate earthquake protection, yet sit on their hands when confronted with the fire risk staring us in the face? How difficult would it be to pass legislation compelling landowners to fell pine trees growing dangerously close to properties and clear fire breaks between houses and native bush? One would expect insurance companies to be at the forefront of pressuring politicians into taking action.

And why are householders, especially those directly threatened, not drawing up petitions, writing to their MPs and city councillors?

We watch on TV the horror of the devastation runaway fires have wrought in California, Australia, Canada and elsewhere with the mindset, ‘‘it can’t happen here’’. Climate change continually moves the goal-posts, with countries like Scandinavia and the UK reporting out-ofcontrol fires for the first time in 2018. Our turn is coming.

Bill Murray, Tawa

Convoluted route

While it is encouraging that light rail is at last starting to gain traction among decision makers, I fear the proposal put forward by FIT (How would Wellington’s light rail work?, Jan 12) is defective for these reasons:

1. It takes no account of the existing suburban rail system. Having two stub terminals at the busiest point is the worst possible configuration and will do nothing to compete with Transmission Gully and encourage those in the wider region to shift to public transport.

2. Insistence on two separate systems means they have to find an expensive new depot instead of using the existing Matangi facility.

3. Light rail benefits businesses along its route, but the FIT route misses the Golden Mile and Courtenay Place, the areas of highest demand.

4. Their route is highly convoluted and includes an unnecessary tunnel from Taranaki St to Adelaide Rd: higher cost, slower service.

5. Going to Miramar then the airport is the height of folly. The natural route is along Coutts St and under the airport runway.

Such a counter-productive route will doom light rail to failure.

Demetrius Christoforou, Mt Victoria [abridged]

Re How would Wellington’s light rail work?, there are still many questions left open in the outline proposal.

The estimated cost of $1b-$1.5b is vague. Does that include the cost of all the track, tunnels, rolling stock, power supply system and IT systems?

Railway units need storage areas and a maintenance depot. Will the track gauge and the power supply be compatible with the existing rail system?

If it will be compatible then the system could use existing sidings at Wellington rail station and maintenance could be done at the Hutt Valley railway workshops. If the light rail system is incompatible with the current system then the system will need land for storage sidings and a new maintenance depot. Peter D Graham, Island Bay