Labour’s use of house sales data defended

CHRIS Trotter (ODT, 14.7.17) correctly defended Metiria Turei’s criticism of New Zealand First over its attacks on cultural and racial diversity in New Zealand. But his call for her to cast ‘‘an equally large accusatory stone’’ at Labour is misjudged.

The one current example he gives is the use of data from an Auckland real estate company at the height of the real estate frenzy. True, the statistical calculation of apparently Chinese surnames was a crude measure of how many houses were being bought as investments by nonresidents, but there was no other data being collected at the time.

Labour’s intention was to address house prices, homelessness and overcrowding in Auckland. This move led to a national conversation, and the beginning of limited attempts to track this issue and to discourage the quick ‘‘flipping’’ of investment properties.

It is unfortunate that some people chose to present this as an antiChinese move, but a political commentator should be able to see through the motives of such framing.

Anthony Robins

Northeast Valley (Labour Party member) undertaken in New Zealand.’’

Needless to say its conclusions are that if Labour’s manifesto is ever implemented, New Zealand will be swept away by a tsunami of unrepayable debt, but the National Budget was God’s greatest gift to New Zealand ever. But then if you had Vanessa van Uden on your ‘‘independent’’ board, that’s what you would say, isn’t it? Dennis Dorney

Calton Hill [Democrats for Social Credit]

1080 policy

I WONDER how the Green Party reconciles its advocacy for animal welfare with its deference to an increasing halal culture, and now to the Government’s enthusiasm for 1080 poison, for which predation and natural attrition would be a much greener option. R. S. Hogan

Waikouaiti [This letter was referred to the Green Party for comment, but it declined to respond.]