Beware digital ‘nudging’

In her article about the digital ‘‘have-nots’’ (Focus, January 12), Mazz Scannell describes them as being mostly elderly, poor, and with low educational skills. In fact there’s another group of ‘‘have-nots’’ who don’t fit that paradigm. Call them technological ‘‘Refuseniks’’ or ‘‘tech-noes’’. In many cases they are neither elderly, nor poor, nor even illiterate. They aren’t afraid of technology and they know how to use it. They simply refuse to be in thrall to computers, choose not to be someone’s ‘‘product’’, and regard smartphones and social media as unnecessary distractions.

As for dealing with public and private entities, the issue is not the level of computer literacy. The issue is choice – or lack of it. As Scannell points out, all options for client/service provider contact bar one – the internet – are being withdrawn, a process known as ‘‘nudging’’. Those clients who won’t be ‘‘nudged’’ face significant bureaucratic hurdles just to reach a service provider.

At the end of the day, despite the weasel words ‘‘convenience’’, ‘‘empowerment’’, and ‘‘visit us’’, it’s all about money – their money, not ours.

Ian Badger, Christchurch

Power games

‘‘Whingers’’ and ‘‘Suckers’’, as described by Richard Meadows (‘‘Socket it to the power companies’’, Business, January 12), probably includes all New Zealanders to a greater or lesser degree.

But it need not be like this: we surely should not have to be put to this endless switching and ‘‘unswitching’’ to get a fair deal.

Electricity is an essential part of our modern lifestyle – without it, we would be classed as a Third World society. So it should be available to all at a reasonable cost – the cost of production (including the cost of establishing the means to generate and distribute the power), but excluding any excessive profit margin (hundreds of millions of dollars per year).

We had this facility before the introduction of ‘‘the market’’ in the 1980s-90s.

Now we have what some commentators have described as the ‘‘most competitive’’ electricity market in the developed world.

But don’t be fooled – the term ‘‘competitive’’ does not mean efficient. Competition comes at a cost. Think of the duplication of marketing costs and administration for the multiplicity of power companies, including the ‘‘loyalty bonus’’ if you don’t switch: it all adds up, and we are all paying the (exorbitant) rates for the privilege of having ‘‘competition’’ at the flick of a switch.

From first-hand personal experience the switching mechanisms available have not resulted in a noticeable reduction in my household power charges.

Arthur Davis, Lower Hutt

Tennis supermums

Mark Reason should confine himself to writing about sport. His comments about working mothers (‘‘Smashing tennis supermums’’, Sport, January 12) were way off the mark and hugely disrespectful to mothers, be they elite sports stars or other. And to suggest these children were the progeny of freaks was just plain obnoxious! Bruce Foggo, Auckland

Awaiting the market

Damien Grant (‘‘Things are about to get a whole lot tougher’’, Focus, January 12) is obviously still having trouble adjusting to the fact that John Key and his government have gone. I’m surprised that his very gloomy piece didn’t make mention of the much-touted $11 billion fiscal hole, which to date hasn’t appeared. Instead, he comes up with his own prediction; that net government debt will well exceed $20b over the next five years and most of the Government’s expenditure on schools, hospitals and other rundown infrastructure will be squandered. In Grant’s world it would seem that the best way forward is to do nothing and the free market will deliver a miracle.

Been there, done that for the nine years of the previous government.

Bill Mathews, Auckland

Too much welfare

I agree with Barrie Davis’s comments (Letters, January 12), that more welfare will increase the probability of children following their parents and living on welfare in turn.

Governments, church organisations, Salvation Army, doctors, etc, should push the education of family planning.

Dare I say it – everyone on welfare benefits should be means tested - and maybe receive vouchers for expenditure on food, etc.

Benefits should not be used for gambling, Lotto, etc.

Russell J.Wards, Kaiapoi

Support St John

Dr Michael Gousmett (Letters, January 12) wrote to seek an explanation for emergency ambulance services funding and mentioned the Kedgley Report of 2008. May I mention that requests have been made by many. In 1976 I published a report titled ‘‘The Tragic Inefficiency of New Zealand’s Neglected Ambulance Services’’, which was circulated to ambulance and government sources and virtually ignored.