The take and give of new Govt
While we all sit and wait for the much promised tax cuts from the Nationalled Government, it is fair to say that after announcing its latest transport expenditure as well as increasing fuel taxes and vehicle registrations, and the introduction of road user charges across the board, means not only are the tax cuts swallowed up, but even more will be taken from our wallets, leaving us worse off economically.
Wayne Hawker, Phillipstown
Evening up
The cost of a car rego increasing is a great idea if it pays for our roads getting better.
It also aligns with the Greens’ and Labour’s ideals to increase certain elements to decrease use and this fits perfectly.
Fifty dollars a year, or less than $1 per week, isn’t going to break the budget, and in fact could save you money. A couple of punctures less per year due to better roads and you are all even.
Dave Beaumont, North New Brighton
What about cyclists?
So, a car rego is to increase by $50 per year.
I would like to know why cyclists do not have to pay at least $50 per year to use the roads and cycleways? They would have to keep their rego confirmation on them and produce the same as drivers have to produce a driver’s licence.
It would certainly get plenty of revenue to put towards roads and cycleways.
D Griffiths, Hoon Hay
Positive ideas
With the ink on the proposed changes to transport still smudging the fingers, the leader of the recently deposed Labour Party says the increase in fuel taxes would be “a massive blow to low-income households”.
Meantime, his former colleague, Julie-Anne Genter, claims the transport minister seems to have “a vendetta against anyone not using a car”.
The two seem to have entirely lost any mutual approach to a means of opposition, but regardless of this, no doubt they would quickly object if the new Government followed their example and did little or nothing to solve roading problems.
Perhaps they have some positive ideas they would care to share on how this might be done?
Vic Smith, Halswell
Disappointing statement
Mike Yardley’s opinion piece (Why isn’t local government tightening its belt? March 5) included a quote from Councillor David East that in my view can only be described as blatant racism and was extremely disappointing, especially from a person in a position of leadership.
“We need government to deliver policy that has less restrictive provisions, and less over-the-top engagement with ethnic groups”.
As Environment Canterbury is only required by legislation to engage with Māori, one might take a guess that this “over-the-top engagement” he refers to is with the local Papatipu Rūnanga. But regardless of whether he’s referencing mana whenua (who should be treated as a partner) or our ethnic communities, ensuring councils specifically engage with these communities should never be seen as “over-the-top”, but an opportunity to hear from voices often drowned out by the majority.
Something that has been happening to Māori for over 180 years.
Mike Davidson, St Albans
Not accurate
The suggestion in your story titled Quakedamaged building finally demolished for road upgrade (2 March) that nothing came of the Selwyn Street Shops Master Plan is not an accurate reflection of the real and positive progress in this centre.
Through private and modest public investment, many of the plan’s actions have been delivered. These include: Selwyn St Reserve plantings and pathway renewals, Brougham St/Selwyn St intersection improvements, commercial and housing redevelopments, and the rebuild of the Methodist church hall.
An economic assessment in mid-2023 identified good progress with the centre’s rebuild, with low vacancy rates across both land and shop units. Recent housing development likely contributes further to the 9% growth between 2013-2018 in the surrounding residential catchment.
Looking ahead, the council has increased funding in its draft 2024-34 Long Term Plan to deliver the Selwyn St upgrade and associated intersection changes, once the NZTA’s Brougham St upgrade is completed.
Bruce Rendall, Head of City Growth and Property, Christchurch City Council
Social damage
Digesting more anti-government graffiti posing as a cartoon (March 5), I remembered Robert White’s letter (March 2) claiming last Thursday’s cartoon should read “Gangs will cause no more social damage than this Government”.
In fact, voters demanded this Government’s reforms because of the gross social and economic damage by the previous one.
Robert Black, Merivale
More than enough
How much more of NZ’s wealth do we want the rich to own, rather than ensuring poor people have enough to live in some comfort and security? Currently, New Zealand’s wealthiest 1% own about 25% of the nation’s wealth, close to $280 million on average each. This compares with the average wealth of the 20% at the bottom, at about $10, 000. This means our richest have not 2x, not 10x, not even 100x the wealth of our poorest, but 28,000x!
If the bottom 20% had no ongoing anxiety about where the money’s coming from for next week’s electricity or food bill then perhaps the gross disparity we now have wouldn’t be an issue. But we have 150,000 NZ children living in significant insecurity and discomfort (poverty) in that lowest 20% of the population.
On our behalf, the previous government shied away from any of the changes to the tax system that would have improved this immoral situation, maintaining the disparity status quo. And our current Government seems determined to follow through on tax cuts that will likely further widen the enormous gap.
NZ is one of the richest countries in the world. We have more than enough for all citizens to live well. The political challenge to prevent further treading the path to national misery and violence is to distribute our wealth in such a way that ensures everyone is secure and comfortable, while maintaining rewards for hard work.
Doug Sellman, Ilam [abridged]
Free market faults
While obviously wearing rose-tinted spectacles, Tim Hurdle (Seeing economic forest for the trees, March 5) can see some of the impacts of bureaucracy and monopolies on the New Zealand economy. The faults within these systems are readily apparent but so too are the huge faults within the free market system.
ECan has allowed contamination of Christchurch water for the sake of increasing farmers’ production. Methane across the planet is bringing disasters ever more frequently because private enterprise is insufficiently regulated. The marine environment, even around New Zealand, is suffering severely because industry is allowed to self-regulate.
And we should not forget the everpresent cartel activity within the supposedly competitive 'free market' sector. These examples, always in clear view, demonstrate that, while some organisations try to improve with fairness to people and the environment, many do not and never will without fierce regulatory control.
Yes, some well-meaning but incompetent governance will make mistakes as bad as private enterprise mistakes, but at least the more socially conscientious the organisation is, the safer the outcomes will be.
Tim Hurdle should remove the “I am a capitalist only and always” spectacles.
Doug Hitchon, Mahana