Why would we submit?

Long-term plan public consultation is either under way or about to start for the various local councils. Huge increases are forecast.

Recently an ECan councillor was reported to have said that he had little faith in the consultation process because “we hear from the same old serial submitters”.

Councillors at Christchurch City and ECan give the impression that they have “seen it all”, but because they are not subject matter experts they need to learn to trust and listen to council staff, and, at times, listen to the public.

By the time the public has an opportunity for input on these plans, councillors are largely fixed in their views as plans have been formulated through the council’s internal processes, and councillors seem not really prepared to listen to submitters.

The consultation submissions and hearings circus has become an ordeal for all concerned, and effectively a waste of time and effort. S M McNeill, St Albans

Firearm laws

After 9/11 l said many times it was only a matter of time before someone attacked a mosque. It never occurred to me that this would take place here in my home town.

Is our Government seriously considering changing restrictions on the sale of semiautomatic weapons? These things exist only to kill as many as possible in the shortest possible time, so they have no place outside the military. Why would any sane person want to have such a thing? Malcolm Graham, Woolston [abridged]

Policy whiff

Is it just me or is there a nasty stench in the air? I’m talking about the whiff associated with the proposed handouts that are apparently going to landlords.

A subsidy of approximately $2.9 billion over the next four years possibly heading into the pockets of landlords, regardless of how wealthy many already are. We are told the country cannot afford free school lunches, help with childcare, free prescriptions, a decent salary for much-needed services like police… I could go on.

How many houses does Christopher Luxon own, and how many are owned by other MPs, especially in his Government? How much will they personally benefit from this legislation? Do they need it so much more than struggling New Zealanders, or are the strugglers bottomfeeders, as opposed to creaming it off the top? Mary Davis, Bryndwr

Look at facts

I think it past time the emotional rhetoric around interest deductibility for landlords is dropped and people start to look at facts.

More than 72% of all rentals in the country are owned by private landlords. Less than 5% of those are owned by the small number of ‘mega-landlords’ the media has become fixated with.

The vast majority of private rentals meet Healthy Homes Standards, which is more than can be said about rentals owned by Kainga Ora – despite them having been granted two extensions to the date of compliance.

It is evident that if New Zealand is to meet the rapidly growing demand for acceptable accommodation, it is not going to be able to do so without the continued involvement of private landlords.

If the reintroduction of tax deductibility encourages private landlords to stay in the housing rental market then it will be worthwhile. I suggest that the alternative of housing people in motels is costing considerably more than the cost of the tax exemption. Chris Murphy, Christchurch Central

Usual treatment

As a provider of rental housing over many years in the past, I found Lin Roberts’ letter in Thursday’s paper singularly ill-informed, and the writer seemingly unaware that the previous left-wing government removed the right to deduct interest for largely ideological reasons.

The return to the usual tax treatment of interest costs for business is not a subsidy, it is an attempt to repair the damage done to the sector by the previous government.

In my experience, interest on debt is the largest cost incurred when providing rental housing. For a government to remove that right was a direct attack on the providers of the bulk of the rental housing in New Zealand. J C Glass, St Albans

Can’t make it so

Hearing the National-led Government justify its urgent changes to legislation by saying tax windfalls for landlords will benefit renters, repealing anti-smoking legislation will reduce smoking, and abolishing the Māori Health Authority will benefit all New Zealanders, I’m reminded of Vladimir Putin justifying his invasion of Ukraine – destroying a country for the good of the people.

Repeating a falsehood in an authoritative – and patronising – tone does not make it true. Catherine Moen, Linwood

Fragile investment

“Renters are pleased that landlords are getting a $3 billion subsidy,” says Christopher Luxon. “Which renters are those?” one would ask. “Renters are mostly on fixed-term contracts and won’t see immediate benefits,” says David Seymour. “We will get $780 million over four years from tax charged to overseas casino operators,” says Christopher Luxon.

"No, you won’t! You will get about $140m,“says the IRD.

“We will increase the police front line,” says Mark Mitchell.

“How is that going to happen when police are flocking to Australia for higher pay and you want the police to cut the budget by 6.5%?” says Joe Public. Clearly a Government that is fiscally inept and one you wouldn’t give your school lunch money to in order to invest it. Red Sapwell, Amberley

Instability’s outcome

We’ve known ever since Aristotle warned us 2300 years ago that inequality always brings instability and that instability almost always leads to totalitarianism. Yet now in New Zealand our prime minister flaunts entitlements for the rich while the National/ ACT/Winston First government dismantles our precious social welfare net, thus both increasing inequality.

Plato warned us that demagogues like Seymour and Peters exploit free speech to install themselves as tyrants, tyranny being the logical path from instability. Is this where we're headed now? And to think we voted for this Government. Charles Drace, Christchurch Central [abridged]

Unjust discrepancy

It is of real concern to me to hear that a police officer with six years’ service is on such low pay. In comparison, a nurse or school teacher with the same length of service is receiving more than $20,000 a year more than the officer. This is totally wrong and unjust.

Police officers have a responsibility to keep us safe and in doing so often have to experience unsafe situations. They should be compensated accordingly by fair and equitable remuneration. Peter Yearbury, Christchurch Central