Many will not be flattered by the inference.
I hope that Simon will reconsider his decision in the interest of voters of all age groups, but especially those who are voting for the first time in this election.
I should not need to remind a sitting MP that the right to informed choice is an essential principle of democracy.
No grievances
Isn't it funny - when Maori are found living in third world conditions (and don't think I don't sympathise with them, for I know what poverty is) it is the despised Honkie they turn to for help.
Why are they not given a portion of their inheritance to build a life on and thus further the Maori mana? Please, Maori parties, do not use the elections as a platform for ancient grievances, that won't impress the majority of New Zealanders.
B Guernier, Hairini
A winning plan
The challenge facing NZ is a lack of "bankable" jobs (jobs that add value rather than jobs that are simply "make work").
A well-functioning financial system, where business can both save and borrow with confidence is essential to creating new jobs.
A government's task is to create that confidence so companies will invest in the economy and create those jobs we all so fervently seek.
National's election policy of proportionate asset sales using the "mixed ownership model" and then committing $1 billion of those sales to upgrade NZ schools is just the sort of confidence-restorative medicine our economy needs.
By the Government committing much of this money to rebuilding/upgrading our schools the whole country wins on three fronts.
First it stimulates the building industry across NZ.
Everyone knows a vibrant building industry generates more jobs and increases the velocity of money circulating within a community more than any other business sector.
Jobs created from upgrading our schools spread the benefits to all communities across NZ.
The second benefit: The investment gives New Zealand 21st century schools that will produce smarter kids.
The third benefit: This policy instils that very necessary confidence element across our country that creates those jobs and the strategy is indeed a very smart re-alignment of our country's existing resources.
Max Lewis, Mount Maunganui
Outside the law
It has come to my attention that on October 8 the Bay of Plenty Times published an advertisement placed by the proprietor and the board of trustees of Bethlehem College.
The advertisement's headline statement "The allegation of illegal charging is untrue" is in itself not correct. The Ministry's July response (referred to in the advertisement) stated that the attendance dues bond "is not permitted under section 36(3) of the PSCI Act".
As it is not permitted under that Act, it is illegal.
In an earlier meeting with the proprietor, we made the same point that the bond was outside the law.
We accept that the proprietor did not set out to deliberately break the law. We also note that the proprietor is no longer charging the bond, and that suitable arrangements have been put in place to return bond money that was collected in the past.
Karen Sewell, Secretary for Education, Ministry of Education
Benefit bashing
All my working life I have watched with disgust the right wing in New Zealand politics. When in power they have deliberately set out to destroy any social and economic gains that workers and their families may have achieved in their struggle for survival.
To maintain and stay in office, great divisions are created by constant campaigns and propaganda aimed at the most vulnerable in our society.
Those sorted out for the bashing brigade are the unions, Maori, unemployed and other beneficiaries.
The latest work-out of benefit bashing is if a solo mum is on the benefit, and has another child, she must go to work in a very hostile environment, when that child is 12 months old. That is discrimination against the unborn.
The feedback from an unsympathetic public is highlighted by the most bigoted, uninformed, and selfish remarks imaginable.
On November 26, with three years in office, and the threat of more to come, we are asked to vote for a brighter future.
With the tax break favouring the top few, a low wage economy, and a system that puts profits before people, there is no way this bunch of money grubbers are going to put the New Zealand economy back on track, in the black, and on the road to recovery.
Ross Boyte, Tauranga
Foreign ways
More than 100 years ago Samuel Parnell won a 40-hour working week and a week ago New Zealand again celebrated it with the annual Labour Day.
As a developed nation, New Zealand has other legislation to protect people from the wrongs of business/employment eg child labour, excessive hours, poor or unequal pay, obviously with a cost but believing it is right to do so.
So why then are we so content to move manufacturing to, lose jobs to, buy products from, arrange trade agreements with, or sell our industry to those who don't have or don't care about the same rules that we theoretically believe in, impoverishing ourselves in the process?
Is New Zealand working fewer hours than Samuel in 2011?
Is it not better to look after New Zealand, keep New Zealand jobs and pay New Zealand people a reasonable wage in lieu of social security and live a quality 21st century existence instead of competing with the lowest common denominator and selling off essential assets to outsiders whose only interest is a return for their directors and shareholders?
Good on Marie Jefferis (Letters, October 28) for believing in the USP of New Zealand and not just as some foreigner's sweatshop.
Simon Butler, Otumoetai
When writing to us, please note the following:
Letters should not exceed 200 words
No noms-de-plume
Please include your address and phone number (for our records only)
Letters may be abridged, edited or refused at the editor's discretion
The editor's decision to publish is final. Rejected letters are usually not acknowledged
Local letters are given preference
Email: editor@bayofplentytimes.co.nz
Text: 021 241 4568 - Please start your message with BOP
