Letters: Addiction holding New Zealand back; CCOs have proved themselves

'I would suggest that a precursor to targeted social investments [to reduce poverty] is a significant increase in resources for the treatment of substance abuse.' Photo / Mike Scott

Letters to the Editor

Addiction holding Aotearoa back

I greatly respect Simon Wilson and so feel squeamish about faulting an aspect of his column on growth-enhancing alleviation of poverty in Aotearoa (NZ Herald, November 26).

The (correct) thrust of his article is that targeting more broadly defined infrastructural social investments to the poor will both reduce penury and stimulate GDP growth. But he doesn’t mention the role that alcohol and drug addiction play in frustrating this outcome. Without significantly enhanced targeting of resources for treatment for intoxicating substance abuse, Simon’s argument is dead in the water.

I would argue, and I’ll bet Simon would agree with me, that it is essential to recognise two elements of this addiction-poverty nexus. One is that it’s a lot less likely that poverty causes substance abuse than that substance abuse perpetuates poverty. Second, alcohol and drug addiction is not a character flaw but a social disease that negatively affects individuals, families and friends. I would suggest that a precursor to Simon’s targeted social investments is a significant increase in resources for the treatment of substance abuse among the poor.

Robert Myers, Auckland Central.

If it ain’t broke...

Steven Joyce provides a defence of council-controlled organisations (CCOs) at Auckland Council in the light of proposals for their disbandment (Weekend Herald, November 30).

The CCO approach is based on the state-owned enterprise model introduced in the 1980s to mix democratic accountability with efficiency and continuity of delivery.

It has proved itself. The politicians set the policy parameters and goals, and then they let an arm’s-length organisation get on with the job, overseen by competent and experienced people. If the organisation fails to deliver and the politicians are displeased with its performance, then they can replace the directors, change the policy parameters if necessary, and ask them to try again.

The dangers with getting rid of CCOs are overburdening elected members, eroding the independence of expertise and competent supervision for key sectors, and political “short termism”.

We are seeing some of these dangers emerging at central government level and in local authorities like Wellington. Auckland doesn’t need to be a part of it.

Peter Davis, Kingsland.

Tax truths

I am writing in response to the letter from correspondent John Caldwell (NZ Herald, December 2), in which he seems to be misguided when he advocates for heavy taxation of the wealthy as a solution to our financial problems.

While it is true that some adjustments to capital gains tax may be warranted, the idea of heavily taxing the wealthy is both misguided and counterproductive. Many of those individuals who have accumulated wealth have done so through years of hard work, innovation, and by creating businesses that employ people and contribute to the economy. Penalising them with excessive taxation could drive these entrepreneurs and investors to seek opportunities abroad.

New Zealand must focus on fostering an environment that encourages business development, innovation, and investment. Instead of punishing those who have taken risks to build successful businesses, we should be incentivising success and entrepreneurship. Tax policies should aim to strike a balance; encouraging investment and growth rather than discouraging those who have demonstrated the drive to create jobs and contribute to the nation’s prosperity.

Alan Walker, St Heliers.

Parents in the dark

Benjamin Plummer’s article (NZ Herald, November 26) outlining the Education Review Office report slamming the rollout of the revised NCEA Level 1 curriculum, saying it is “not fair or reliable”, makes disturbing reading. Then there is the November 27 Herald editorial stating much the same thing about NCEA in general.

However, embedded in both articles has been the parental response to NCEA. Parents are “baffled and frustrated by its perverse logic”. Parents don’t know what is required and “cannot help their children make the right choices”.

A quick look at some of the subjects’ explanatory notes on the NCEA website and one is confronted with what amounts to a word salad that would confound a lawyer. No wonder parents are confused. This should not be the case. Parents should be able to understand what is going on with their children’s education. This would ensure that parents have consistent lines of communication with teachers and are aware of their child’s progress, challenges and needs. Parents and teachers need to work together to achieve this. A strong partnership between both parties benefits everyone.

Bernard Walker, Mt Maunganui.

Infrastructure pick

How is it possible that Raveen Jaduram, the person responsible for permitting Auckland’s water shortage crisis due to inadequate infrastructure planning, while being paid the highest Auckland CCO executive remuneration package, is endorsed by Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop to be the next chairman of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission? It defies reason based on prior performance.

If he performs as inadequately in this role as he did when employed by Watercare, there is very little prospect of achieving the infrastructure needs of this country.

Robert Skinner, Goodwood Heights.