Letter of the week: Maurice Robertson, Torbay
Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services..."
The UN
describes adequate housing as "habitability that includes protection against the cold, damp, heat, rain, wind, other threats to health and structural hazards".
In New Zealand, we have the highest ratio of GST to total tax and the highest ratio of GST to GDP of any country in the OECD. We also have one of the lowest top marginal income tax rates in the OECD (33 out of 37).
Everyone's first budgetary priority is housing, either rent or mortgage. Next is electricity, then food. Necessities, according to Article 25.
So we have the highest GST tax in the OECD on two of the three necessities and we are 35th out of 38 in child well-being in the OECD.
Successive governments have increased GST and reduced income tax to the point where the poorest of us cannot afford to look after our children.
Does anyone else think it's time for a change?
Second strike
As noted in your report (Weekend Herald, March 5), the Appeal Court held that resource consent for the Tūpuna Maunga Authority's (TPA) removal plan should have been publicly notified, and it struck down the Auckland Council's "non-notifiable" decision.
The court also specifically struck down the plan itself. This second strike was by far the most important.
There's plenty of case law on the Resource Management Act (1999) but up to now, no case law on the interplay between the Reserves Act 1977 and the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014. The TMA is governed by both acts, and has always held that its 2016 Integrated Management Plan (IMP) fulfils the Reserve Act's requirements for public submissions and those ongoing management decisions are operational only.
The court held the Ōwairaka proposal was sufficiently significant that it should have been in the IMP and subject to a formal submission process. This is an important ruling, for the TMA's cavalier dismissal of the need for public consultations on Ōwairaka and other matters has always been the rogue element in what's otherwise emerging as an impressive record of care for the city's maunga.
Geoff Chapple, Devonport.
Fell swoop
It was very gratifying to learn (Weekend Herald, March 5) of the eventual success of the court case taken privately against the Tūpuna Maunga Authority to block it from proceeding to strip the grand, exotic - but supposedly colonist-reminiscent trees - from Mt Albert.
It would have resembled the now bleak Mt Wellington, Pigeon Mountain, and Māngere Mountain.
It is imperative that Auckland Council, in its current consideration of the Auckland Regional Parks Management Plan 2022, studiously avoids permitting any co-governance, partnership, or consultation arrangement which could permit anything like a maunga authority situation to develop.
Bob Culver, Avondale.
Rhetoric aside
My congratulations must go to the editor Stuart Dye for his well-written and unbiased report (Weekend Herald, March 5) on the occupation of Parliament grounds.
This editorial was written without any of the populist rhetoric we have heard over the course of the past three weeks and offered a balanced and factual viewpoint sadly lacking in journalistic pieces of late. Exposed an ugly truth indeed.
Linda Dawn, Mt Eden.
Ears and graces
Last Saturday's editorial (Weekend Herald, March 5) hit the nail on the head. Audi alteram partem (hear the other side) is one of the first lessons taught at law school.
No conflict can be resolved if one party to a dispute remains unwilling or incapable of dealing with the contrary or emotional content of the other side's position.
Dialogue and communication is the solution to a resolution, not the exact opposite. Government should heed that fact.
Patricia Schnauer, Milford