Letters: Call for harsh penalties for those who assault health workers; Joseph Parker’s win; and criticism of boxing

What a repugnantly aggressive society New Zealand seems to have become when we read (NZ Herald, December 22) of the increasingly “unacceptable” violent assaults against hospital emergency staff. To counteract this brutality, which will number more than 5000 in 2023, an extra $5.7 million of taxpayer funds will be spent employing 200 additional security staff until just the end of February.

In a recent 12-month period there were overall also 7125 known assaults against public health employees nationwide.

It is well known our public hospital system is under great stress.

This, however, has nothing to do with the dedicated, highly trained emergency department staff of nurses, doctors, and assistants who work long, stressful hours giving their professional best.

The fact they are subject to so many physical assaults is totally repugnant, and one where we now have to openly question whether harsh punishments should be enacted, and carried through, for these particular incidents. I feel sure an overwhelming majority of NZers would be in favour.

Dr Hylton Le Grice, Remuera

Praise for Parker

I join the many Joseph Parker fans in the Pacific and beyond to congratulate him on his well-executed plan to outwit and outbox the former world boxing champ Deontay Wilder. It was no mean feat, but Parker’s perseverance paid off. His sensational win makes us all in New Zealand, the Pacific Islands and others in the diaspora very proud.

More power to Parker to box on at the highest level.

Rajend Naidu, Glenfield

Joseph Parker (left) and Deontay Wilder exchange punches during their fight. Photo / Getty Images

Why glorify boxing?

It took more than 50 years for the establishment to finally accept cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and other fatal health issues. Why do we continue to glorify boxing and kickboxing and deny the brain damage it causes? Rugby forwards are in the same boat.

Bruce Tubb, Devonport

Difference in attitude

In the lead-up to Christmas, I expected to read some uplifting messages in the spirit of the season. However, on Page C2 (Weekend Herald, December 23) Mike Munro’s piece surely won the prize for “The Grinch who stole Christmas”!

To my relief, Bruce Cotterill (page C6) came through challenging us to what we can collectively achieve both in Aotearoa and in a world in need.

What a difference in attitude between the two columnists.

Glennys Adams, Ōneroa

The Aukus treaty

I agree with Don Brash’s article (Weekend Herald, December 23) about the unwise move of New Zealand to possibly join Aukus.

China is not an existential threat to us. Instead it is a better trade friend to New Zealand. A war in the South Pacific between the West and China is not at all likely. New Zealand better stay away from these alliances.

Let us spend our money and energy in developing commercial ties. India, anyone?

S. Mohanakrishnan, Auckland.

Lowering our emissions

The Herald editorial of December 19 reports the wealthier areas of New Zealand have seen the largest take-up of electric vehicles.

The editorial calls upon the Government to find a more equitable way of lowering vehicle emissions. Lowering emissions from vehicles benefits us all, including those people who cannot afford to buy an EV. Lowered emissions was not only achieved by the EV take-up, but by a very significant 30 per cent reduction in petrol and diesel vehicles. This gain has been a huge success. It has resulted in a measurable reduction in vehicle emissions.

The new government hopes the Emissions Trading Scheme will achieve the same. Why not have both? And is it likely that the Emissions Trading Scheme will change people’s habits so rapidly.?

David Tyler, Beach Haven

90-day trials

Employing new staff boils down to good leadership, coaching and honing recruitment skills. But now, when, or if, you cannot be bothered you can use the Government’s 90-day trial period to dismiss employees. I agree with Shaneel Lal’s comment about giving the employer more power in the relationship. A good leader will provide feedback to employees, and give them an opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

Empowering employers to dismiss their employees within the trial period with no requirement to consult promotes lazy leadership and a “try before you buy” approach.

If you are a job seeker concerned about your rights, you can see if the job you are applying for is covered by the union. If, so the collective agreement may state you cannot be employed on a trial period, meaning you can avoid being dismissed without consultation and feedback.

Alison Redfern-Daly, Titirangi