Letters: Failure to fix infrastructure extends to Premier House; too few care about poverty; the silent majority and the Treaty

The response Faʻanānā Efeso Collins got after talking about poverty was revealing, writes one reader. Photo / Greg Bowker

Letters to the Editor

Housing hangover

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon considers Premier House not suitable to live in.

He was drawing $1000 per week in accommodation allowance until publicity made him see reason and pay the money back.

I think there should be a complete review of ministerial houses. These are a hangover from times when air travel was expensive and infrequent. In the 2020s, it’s obvious MPs commute to and from Wellington regularly.

It’s also interesting that failure to renovate and renew government buildings and infrastructure is not limited to schools, hospitals and courthouses; it’s also happening with Premier House.

Peter D. Graham, Helensville.

PM’s priorities

You’d have to wonder why the maintenance isn’t kept up at Premier House, a place that is theoretically a showpiece for visiting dignitaries.

But apparently it hasn’t, and has reached the stage where the current Prime Minister isn’t even keen to stay there.

It reminds me of the current state of Defence Force houses, many of which are far worse, to the point where people will reluctantly leave the forces rather than have to live in them and have their families suffer.

So, get the priorities right would be my advice. Look after those who cannot speak up due to their occupations and then sort out the PM’s issues.

Paul Beck, West Harbour.

Parking and poverty

Simon Wilson’s article about Fa’anānā Efeso Collins (NZ Herald, February 21) describes the politician talking to people in Auckland’s richer suburbs about the many people who struggle to get their kids to school or the doctor, who work three jobs to get by and who live with black mould in the bathroom.

The response from his audiences was to complain about road cones and parking. This says much about the reason for our shameful blight of poverty in Aotearoa.

Simply, too few of us care.

John Rhodes, Greytown.

Newshub newsflash

What’s behind Newshub’s demise is that TV advertisers are not prepared to pay big money to advertise around TV news times, as there is a big change happening with regard to people watching the news between 5.30pm and 7.30pm.

Younger viewers - under 50 or so - are not home to watch the news and are getting instant news updates from around the world on their mobile phones.

Companies are now also using other platforms and social media to advertise - just as Kodak lost their market to iPhone cameras, and propeller aircraft to jet engines on larger aircraft.

It’s sad to see so many job losses, but staff will reinvent themselves on other social media channels or relocate to different roles. Our world keeps changing at an ever-faster pace - watch as artificial intelligence is about to change our world and jobs.

Tom Reynolds, St. Heliers.

Phones dial-toned

I noticed the great proclamation from our shiny new Government: “We’ve banned phones in class from Term 2, 2024.”

That’s very good news. However, my daughter, a teacher in Boise, Idaho, stopped the problem at the outset. She simply gathers phones up first-thing and places them on a shelf in a cupboard in the classroom.

In the unlikely event a parent needs to contact their child, they can always do that the old-fashioned way: contacting the school office.

Colleen Wright, Botany Downs.

The muzzled masses

We continue to hear the vocal minority on Treaty issues.

What we don’t hear is the silent majority. Most will not speak out for fear of being called racist. Only a referendum lets the silent majority speak without fear of retribution from Māori. National needs to support this 100 per cent.

Christopher Luxon, your own polling shows your supporters want this. Let democracy decide.

Kevin Matthews, Auckland CBD.

Urgent unwinding

Morgan Owens (Weekend Herald, March 2) asks if the repealing of legislation under urgency by the new Government is just for optics and the supposed self-promoting symbolism of “first 100 days”.

Labour was urgently introducing new legislation when they knew it was over. This was wrong, as new laws should be debated. In the former Government’s last term, people looked on as Labour justified why things needed to be urgent - they now watch the same politicians say the exact same thing they did 12 months ago is eroding democracy.

The Government is now unwinding that mess and removing those new laws. The sooner this happens, the sooner the Government can get down to the real business of fixing New Zealand. Some say there is the need to debate the repealing of the legislation Labour introduced, but as they were never properly analysed in the first place, what would be the point?

Mark Young, Ōrewa.

Disaster and diligence

I agree with all the comments Judge Thomas made during his sentencing of the companies involved in promoting trips to Whakaari/White Island.

Not getting any expert advice on visiting an active volcano creates the feeling of a “laissez faire” attitude.

John Roughan wrote in the Herald some time ago that there should have been an inquiry. So many people’s lives have been tragically affected.

Kay Wheeler, Huapai.