Letters: Government’s harsher welfare sanctions miss the mark

Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston's proposals have come under fire from one reader. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Letters to the Editor

Is the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston, so unaware of the precarious lives of most beneficiaries that she is now proposing to load more sanctions on them or, worse still, is she aware and does not care?

Instead of protecting and supporting these members of our society, these new policies present new challenges for them when most lack the wherewithal to even meet and keep up with existing demands.

Yes, there are some who take advantage of the system to access funds they are not entitled to – as, sadly, do many others throughout other areas of our society. So, identify and focus on them and make them “accountable”; avoid penalising the genuine. Lastly, will these sanctions work amid rapidly rising unemployment forecasts?

Policies that address the root causes of their circumstances and help lift our fellow citizens “up and out” are needed and applied so that beneficiaries may easily access them – and a touch of compassion would not go astray.

Rewa Selmeci, Ōrewa.

Presidential structure may help NZ

Listening to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon with Mike Hosking on ZB Breakfast this week, it seems our Government is “looking into that”, or is, “open to looking into that”.

Hosking asks: “What about some action?” Is our New Zealand parliamentary system bogged down in procedure that prevents the presidential actions that are happening at speed in the United States of America?

So do we need a presidential structure in New Zealand to get action on things?

There is no doubt that our three-year government term in New Zealand is limiting our ability to get things done.

Gary Carter, Gulf Harbour.

Treaty signing: who misunderstood?

In reply to Ian Young of Pāpāmoa Beach (February 3), regarding the signing of the Treaty, in 1840 Māori chiefs could be excused for their lack of understanding of the English language and laws. The British Governor/politician would have not had that excuse. He knew British law!

Māori signed the te reo version, which they understood, and the Governor signed both. Why would a high-ranking Crown representative be so stupid as to sign a document he did not understand? His rush to sign has certainly had, and continues to have, devastating consequences for tangata whenua and racial divide.

Marie Kaire, Whangārei.

Boycotting US brands worthy sacrifice

I see Canada is removing Jim Beam Bourbon and other American products from supermarket shelves in retaliation for Trump’s impending tariffs. If the US was to impose tariffs on New Zealand, should we be looking to copy Canada?

If we started with Coca-Cola, that would leave a whole aisle empty in every supermarket in the country. Consumers might initially be annoyed at being unable to get their “fizzy fix”. Hopefully they might reflect and feel some comfort that approximately $300 million isn’t going back to the US as profit from these sales.

Then, if Kiwis boycotted McDonald’s, KFC and other American fast foods, that too would have an impact on profits going back to bully-boy Trump and his cronies. Sadly, it’s an idealistic dream and the reality is people are too hooked on fizzy drinks and junk food to make these sacrifices for the good of our country.

Glen Stanton, Mairangi Bay.

Freedom of choice

It is indeed a sad indictment on freedom of choice when a real estate agent is bullied into learning Māori.

In my opinion, this is reverse racism. I am part-Māori myself but believe in freedom of choice.

Fiona Helleur, Milford.

Treaty bill type of litmus paper

Although many see the Treaty Principles Bill as a source of division, anger and strife, I see it more as a type of litmus paper that is revealing something deeply troubling in the underlying chemistry of our country.

Imagine a couple with money troubles in a relationship where, whenever they tried to talk about money there was anger, shouting over the top of each other and even threats of violence. One would have to assume that there were more problems in the relationship than merely money.

In the Treaty Principles Bill, the essence to me seems to be whether the democratically elected Parliament defines the principles, scope and application of the Treaty of Waitangi or whether the courts and other unelected entities continue to do so by adding case law on an ad hoc basis.

Sadly, it seems that as a nation we cannot even have a calm and rational discussion or debate on this topic despite the fact that it is universally accepted that it will not be passed in Parliament.

In communications studies, they say that body language and tone are six times more powerful as the words themselves.

In this national conversation, I find that aspect particularly revealing.

John Christiansen, Mt Albert.