The Weekend Herald headline of April 19 referred to the legal aid total paid on behalf of Luca Fairgray as an “offensive joke” and that is fair comment.
I have no issue with legal aid whatsoever because those who need funded legal representation are certainly entitled to it. But, like any well-intentioned legislation, there can be a problem where possible consequences are not allowed for. With name suppression, I think that an appeal could be made to the next higher court, but if the appeal is quashed, then that’s it. The further two appeals, to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, in this case cost a total of $100,302. And there appears to be a further legal aid bill in process. This should not happen.
Barristers have a responsibility here. After an appeal to the next court fails, the client should be advised that a further appeal will probably be a failure. However, the client has a right to take it further and because it is costing nothing, why not? I can also see why some barristers may not recommend that the client discontinue the action – there is the unlikely chance of success and continuing proceedings is financially advantageous.
Taxpayer money could be spent far more productively.
Warwick Maxwell, Remuera.
Health infrastructure
Next year Christchurch will have a new, state-of-the-art stadium. Everybody who uses it – be they sports teams, entertainers, those selling food and drinks and certainly the spectators going to be entertained – will pay for the privilege. It is an entirely commercial operation. Yet it is funded by Christchurch ratepayers. Presumably, private investors couldn’t see a profit in it.
Meanwhile the Government has announced plans to improve health infrastructure with a $20 billion capital works programme. Everybody using these very welcome improvements will not pay for the privilege. The staff will be paid out of the public purse and the customers/clients/patients will be accessing a free public health system. Yet we are told the Government will look for some of the funding from the private sector. Something that doesn’t generate income cannot generate profit, so the return for the private investors must be built in. Is the return on their investment cheaper for the taxpayer than borrowing the money through a bond issue?
John O’Neill, Dargaville.
State v social housing
There seems to be confusion between state housing and social housing. I think they’re two different concepts.
State housing is owned by the people and accumulates assets and equity for the people, by growing the number of houses while the loans are being repaid. Eventually, the debt will be repaid. Social housing is privately owned by large charities and NGOs.
They’re granted taxpayer funds to build rentals and the people won’t own anything. They’re also given subsidies from taxpayers to subsidise the rents. The housing assets are not owned by the public and are not on the Government’s books.
We will pay subsidies for social housing continuously and forever, but others will grow their assets from public money. The way I see it is that others will own everything and we will own nothing, but will still foot the bill.
Just as we will by giving $2 billion in accommodation subsidies every year without there being any source of targeted revenue for that landlord gift. I think the most viable and cheapest option for the long term is to provide more state housing and not to fritter away money to accumulate assets for others.
How many times have we heard that rent is dead money?
Mary-Ann de Kort, Gisborne.
Resounding Easter message
Congratulations to the Auckland church leaders on their Easter message, which draws attention to the non-violent Māori response at Parihaka to the confiscation of their land.
This example not only mirrors the example of Christ in his death and resurrection, but provides a practical alternative to the continuing hatred and retaliation that characterise the world today.
Chris Barfoot, Glendowie.
