National Party MP for East Coast Bays and spokesperson for education and immigration Erica Stanford. Photo / Mark Mitchell, File
National strategy
National and Labour are polling neck and neck (NZ Herald, May 15), with Te Pāti Māori potential kingmakers. If we compare Christopher Luxon’s lack of traction with that of Andrew Little, together with Jacinda Ardern’s rescuing of the Labour leadership, it is not hard to chart an option to success for National. They need to swallow another bitter pill and front Erica Stanford as their leader. She is erudite, quick thinking, and pleasant in her demeanour. She gives the Government credit where it is deserved (rather than criticising no matter what) and she puts up proposals on how to better serve the country. Both National and Labour governments have neglected major necessary enhancements to health, education, policing, transport, and housing. John Key (Christopher Luxon’s shoulder-tapper) repeatedly denied that we had a housing crisis. Had he encouraged growth in the building industries, we could have had a gradual expansion of their productivity to avoid the building capacity deficits we now have.
Hugh Webb, Huntington.
Throwing money
This week is Budget week. Political focus and media focus will be on the Government’s spending plan. Monetary allocations will be debated. Government money is essential to what the country wants and needs; but that money, any money, is not sufficient to meet those needs. Allocating money to education will not reduce class sizes or improve educational standards. Allocating money to health will not reduce waiting lists for elective surgery. Government spending by itself will not repair flood damage, build new houses or insulate old houses. Allocating money to transport will not rebuild bridges or repair damaged roading. Most of the things that most of us want require funds. But they also require labour, materials, expertise and management. The annual Budget process can only provide funds. And funds are not enough to do what needs doing.
Peter D Graham, Helensville.
Shock and Gore
In Gore, we have the classic case of a new mayor wanting to do the job but finding himself butting his head against councillor/chief executive “political gaming”. I have experience as a systems investigator for three years at one council. Most council members have no concept of governance, strategic planning, direction, and accountability. Very few, if any, have any experience in managing multi-faceted megamillion-dollar organisations. All want to run the council on a day-to-day basis and council committee structures facilitate this. Firstly, councils are too big. Mayor Wayne Brown of Auckland correctly advises downsizing. Secondly, committees generally meet only once a month, thus building in inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. Thirdly, chief executives, instead of running the place and getting things done, spend the majority of their time writing reports that go to and from the monthly committees, thus reducing themselves to highly-overpaid chief clerks. The Gore CEO seems to fit this perfectly. Twenty-three years as CEO but only one year’s experience 23 times. Fourthly, councillors never seem to set accountable deadlines for projects. A deadline missed merely attracts another report. It appears the only Gore council vote of no confidence should be in the CEO.
Ian McPherson, Birkenhead.
Performance pay
Performance pay seems a no-brainer to Mike Hosking (NZ Herald, May 11). However, this has been discredited in studies where equity provision and the highest standards are achieved by other means - without unintended consequences of decline of sharing, blowouts of budgets (predicated on a minority meeting eventually published criteria), and even teacher cheating - all findings in the 1980s US performance pay “Baltimore experiment”. Instead, why not Finland’s solution that produces both equity and excellence: all teachers must have entry-level research MAs? Finland’s professional development model makes teaching second only to doctors in desirability (by attracting only the smartest, all are highly competent), raises expertise in academic subjects, ensures equity provision, and gives a basis for rewarding all teachers appropriately. The Harvard Business Review (two separate articles in 2013) also panned performance pay because “it lacks precision, is open to manipulation by both parties, distracts employees from more important goals, undermines intrinsic motivation, and there are cheaper ways to motivate employees”.
Steve Liddle, Napier.
Head of the class
The Government is promising more classrooms for schools but with the shortage of teachers, and teachers wanting more pay, who is going to staff the new rooms? Teacher strikes seem to be never-ending so how can extra classrooms work effectively? Extra classrooms mean more teaching staff to fill them. Pay the teachers more, train them more effectively with basic facts and skills, and then we will have more educators to fill the new classrooms.
Marilyn Cure, Pāpāmoa.
False Act accounting
David Seymour (NZ Herald, May 15) provides a well-argued case for a comprehensive change to government spending in New Zealand. While I wouldn’t necessarily agree with all of his priorities, the idea of reining in the Government’s role in the economy will gain wide and deserved support. However, we need to discuss these things from a factual base. Seymour’s contention that the $4 billion of savings recently announced represents only 0.8 of 1 per cent of overall spending doesn’t seem to bear scrutiny. It would require an overall government spend of $400 billion. The first quarter of 2022 was reported as a record spend at $15.169 billion and, since then, the following quarters have slightly reduced. It still represents an eye-watering amount of money but nowhere near the sum that Seymour’s figures suggest.
John O’Neill, Dargaville.
Bank on that
James Archibald (NZ Herald, May 15) references our four main banks as examples where “competition” isn’t working to benefit customers. There’s a very good reason for this. All overseas-owned, they are only branches, tasked with extracting as much profit out of New Zealand as possible for their international owners and shareholders. There is a “cartel” mindset here, that by collectively maintaining their pricing at similarly higher levels, the resultant profits will, in turn, be as high as possible for all of them. It’s working. Those profits total more than a billion dollars a year. This is money they’re taking out of our NZ economy, that we have to re-earn every year from our exports. How much is this regularly contributing to our national debt figure annually, as a result? More than $10 billion every decade. It’s of a much greater fiscal concern than the costs of this Labour Government’s policies to improve rapid transport or light rail, mentioned by Archibald. They are not “unaffordable distractions for the few”. These measures are intended to reduce traffic congestion and combat climate change (thus contributing to people’s overall “wellbeing”.
Clyde Scott, Birkenhead.
Raising take
Your correspondent (NZ Herald, May 15) under the heading of “National hiked GST” complained that GST rates were increased by a National government in 1989 and 2010 but fails to mention that following both these dates we have had Labour governments that took no action to reverse the GST. Instead, these governments searched for other means of increasing the tax-take. The latest being a blatant attempt to buy votes accusing the “rich pricks” of not paying their fair share.
Trevor Stevens, Pukekohe.
Getting rich
Recent criticism of the rich in this country, that they should be taxed more to give to the poor, is disingenuous. Most rich people by definition will be the older generation as it takes that length of time of diligent application to accrue larger sums of money. Usually, big risks and big hours over their lifetime, and not all will succeed. Why should they be expected to give that away to the less advantaged who may not be working by choice, those just starting out, or those that maybe have made poor lifestyle choices? Would the critics prefer that everyone was equally poor? If the goal is to get everyone out of poverty, dragging the rich down won’t achieve that, but lifting the poor from their current circumstance would. This is one of the easiest countries in the world to get ahead but one must apply oneself.
Jeff Berge, Takanini.
Comparable cities
I have to take issue with Gary Hollis’ assertions on why Auckland is a better world city that Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. All are beautiful, world-class cities; a pleasure to live in for those lucky enough to have that privilege. However, the latter three have their own special features. These include world-class shopping and cuisine, well superior to anything Auckland can offer. Their transport systems; Melbourne’s trams, Sydney’s underground train system linking to the above-ground system. Sydney’s harbour and beaches at the very least match anything Auckland can offer and, of course, we are far behind Brisbane’s very accessible Gold Coast beaches. As for sports facilities, Auckland lags well behind all three, especially Melbourne. Hollis mentioned our volcanic cones and their beautiful views. He is quite right, however access to these is restricted to the young and the fit; cars no longer being allowed. As for our parks, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane are every bit Auckland’s equal. Add in Sydney’s magnificent Darling Harbour. We have nothing like it. Despite my comments, I am a New Zealand citizen. A proud, two-eyed Aucklander who loves living here.
Philip Lenton, Somerville.
Preferred PM
The fact we have 8.9 per cent of voters that prefer Jacinda Ardern as PM raises questions as to the political awareness within the public sphere. Sure, anyone can be preferred as a PM. However, polls are predicated on - and presented as - having a validity to their likely outcome. Yet, based on her personal decision, there is no possibility for Ardern to be PM. This raises questions as to the wider validity of poll results. Can we truly trust polls that aren’t based on a realistic understanding of politics? If respondents to polls are not going to be realistic in their preferences, how much credibility can we place on any poll? In the end, only one poll matters, and that will decide what is politically real and preferred.
Paul Hamilton, Dunedin.
Going spare
Last week I drove through a large pothole that destroyed the front left-hand tyre on my new car. I have been driving from Taupō to Tauranga every day for the last four weeks and was aware of the appalling deterioration of our national highways. I tried to memorise and avoid the potholes but this pothole won. My car was the 20th vehicle with a tyre destroyed by potholes that my tyre repair shop had repaired last week. Readers should be aware that many modern cars and all EVs do not have a spare tyre. Minor punctures are repaired by injecting sealant, but tyres destroyed by impact with a pothole will need towing to a repair shop. I would like to offer the following for our policy-makers: all new cars must be supplied with a spare tyre; improve the railway network and introduce policies to maximise the use of trains for heavy freight; abandon the feebate on EVs and make all EV owners pay road user charges; reallocate savings to road maintenance; continuously inspect our national roads and temporarily repair all small potholes before they destroy tyres. If a pothole cannot be repaired, it should be highlighted with cones and signage.
Paul Taylor, Taupō.
On PMs
Maybe TV appeal/presence in front of a camera is not the most important skill for a prime minister. Lucas Bonné, Unsworth Heights.
On carbon
Carbon tax operates on the same plane as carbon itself. The tax is tasteless and its benefits are invisible but unlike odourless carbon, something about the carbon tax stinks. Mark Lewis-Wilson, Mangonui.
On mail
Most superannuitants would be aware their pension payments have increased and the Winter Energy Payment has kicked in. Sending letters to every individual informing them of this is another waste of taxpayers’ money. Wendy Tighe-Umbers, Parnell.
On regions
Many regions were beneficiaries of Shane Jones’ regional development fund. Projects in Kawerau and Ōpōtiki were just two and the fund was about the best and most progressive thing that the Labour/NZ First government ever did. Bill Gibson, Kawerau.
On Act
Richard Prebble (NZH, May 12) should be aware that, to most thinking women, policies are far more important than charisma. Jackie Evans, Rotorua.
On te reo
If we had honoured Te Tiriti at the time, we would have had 183 years to incorporate tikanga Māori and thus te reo into our lives. The fair and decent thing would be to embrace te reo and stop whinging about the legitimate use of a unique and beautiful language. Fritha Parkes, Māngere.
KiwiSaver ‘panic-switch’ means people are missing out
“Some still aren’t contributing enough.” Yeah. No kidding. But I would say a large percentage of us are contributing as much as we can. I know I am. Matthew B.
The old Kiwi bugbear financial literacy has struck again. Another big problem which will ultimately hit performance over time is the high fees many KiwiSaver providers charge. I have several colleagues who have been conned by marketing strategies to believe their high fees provider has special insight, etc. Some have switched in the past year. Past performance is not always the best indicator of future performance and, over time, the high fees bite into your capital. Kevin B.
Over the years, I have found that the people who charge you for giving you the best information on how and where to invest your money will not entertain profit share/percentage as a means of payment. Roy H.
Possibly this is because there are times when the right fund/investment for their client will lose money due to market fluctuations that are out of their control. During those times the advisor’s family still needs to eat, the mortgage still needs to be paid etc. When you find an advisor who magically knows the exact time to get out of the market, and just as importantly the exact time to get back in to avoid any losses and not miss out on any gains, please let me know. Doug B.
Stuff “ethical”. My best performers at the moment are Aerospace and Defence funds. Craig W.
Balanced fund all the way. You’ll be the richest in the grave too. John Y.
He is charged with killing Michelle Schiller, Jessie Currin and Glendon Currin.