Chris Hipkins (left) and Christopher Luxon in the first leaders' debate on TV1. Photo / TVNZ
Still no detailed tax workings
Well, the first leaders’ debate has come and gone and National still haven’t produced their detailed workings to show how their much-vaunted tax cuts will be paid for. This lack of action on National’s part strengthens the suspicion that many people now hold, which is that no proper calculations were ever done, and all they have are some rough calculations on the back of an envelope. And now it seems that the superannuants, who make up a sizable part of the population, are going to be worse off because they are going to lose the benefits they are now receiving, which add up to more than the tax savings that Chris Luxon is promising them.
David Mairs, Glendowie.
Both leaders lost
Both leaders lost the debate. Neither can be trusted on the unfair tax system: Labour did next-to-nothing about it and can’t be trusted to do so now; National offers to reduce tax for the squeezed middle” without showing credibly how the $14.6 billion cost will be met without more borrowing. Anyway, they both say one thing and do another. On housing, both pretend that building more houses and state rentals alone is the solution, without addressing the crucial affordability issue for either first-home buyers or renters. On the main public services, National has a woeful record of persistent under-funding while Labour has failed to show anything like satisfactory progress, with many services now grossly under-performing. Neither leader enunciated a clear strategy to improve New Zealand’s overall economic performance and its sustainability, or how to tackle the big three: inflation and the cost of living, the worsening and huge trade deficit, and genuine long-term debt reduction.
Denis O’Rourke, Christchurch.
Luxon the winner
I am someone who has traditionally voted Labour. However, I respectfully suggest that Christopher Luxon was the winner in Tuesday night’s TV1 political debate. I perceive pushback around co-governance and think whilst the Pākehā population accept a revitalisation of the Māori language, they are not happy having everything changed. Personally I prefer “Auckland” to “Tamaki Makaurau”. I also prefer the word “police” to “pirihamana”. Now Chippy and his Government missed a golden opportunity to implement either a Capital Gains Tax or a Wealth Tax while they held office. With them likely to lose the election, it could be a decade before this chance arises again. National and Act never will as they want to preserve the gap between rich and poor, rather than reduce it.
Glen Stanton, Mairangi Bay.
Refusal to answer
As a result of the leaders’ debate, it confirms that self-appointed Emperor of the business world, Christopher Luxon, has no clothes. His repeated refusal to answer valid questions concerning the National Party’s tax policy leads me to believe he is trying to sell a policy which has no foundation in reality, much like the fairy tale. I hate to see New Zealanders falling for this when there is no substance to carry this promise.
Claire Bradley, Torbay.
Economic credibility
Luxon’s problem when he criticises Labour’s budgeting as a shambles, for those who remember, is not only referring to the previous National Government’s performance. It goes against international forums on Covid outcomes referring to the handling of inflation, the cost-of-living crisis, keeping GDP afloat, and keeping everyone employed. New Zealand being right up there with the very best of all OECD countries hardly lends credibility to his “shambles” assertion. When you look at National’s last economic Budget blowout, Nicola Willis with a degree in literature as financial adviser, if elected, hardly inspires confidence. It should be patently obvious who should be in charge of the nation’s economy.
Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay.
Absentee landlords
It’s astounding that National’s plan to sell our houses to wealthy foreigners is accepted by their supporters, when it’s so wrong in so many ways. Absentee landlords are even worse than local ones, if the empty house in my street is anything to go by. They lose interest in maintenance and take a dwelling away from someone who needs it. And the National Party will use the proceeds of the tax they collect, not to improve our underfunded hospitals and medical services, but to spray it about so people can spend more money, fuelling inflation. Shallow, short-sighted policies such as this could cause long-term damage when we can least afford it, socially and economically.
V.M. Fergusson, Mt Eden.
Ideas for politicians
As we argue about being soft or hard on crime, why not make it more difficult for criminals to profit from crime? Do away with $50 and $100 notes, and make it illegal to sell expensive items for cash. As well as banning sugary drinks in schools, and educating people, and wondering if we can afford free dental care, why not legislate a maximum sugar content for soft drinks? This tackles dental health and obesity, and it’s free. Instead of selling expensive houses to overseas buyers to raise revenue, why not sell them expensive land, where they could build a house? This wouldn’t affect the supply or price of existing homes. Instead of giving money to wealthy people to help them buy electric cars, why not put solar panels on state houses? Instead of trying to get people to stop smoking, just ban filter tips. Filters don’t make cigarettes safer, they just pollute our environment.
Chris Elias, Mission Bay.
Big decisions to make
On October 14, both Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand have very important decisions to make which will affect the futures of both countries markedly. Australia has the Voice to Parliament referendum, whether to allow the country’s indigenous people to have a say in how their own affairs are addressed rather than having people who have no engagement with, or vital interest in their culture, ruling matters for them. This is a disgrace on the part of Australian governments which only deigned to acknowledge the First Nation as citizens on 1967. Aotearoa/New Zealand on the other hand has a general election to choose the Government for the next three years. The issue of co-governance is a very divisive one and also echoes much of what the Australian indigenous people face. In both countries, there are parties which believe we should retain the status quo. Will both countries engage, listen and learn from these First Nations that all their history and knowledge is relevant to the continued success of our current and future homelands? Who we vote for speaks volumes about each of us. We need tothink very carefully before we cast our vote.
Jeremy Coleman, Hillpark.
Wilson’s views
Simon Wilson’s article (Herald, September 19) was a masterful piece of work, clearly laying out the misinformation being promulgated by the National Party and their sidekicks in the Act Party. The tax cuts offered by Luxon remind me of Robert Muldoon’s actions in 1975, when he offered a universal superannuation package, which swung the election from Labour. The following nine years of the Muldoon Government were a complete disaster, with wage and price controls at the sorry end. However, the emphasis on climate change policy was even more impressive. While climate action in New Zealand may not have a huge impact on global warming, we as a country will be able to hold our heads up high, and show the way for other countries. It is too late to carry on with a “business-as-usual” approach.
Errol Anderson, Ponsonby.
I have to say that I’m shocked by Simon Wilson’s article, “Why business should vote Green”. Seriously, I think Simon needs to look at what policies the Greens want to bring to the table. Their focus is more about socialism. The biggest problem in New Zealand politics is minor parties wanting to be part of everything. Unfortunately the Green Party isn’t solely about climate change or the environment and that is exactly what we need as an alternative for any serious action to occur. A party that just focused on the environment and climate change would definitely get my vote and, I have no doubt, that of other New Zealanders, but the party also needs to work with both major parties rather than just one in order to make effective change. Maybe in 2026 we will actually have an opportunity to vote for such a party?
Darren Young, Pāpāmoa
Campaign amnesia
It would be advisable for the public to lock up their babies and reach for the antacids, because all the meat pies and gelato being consumed, along with the campaign sideshow, is enough to make anyone bilious. I do wonder if all the political parties are under the naive assumption that New Zealanders have developed, along with indigestion, amnesia over the past 15 years over the concerning state of the country. Miraculously, there now seems to be more funding for extra medical personnel, cancer drugs, free dentistry, tax cuts, and infrastructure remediation. I appreciate there must be a certain amount of bombast on the campaign trail, but when did the two major political parties assume their fellow Kiwis were gullible and undiscerning? Inevitably, cynicism sets in, and we deserve some straight talking, not shallow affability and promises that may never happen. Maybe the babies are fooled, but the grown-ups aren’t.
Mary Hearn, Glendowie.
Women voting then and now
Thank you for your timely editorial honouring the 130th anniversary of New Zealand women being able to vote in parliamentary elections. Many New Zealand women worked hard for this to be achieved. Here in sunny Gisborne, Margaret Sievwright was part of Kate Sheppard’s team. We can only admire their dedication and hard work getting the petition signed by so many women when transport and communications were a challenge. When checking the petition, I was very pleased to read it had been signed by an ancestor of mine, Fanny Sutton. It is so important to remember these women and honour them by always voting. No excuses, we must all vote on October 14.
Barbara Barwick, Te Tairāwhiti-Gisborne.
Violent attacks
After each and every violent attack or homicide in Auckland of late, the reassurance from police is that it was an “isolated incident”, and that is meant to placate the public so that we can go on about our daily lives and not feel unsafe in our own city. I’m sorry, but I am not buying the isolated incident mantra anymore. What we are seeing in our country is a symptom of great social discontent, and in that sense, all these violent crimes are linked. Approximately 16 years ago, Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill was passed into legislation. I believe we are seeing the fruit of that legislation now, when undisciplined, entitled young people are running around stabbing people, ram-raiding our local shops, and generally having a complete lack of regard for their communities and the people who live in them. We need to focus our attention on building social cohesion as a tonic to the recalcitrant attitudes we are seeing ruining our cities.
John Deyell, Ellerslie
Health roles
In response to Emeritus Professor Davis’ article, “Politicians find common ground on healthcare”, I agree that now is the time to think creatively and constructively about some very real deficiencies in the New Zealand healthcare system. Although the debate on the need for more doctors and nurses will continue, I propose that there also exists in New Zealand a mismatch in health roles that will not be solved by having more of the same professions at play. This is particularly true for both rural communities and the need to address Māori health disparities. I base this on my experience of working in rural Alaska native communities, which utilise a community-based workforce, known as Community Health Aide Practitioners, trained to be the “eyes, ears and hands of physicians”, with the ability to work remotely. This provider model of care has been proven to address healthcare staffing shortages, and recruitment and retention of staff, in underserved areas which were too small to support physician practices or mid-level providers. When used with appropriate telehealth-based systems, studies have shown increased access to healthcare and decreased wait times, with overall improved effectiveness and cost savings throughout the entire health system.
Don Lemieux, Podiatrist, Te Kūiti.
Auckland bureaucracy
I was informed by the Auckland Council to compost food scraps and do. We have no bone or seashell waste. Our compost nurtures our vegetable garden. Now we have an unwanted food waste bin foisted upon us without say or choice. It is a dictatorial, expensive nuisance. Additionally, Auckland Transport requested feedback on removing the safe Lloyd Avenue pedestrian railway crossing. Because I have no internet provider due to extensive travelling, I telephoned Auckland Transport twice, way ahead of deadline, for appropriate submission forms. They never arrived. Same with the reconstruction of Carrington Road when advisory letters were sent to residents with no pamphlet inclusion as stated. Does this mean that all matters by the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are already autocratically acquired or appropriated, even approved in advance and do not require public opinion, being effectively pre-empted? I understandably question supposed due process, and despair.
Michael Eagle, Mt Albert
On the debate
Christopher wants free school lunches in all schools? You’re kidding? Christopher wants bilingual road signs (amazing) and would have opened up New Zealand to Covid after one year? It took 18 months for many 80-year-olds to get vaccinated and nurses were only just vaccinated after one year. This politician can’t be serious? After one year, many elderly would have been decimated, our hospitals and morgues choked with sick and dying. Has he forgotten or is he just too dangerous to be the PM? Steve Russell, Hillcrest.
On the debate moderator
If Jessica Mutch McKay let the party leaders finish their view on the topics raised, rather than interrupting them and vaguely pushing her own views, the voting public may be better informed. John Roberts, Remuera.
Congratulations to Jessica Mutch McKay for a well-moderated debate. She asked good questions and allowed us to hear the answers. It was very professional. J. Hansen, Hastings.
On statespeople
Ian Doube says we haven’t had a statesman for many years, I agree, but we had a highly-respected and influential political leader just last year, a great stateswoman!! Mike Crosby, Papakura.
On Auckland Airport
Agreeing with John Little, Auckland Airport pick-up and drop-off is an international joke. Firstly, it’s so small that only about 24 cars can stop at any time, and trying to leave with those uncontrolled pedestrian crossings is a nightmare. It’s like they don’t want tourists on their premises. Randel Case, Bucklands Beach.
On paying for services
As the song says, “everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die”. In the same vein, everybody wants more hospitals, doctors and services, better roads and more police, but nobody wants to pay for them. Richard Alspach, Dargaville.
Who won TVNZ leaders’ debate? The verdicts on Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon
I thought Chris Luxon did well. Interesting Hipkins and the moderator referred to him as Christopher, a concerted effort I thought to paint him as more aloof. Anyway, key message for him to make in next debate: tax cuts allow people to keep more of the money they earn and choose how they want to spend it or not. Kath H.
It seems last night’s debate has put to bed the critics of Chris Luxon. Compared to Chris Hipkins, who has never left the political arena to do anything else , you have your answer for putting this country back on track. Chris Luxon, a man with worldwide experience and proven business acumen. David J.
If Luxon was a car salesman, would you buy a car from him? Gotta give it to him and his cohorts, for when someone says, “show us your evidence that your tax numbers work”, the standard go-to answer is “trust me”. Car salesman. When the question posed is, “where are your cuts going to be applied to Government spending”, it’s “no comment”. And when directly asked, “how are you going to control Seymour and Peters”, it’s a glazed look of: “I have no idea.” Brendon R.
Well, after watching the two “leaders”, I’m now an undecided. The quickfire shows little difference, maybe only in the delivery. If nothing changes, nothing changes. Maybe time to promote some of the smaller parties up the rankings. Honestly, I don’t know anymore. I was disappointed in what was on display. Paul S.
Did the journalists here think C. Luxon won because he never stopped talking and just talked over the top of the moderator, and C. Hipkins - that’s “being assertive”? Those who think the main parties are too much alike are mistaken. A National coalition will do nothing about climate change (they’ve promised to meet the reductions target but won’t say how because they haven’t worked it out yet), sell off our houses to foreigners when there is a housing shortage, inflame house prices, return tenants to living in dumps. John B.
Luxon was fluent and had obviously spent hours practising his lines. It almost sounded genuine at times. Hipkins - and the moderator - let him drone on and on endlessly. My eyelids grew heavy. Hipkins was disappointing. He seldom challenged Luxon’s dribble. Has he given up? And thousands of former Labour supporters - like me - will have groaned in despair as he once again promised no real change to our unfair tax structures will ever take place on his watch. I reckon Luxon edged the battle of the bores. Alfred T.
