Your views, August 1-15

I disagree with TV3 and other so-called free media proponents. The actions of the court were entirely appropriate. Why should a TV station decide which messages are going to be heard by the electorate? The democratic alternative is to allow voters to hear messages and then let them decide for themselves who should be in Parliament. TV3's original decision, apparently decided on the basis of polling differences that were well within the likely statistical error, was undemocratic and ignored the media's crucial role in allowing people to hear what parties offer. To suggest that TV3 should be "free" to manipulate our democratic process in this way is fatuous. I am unlikely to ever vote for Jim Anderton's or Peter Dunne's parties. But to paraphrase a wise man, I will defend to the death their right to be heard through the media.
- Euan Mason, Christchurch, 15.08.05

* * *

In the United States, televised leaders' debates are sponsored by the League of Women voters and events are decided on (format, date and so on) by the participating parties. All TV stations are then allowed to broadcast them if they choose. That makes it a media event. A Herald editorial on the High Court ruling erred when it said that: "His [Justice Ron Young] focus should have been on the freedom of the media to cover political events as they see fit, and the rights of private companies to make their own decisions". The problem is that this is not a political event. If it was, all the stations would have been allowed to broadcast it. It is simply a TV show. The US has a fairness in broadcasting act, which means media companies cannot show favouritism towards one party or candidate. The judge in this case is doing effectively the same thing.
- Eric Rowe, Swanson, 15.08.05

* * *

It comes as no surprise that the self-serving media are bleating about the High Court's decision to force TV3 to include the United Future and Progressives Parties in its leaders' debate. All the arguments put forward by the media, including those in a Herald editorial, fail on one critical point. The view that the legal system should not interfere with the media is sanctimonious. No institution, organisation or person is above the law, and that includes the media. The role of the media is to inform, and it is the public's role to decide. Hence, if the information presented by the media is not fair to the point that the public's freedom to decide is hindered, the media can and should be called to account. The argument that this decision interferes with press freedom is a smokescreen. The decision draws a line in the sand: the media has also to be fair, the one characteristic that has been missing for far too long.
- M. Boardman, One Tree Hill, 15.08.05

* * *

National and New Zealand First feel they are onto a winning ticket with their potential reforms to immigration policy. But the way that Don Brash has implied that refugees are a drain on the economy demonstrates ignorance of the difficulties they face. Most refugees come here because they have no choice. They may have never held passports, have lived in transit for long periods, and have been forced from their country of origin by a well-founded fear of persecution or death. Yes, as Dr Brash alluded, most refugees continue to be supported by the Government for the first five years of resettlement. But there are many cases where children of refugees are achieving at high levels. These children will contribute to the future well-being of New Zealand, and we need to support them, not make them scapegoats in political campaigns.
- Liz Nicholls, St Marys Bay, 15.08.05

* * *

National should let the public know before the election what its real plans are for health because the noises it is making are quite disturbing. As someone who has worked and saved hard over the years to give me more than national superannuation, it looks as though National will now penalise me by abolishing the GP subsidy. Under National I may have to go back to paying over $50 for a doctor's visit instead of the $25 I now pay, plus low prescription charges. Don Brash needs to come clean about his real agenda for health.
- P. Hill, Parnell, 15.08.05

* * *

As a newspaper journalist for most of the years between the 1940s and 1980s, I was involved in numerous parliamentary elections, and our coverage of each campaign was marked by scrupulous fairness in the space each candidate and each party was accorded. In other words, the media maintained a sturdy impartiality in its news columns and left expressions of bias to the editorials and letters to the editor. It is surprising, therefore, to see sections of today's media springing to the defence of TV3's wrong decision to leave two party leaders out of its debate. Particularly two who have played a more significant role in recent government than some of those who were on the original panel. The argument that a private firm has the right to do what it likes is, in the case of a TV station aimed at as many viewers as it can attract, perplexing. The newspapers I worked for were privately owned, aimed to attract as many readers as they could but did not, as responsible, fair-minded communicators, do what they liked in matters such as giving the public an even-handed balance of political opinion.This issue should never have reached the courts because TV3, in the first place, should never have displayed such arrogance.
- Garth Gilmour, Milford, 13.08.05

* * *

New Zealanders should be very concerned at Justice Ron Young's decision on the TV3 debate. Since when have the courts had the right to interfere with editorial decisions? I thought we had a free press in this supposedly democratic country. Obviously not. The media does no always get it right. But it should be free to get it wrong. New Zealanders should be aware that this decision sets a dangerous and worrying precedent. A state-controlled press could be next.
- Alan Hitchens, Pauanui, 13.08.05

* * *

TV3 should grow up. Excluding United Future from its leaders' debate, which is a major source of voting information for the public, was indefensible. United Future is in government, will be in government next term, is the only minor party able and willing to work with both major parties - and is the preferred coalition partner for National and Labour. To exclude it was arrogant or stupid. To complain about the High Court decision is both. TV3 is a news service. It has an ethical and moral responsibility to use its influence appropriately.
- Steven Dromgool, Northcote,13.08.05

* * *

Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne clearly demonstrated their contempt for private enterprise and a free press by challenging Canwest legally so they could be included in the debate. Voters should be deeply concerned that two self-proclaimed political leaders would compromise the Judiciary by bringing such an action. Justice Ron Young, finding in their favour, has proven that the judicial system has become a beast capable of bold political activism that tramples on even the most basic principles of democracy and freedom.
It is time for voters to send a clear message to the civil servants who seem determined to become our dictators. We must vote for new leadership which will respect our democratic freedoms and overhaul a Judiciary that is spiralling out of control and becoming a law unto itself.
- Matthew Crockett, Auckland Central, 13.08.05

* * *

It was inevitable that the Herald, with its overseas ownership, should support TV3, also of overseas ownership, on the issue of who was entitled to participate in the television debate.The media may rumble on about freedom of the press and the right of private companies to make whatever decisions they choose. But New Zealand is still a sovereign country, and we claim the right to determine how our democracy shall operate. Overseas companies have no right to make arbitrary decisions on which New Zealand politicians shall be heard. Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne had every right to be there. The judge got it right.
- Mike Kelly, Ellerslie, 13.08.05

* * *

Regarding his High Court victory, Peter Dunne remarked: "What its implications are for the future obviously is something that all of us will need to think about in the cold light of day." I am aghast that a senior lawmaker has such a cavalier, reactionary, self-serving attitude to the legal consequences of his actions. He has selfishly and recklessly gained short-term exposure at the expense of the democratic principle of freedom of the press.How appropriate that he is dependent on "worms" to get elected.
- Bruce Williams, Kingsland, 13.08.05

* * *

Don Brash is always saying that he wants New Zealand to catch up with Australia economically. The fact that my annual remuneration package in Australia is about NZ$76,000, whereas in New Zealand it would be $55,000, is emblematic of the gap he and the National Party hope to bridge. But National's immigration policy - whereby immigrants have to undertake four years of probation - is just going to widen the gap between the two Tasman countries. No skilled person will want to come to New Zealand when in Australia you can get citizenship in just two years. New Zealand will continue to leak 600 persons a week to Australia and nobody will come to replace them. The economic ship will slowly but surely sink.
- Barrie Stephens, Darwin, 12.08.05

* * *

Don Brash says that New Zealanders have had enough of refugees and immigrants coming to New Zealand and living off the benefit. A lot of people have had more than enough of those lucky to be born in New Zealand with the privilege of a free education, a safe and secure community, a stable government, a work environment where if you apply yourself you can succeed, no famine and no wars, yet who still end up on the benefit. So who is really a bigger drain on our benefit system? A relatively small number of refugees and immigrants or the larger number of New Zealanders? Yet again this is an example of targeting a minority for fear of losing the votes of the majority.
- Karl Sievwright, Mt Eden, 12.08.05

* * *

I just read the article headlined "National to chop family reunification numbers", which outlines the party's approach to refugees. As a New Zealander living in China, I become more aware each day of what incredible freedoms we take for granted. National's proposal, in principle, does not bother me. Immigration must be managed, although numbers matter less than quality of integration. What incensed me were quotes from Don Brash about refugees "who ... go straight on a benefit", followed by "we do not want those who insist on their right to spit in the street, or to practise female circumcision". Let's not mix up immigration, refugee, and culture issues. Most who seek refugee status want to escape persecution and human rights abuses that most New Zealanders would only ever encounter in nightmares. If New Zealanders wish a society free from stoning, have it through open dialogue. Open discussion in our society supports freedom of expression internationally, which, in the long term, supports our own freedoms, rather than creating societies from which we, too, could one day seek refuge.
- Katie Larsen, Beijing, 12.08.05

* * *

It is sad to see political leaders competing to show who has the most discriminatory and racist immigration policy. Don Brash, in order to get some of the racist vote, now wants to check on the spitting habits of immigrants. Does this mean prospective immigrants will be questioned on their toilet habits?Imagine the reaction of professionals or businesspeople who want to invest here when they are informed of the New Zealand policy on spitting. After they get over this hurdle, they will be on probation for four years. Do they have to wear an armband to show the National Party that they are under observation by the spitting force? Will they be branded on the forehead to get four ticks to be good citizens? If National has no relevant policies to convince voters, it should keep its dignity by not trying to outshine Winston Peters on the racist score. Immigration should be discussed, but with dignity and honour for all concerned. New Zealand must not allow immigrants, new or old, to be humiliated by this type of political grandstanding.
- Dr Upali Manu, Epsom, 11.08.05

* * *

For a man with a foreign-born wife, Don Brash seems happy to try and appeal to the small segment who do not like foreigners. The fact is that immigration is healthy for the country, and National, by couching its immigration policy in terms like probation, will make new immigrants feel they are being treated like criminals. One suspects this policy is designed to make it easier to sell out to Winston Peters once the election is over. If this kind of immigration policy comes into effect, it will be a terrible burden on our economy and standard of living.
- Stephen Cooper, Devonport, 11.08.05

* * *

I hope National does not overlook the opportunity to catch votes from low-income earners as it ponders its soon-to-be-announced tax cuts. There is a rumour that National considers these voters to be in the too-hard basket, which is mystifying. There are a whole lot of viable options, including, for example, no tax on the first, say, $10,000 earned. It is not even radical; the United States and Australia have policies like this. National needs to think outside the square, and it needs to realise the potential of an attractive tax policy for low-income voters. A cardinal rule in business is know what your customers want and give it to them. The average person on a low or median income (most of the electorate) wants meaningful tax cuts immediately. If National can deliver this, it can govern.
- Ben Cook, Remuera, 11.08.05

* * *

How on Earth could the sort of migrants we want be put off coming to New Zealand if they have to conduct themselves in an honest and law-abiding way?  In fact, I would have thought the sort we wanted would be pleased at National's immigration policy because they will have less chance of being tarred with the same brush as any dishonest, law-breaking countryman or woman.
The three migrant representatives quoted in the Herald are out of touch with reality. For migrants to be respected they must also respect their adoptive country, and that means being honest, hard-working and law-abiding.
As for the four-year timeframe, I lived more than five years in another country to become a resident. This length of time did not bother me one bit because I knew I would not commit a crime and I would be hard-working and contribute to that country. Furthermore, there was no social welfare available. For those it would deter, we can only assume four years is too long to remain honest and law-abiding. Good things come to those who wait.
- S. Gibbons, Campbells Bay, 10.08.2005

* * *

Let's get tougher on those immigrants. I mean why do we need all that foreign expertise and currency coming into New Zealand? All it does is push real estate values up to that of other developed nations; that is unlike the New Zealand way of life. Let the skilled immigrants go to Australia or Canada; it is easier for them to get in there and they are more accepting than us. And these countries have more to offer to professionals, at least monetarily. Of the ones we decide to let in, let's put them on probation for four years, never mind the fact that they have had to go through rigorous police clearances from every country they have lived in and the exhaustive medical and academic scrutiny they have had to endure to qualify for so-called permanent residence. We cannot risk this skilled lot committing any fraud or crime, never mind that they make up only a negligible percentage of those in our jails. And let's all vote for xenophobic policies, so we can stop "foreign invasion" and go back to the 1800s, just the way we are supposed to be.
- Ken Khatib, Albany, 10.08.05

* * *

I cannot see why National's plan to introduce a probationary period for immigrants has raised a storm in some quarters. I can understand adverse comment from immigration consultants - they are concerned about their bank accounts - but I fail to follow the reasoning of others. If people wish to come to this country, keeping their noses clean is no real hardship. No one will get knocked back for parking in the wrong place. Any real criminals will be repatriated to their homeland, which makes a lot of sense. We can breed our own without importing them. And what is the problem with Dr Manying Ip? The early settlers wanted to make this country a Britain of the Pacific but better. What is wrong with that? Most of the institutions that make this a great place to live were imported from Britain. Perhaps some would prefer New Zealand to be a province of China, although I doubt it. People come here because it offers a stable political system among other advantages.
- Pat Carter, New Lynn, 10.08.05

* * *

The National Party proposes four years' good conduct probation for immigrants. In the interests of fairness, I propose the same system for MPs for three years. This may help to avoid situations where, for example, a politician might use parliamentary privilege to make accusations against immigrants, indeed a soft touch, and then failing to front when those they accuse are prepared to put themselves on the line. Such provision for MPs and those of their ilk would surely sort out the troublemakers.
- Richard Mayes, Te Atatu Peninsula, 10.08.05

* * *

Your Bondi correspondent Rewi Sinclair's praise of the Clark student loan carrot shows a narrow-minded outlook. In the past six years, where has there been any "give" to hardworking taxpayers? With an election on our doorstep, isn't it interesting that an under-pressure Government miraculously finds $300 million to buy a few votes, including that of our own Mr Bondi. I suggest he try living in New Zealand and dealing with the burden of petrol taxes, the NCEA, a health system run by an ever-increasing bureaucracy and a skyrocketing welfare-dependent population, before he comments on our country.
- Gregor Bell, Kingsland, 10.08.2005

* * *

Two or three months ago the Finance Minister said "oil prices appear to have peaked, so the Government will add a further tax for road construction" ... on top of those already collected since the 1950s. How wrong could Michael Cullen have been? The motorist has been hit with almost weekly price rises since. The oil companies continue to make bumper profits and the Government creams off GST. When is the Government going to help ordinary families by not raking in more GST with every fuel price increase or use the tax to cushion ever-rising fuel costs? Does the Finance Minister worry? Why should he, when his and other politicians' tank top-ups are at the taxpayers' expense?
- Wilton Willis, Birkenhead, 09.08.05

* * *

Your correspondent Shane Dobson's statement about the United States being the most aggressive nation in modern times is not backed by evidence. The facts are that when the US has intervened militarily, it has been as an act of liberation, rather than to perpetuate aggression. Shane Dobson also seems to think that under our present Government, which has so weakened the country's defences, we are safe from terrorism. This is obviously in line with Helen Clark's observation that there is no perceived threat in the region. We can be thankful that the infamous attacks of September 11 occurred in the United States, a country that was prepared to reassess the rising threat of terrorism and respond accordingly. Any other response would have left the whole world a ransom to Islamic terrorism.
- R.J. Biss, Mangere, 09.08.05

* * *

I have been surprised at some of the public response to Labour's interest-free loan policy, which many seem to see as a public rort. The facts are that the student loan scheme allows students to borrow only course fees that are paid directly to the institution. Students are also allowed to borrow about $150 a week (no lump sums) during term time for living costs. This is not a lot of money on which to live, especially in Auckland, and students are the only section of our community who are expected to borrow to live. Others who cannot work or do not want to work are eligible for a benefit. That a minority may abuse the system to obtain a small monetary benefit not intended is a reality in many areas of modern government. This does not mean the system is not effective, and repayments are compulsory once the small repayment threshold is reached. It should also be remembered that most successful tertiary students will be employed full-time, with many paying the highest tax rates, and will more than adequately repay any public investment in their education and the education of others during their working life.
- Christian Brown, New Lynn, 09.08.05

* * *

Correspondents have commented that students who accept loans and then put the money towards a house deposit are in some way stealing from the state. What this all comes back to is the "morality" of accepting unneeded state benefits. The ambiguity is well illustrated by National Superannuation. If it is seen as a contributory scheme that someone has paid into for many years, one's "need" is irrelevant. One is entitled to a payout. If the scheme is viewed as a benefit, you might say it is "immoral" to take it if you do not need it. Again, what if you have lots of money? Is it a moral imperative to pay extra income tax? Without being asked? Because you don't really need the money? The only way out of this is simply to say that it is not for the individual to have to make these judgments. The state has to structure its help on the basis of need and not rely on people's moral perception (a highly variable thing). And a party that offers interest-free loans as an election bribe cannot really be said to be targeting "need" very well.
- Richard Symonds, Onehunga, 09.08.05

* * *

As an expat Kiwi since leaving university in 1994, it is with great interest that I watch the election unfold and the changes occurring in New Zealand. Having for a number of years been disappointed in what New Zealand could offer, I now see a country changing for the better. The fact that student loans are an election issue is great and I think Labour's policy is a good one. Contrary to my parents' advice, and being a young arrogant student, I took as much money as I could and have seen my student loan nearly triple due to the compound interest. I think resolving all treaty claims by 2020 is fantastic, the timeframe seems realistic and it will mean grievances are heard and dealt with. This in turn will mean that New Zealanders can move forward together in unity. The contrast of the Australian and New Zealand Governments in dealing with their indigenous people is dramatic. This is also reflected in the foreign policies of both countries and I'm proud of New Zealand's treatment of refugees and tolerance of other cultures.
- Rewi Sinclair, Bondi, Sydney, 08.08.05

* * *

Our Prime Minister is up to her old diversionary tricks again. In order to take the focus away from her illegal motorcade through the Canterbury Plains, which broke just about every rule in the book, she got Phil Goff to bring up the nuclear issue, making claims out of context on what could have been a private conversation. Don Brash has said quite categorically that there will no change to New Zealand's nuclear policy until a referendum is held. If the majority of New Zealanders say yes to a change, then Auckland's power crisis will be over, with a nuclear power plant taking care of the shortage. As Mike Moore said on television, "New Zealanders must take another look at nuclear power, in order to keep up with the rest of the world." Also if the referendum is in favour of New Zealand changing its nuclear policy, then the Anzus Treaty will be revived, and we New Zealanders will be able to hold our heads up high alongside our neighbours the United States and Australia, instead of being accused of being bludgers when it comes to defence.
- Deane Balme, Rotorua, 08.08.05

* * *

The Prime Minister has said she didn't notice she was travelling at 180km/h, her press secretary David Lewis has testified he didn't know the flight times and gave the order to exceed the speed limit and the two police, Inspector David Gaskin and Sergeant Michael van der Heyden, were naive enough to follow these instructions. What do these people have in common? None of them is being charged in the case currently before the court and we have a right to know why not. We now hear that Cabinet minister Jim Sutton, who was travelling with the Prime Minister, didn't even know the police are required to obey the law except in a life-threatening situation and even then that they are responsible for their actions. The only lives threatened were as a result of the motorcade itself. How can we expect so-called "boy racers" to act responsibly when those who enact the laws seem to believe they are above these very laws?
- Rod Lyons, Kumeu, 08.08.05

* * *

This country is facing some fundamental decisions coming into this election. It's not about Helen's speeding, Winston Peters' vile racism (again) or the Civil Union Bill, it's about whether we as voters think we have the right to leave our economy, our country and our environment in a worse state than we found it. It's that simple. Short-term handouts versus long-term strategic investment. Labour is struggling with the words but what it is trying to say is we want our children to inherit a better economy, environment and society than you did. It's not an accident that the economy is in good shape, it's not an accident that health spending is up, education spending is up, R&D and capital spending is up, unemployment is at record lows and, surprise, surprise, crime is down. These are all signs of an inclusive well-run economy that believes in itself and its future. I am a businessman who has never voted Labour in my life, but I will be this election as overall this Labour Government is a standout performer that deserves an encore.
- Selwyn Pellett, Brookby, 08.08.05

* * *

The school zoning debate is about the "right" to attend a local school. But what is local? This should include the length of time in a school zone area. A community is not just people in an area but also their relationships and involvement over years. Their contribution to the local kindergartens, sports clubs and community groups is what makes a community. Schools are an extremely important part of that, and are stronger if backed by a local community. A popular school attracts parents to buy in an area so they can enrol their child. This leads often to roll pressure and reduced zones. Parents who may have spent many years in an area suffer the angst of no longer being part of that school community. Time in an area should also be a factor in enrolment policy, thus protecting those who have contributed to their community for many years. It would be fair on people moving because they can check schools before buying. This would help to build and protect the local community's interest, while still allowing choice for parents.
- Mark Donnelly, Mt Eden, 05.08.05

* * *

I hope TV3 will reconsider its decision to exclude Peter Dunne from its leaders' debate. Mr Dunne is the leader of a main party with eight sitting MPs, not just one or two. He and United Future will almost certainly return to Parliament after the elections, since there is every likelihood that he will be re-elected in Ohariu-Belmont. In contrast, the Greens and Act hold no electorate seats and if they do not pass the 5 per cent threshold, will no longer be in Parliament. Further, United Future deserves recognition for its part in the political stability New Zealand has enjoyed during this electoral term. It has also made valuable contributions to charities, gambling, OSH and Families Commission legislation, and put the importance of family on the political map. The issue of whether Mr Dunne should be excluded from the leaders' debate is much bigger than whether one is a United Future supporter or opponent. It is about whether fair and just electoral coverage is being provided by the media. If Mr Dunne is excluded, I see it as a major assault on democracy in our country. Such blatant media bias and manipulation of elections should not be occurring.
- Jennie McKeown, Kaukapakapa, 05.08.05

* * *

Much of the success of Peter Dunne's United Future Party last election was put down to his performance with the television worm. Now that TV3 has decided to adopt the worm, I would have thought he would be guaranteed a spot on the show to see how he performs this time. Act apparently gets the last spot because it is polling ahead of United Future. The fact is that United Future will be back in Parliament next time but Act will not.
- Joshua Teal, St Marys Bay, 05.08.05

* * *

TV3's decision about the political debate next Thursday is unbelievable. Why should Act (which is unlikely to get anyone back into Parliament) be included at the expense of United Future and the Progressives, who are both likely to have seats? United Future is assured of places through Peter Dunne's electoral seat. Jim Anderton is also likely to retain Wigram. TV3's decision is even more unbelievable when one considers the Greens are not guaranteed to be back in Parliament, yet they are included in the debate as well.
- Ross Tooley, Kohimarama, 05.08.05

* * *

I have more than $20,000 owing on my student loan and I am still adding to it. Any rational person would conclude that I am voting for Labour. But I will not vote for the party that throws the largest wad of cash at me - cash obtained from someone else's wallet. I am the one receiving the benefits of an education. Why shouldn't I pay for the education I receive? Especially when the part I pay is only a third of the real cost. Although I enjoy my education, it is a burden having to endure it with so many whiners. When they start working for a living, they will discover what spoiled brats students are.
- Weihana Delamere, Newton, 05.08.05

* * *

For many people living in Auckland and the surrounding regions, the central election issue is the neglect of the infrastructure and the urgent need to carry out seriously overdue development work, particularly to roading and public transport. Both the major parties bear equal responsibility for this neglect over the past two decades and both have siphoned off fuel tax funds for other spending. However, we are now at the stage where the situation is so serious that there is an urgent need to hold politicians to account. For them to talk about the completion of major roading and public transport projects within the next five or 10 years is completely unacceptable, given the urgency of the problem. To date, the vote-buying promises in this area go nowhere near addressing the problem. The bidding is going to have to rise a long way yet.
- Ian Bruce, Hamilton, 05.08.05

* * *

Critics of Labour's student loan policy have painted a picture of students living the high life on free money or investing it in the sharemarket. Let us be clear about a few things. As it is now, loans must be spent on fees, books or small amounts drip-fed for modest living expenses. It is simply not possible to get large amounts of money upfront, like it was when National introduced student loans in the 1990s. As for the suggestion that there will be a blow-out, when Labour made loans interest-free for students still studying there was no change in the proportion of students taking loans. It is, after all, not free money. It has to be repaid and once you start earning, Inland Revenue starts taking repayments from your wages.
- Raine Simister, Freemans Bay, 04.08.05

* * *

Recent polls suggest the demise of Act and the Greens. It is sadly ironic that parties such as Labour and New Zealand First attract so many votes, yet display such an appalling lack of integrity, their ever-changing policie