Your views, July 1-24

Tax cuts should not be reported in such simplistic and emotive terms as "a taxpayer gets $x". This is usually phrased to show the inequality of tax cuts because high-income earners get more than low-income earners. When taxes are cut no one gets anything, the Inland Revenue extracts less tax, and the reason that high-income earners have a larger reduction in tax is obviously that they pay so much more tax in the first place than those on lower incomes. Rarely does one see such statistics as 15 per cent of people, those with incomes above $50,000, pay 55 per cent of the total tax, or that those on the lowest 56 per cent of incomes pay only 14 per cent. Under such circumstances, in any tax reduction it would surely be inequitable if the taxes of those on higher incomes were not cut more in dollar terms, particularly as this sector is unlikely to have as high a per capita draw on Government services anyway. What a shame that most of the people leaving New Zealand appear to be those who are, or aspire to be, in the top-income categories. Perhaps many are disillusioned with a tax system and Government that treats achievement and hard work as a kind of crime to be penalised.
- John St Julian, Manukau, 22.7.05

* * *

Your correspondent Phil Sinclair suggests British migrants need educating on community attitudes here. I wonder whether he has experienced the hugely polyglot communities found in the cities of Britain, Europe and North America. If European migrants to this country are confronted with social problems, it is surely the insular and vaguely sanctimonious attitude of some people who believe that all morality and social awareness originates in these islands.
- John Macdonald, New Plymouth, 22.7.05

* * *

Phil Sinclair's assertion that most New Zealanders do not care where a person has originated from is wrong. After 33 years as an immigrant (not from Britain), I can state categorically that that is all they care about. Virtually everyone I have ever met here has asked about my origin, usually as the opening question. This has not stopped to this day and has, in fact, become rather tiresome. And what exactly is the European "culture" that Mr Sinclair speaks of? No one I know has ever tried to assert their culture over another, but it is an indisputable fact that those who make up the majority in a population are dominant in numbers and tend to be more visible. Pacific multiculturalism here is no different to that of Britain and its migrants from former colonies. It remains a myth in both places since everywhere people gravitate towards their own kind. Mr Sinclair should enjoy the variety rather than instruct new migrants on which culture to adopt.
- Bernard Reber, New Lynn, 22.7.05

* * *

As a British migrant I have been following your coverage of the upcoming election with keen interest. A incumbent centre-left party being opposed by a centre-right party standing on a platform of tax cuts is a familiar theme. Don Brash's commitment to ringfence spending on health and education surely points to how taboo it is to enter an election on a platform of cuts to core services. Labour's response is disappointing since it avoids outlining a positive strategy. New Zealand's refusal to send combat troops to Iraq is as laudable as the British Government's heavy involvement is regrettable. Links between Britain's involvement in Iraq and the London bombings are becoming increasingly apparent to the British public. A recent poll by ICM found two-thirds of those polled linked Britain's involvement in Iraq to the bombings. Dr Brash's insistence that it is an attempt to scare voters into worrying about things that they don't need to be scared about is disingenuous. The reason New Zealanders do not have to, or at least worry less, about such things is that the Government did not significantly involve New Zealand in the conflict in the first place.
- Darrell Goodliffe, Hamilton, 22.7.05

* * *

The Greens' marijuana decriminalisation bill is irresponsible. The research into marijuana consumption is indisputable. Just about all studies show that if it starts at a young age, it almost inevitably leads to short periods of psychosis and long-term mental illness. The Greens are pushing this socially destructive legislation for reasons that defy all evidence and common sense. Parliament should be addressing harsher penalties for drug-dealing and more police resources to combat it.
- Toa Greening, Manurewa, 22.7.05

* * *

I have recently lived in Dublin and am aware how the Irish tiger worked. There were two major factors in play that made tax incentives work there, but that do not apply here. First, Ireland had a large number of unemployed, who had reasonable education and English, perfect for manufacturing using American systems. Secondly, they were a perfect gateway to Europe, geographically and as part of the European Union. National's John Key will have to be more inventive and long-sighted than to simply suggest we could copy that scheme.
- Simon McManus, Remuera, 22.7.05

* * *

Your correspondent Stephen Attwood described Winston Peters as the king of xenophobia. Perhaps if he took the time to inform himself of New Zealand First policies, he would understand that Mr Peters is not a xenophobic but a man who understands the importance of the international community and New Zealand's role in it. Mr Attwood, I assume, is basing his opinion on Mr Peters' immigration policy. The NZ First position is that we should train New Zealanders, and make sure they have skilled jobs, before letting immigrants into our country. What is wrong with believing that New Zealand and New Zealanders should be put first?
- Jack Bright, Drury, 22.7.05

* * *

The "low point of the past three years" was not, as the Prime Minister has suggested, "the Court of Appeal decision" [on the foreshore and seabed] but the Government's ill-conceived response. In recognising that, at common law, Maori customary title could exist in land below (as well as above) high watermark, the decision was consistent with decisions of New Zealand courts since 1986. And, as Michael Cullen acknowledged, the Court of Appeal followed any number of overseas courts. Predictably, the Government lost the case. Nevertheless, there were valid concerns: that customary title should not become freehold and that neither marine development nor public recreational use should be impeded. A comparatively simple solution, explained repeatedly to the Government and to MPs, was to legislate specifically to meet each of those concerns, but to leave customary title (where proved) intact, with whatever economic benefit might accrue to successful Maori claimants. There was no legal or moral ground for the Government's preferred solution of extinguishing customary title altogether and without proper compensation. Helen Clark's remarks are indicative of the heavy weather the Government made of the whole issue, when a fair and simple solution was at hand.
- Jock Brookfield, Emeritus Professor, Auckland University, 21.7.05

* * *

National's finance spokesman John Key has obviously not caught up with the fact that Ireland (which he uses as a model of economic development) has slipped from the OECD top ranks in the 1990s to 10th last year and 12th this year. In contrast, New Zealand is slowly rising in the ranks, 18th last year to 16th this year. According to the most recent World Competitiveness Report (from which these figures are taken), our economic practices put us among the best in the world on ratings of government efficiency (up from 18th in 2001 to eighth this year). It therefore appears that, despite National rhetoric to the contrary, the Government is on the right track with its economic management.
Owen Saunders, Birkenhead, 21.7.05

* * *

Ireland received billions of dollars in subsidies from the EU during the period of its transformation. These allowed it to make its economy what it is today. Where are the equivalent subsidies for New Zealand going to come from? Perhaps John Key could answer that question.
Richard Thomas, Waipukurau, 21.7.05

* * *

If it wasn't for the fact that it is the taxpayers' $160 million that Trevor Mallard feels he needs to redirect to "high-quality education", his actions and words would be quite funny. As someone who is about 10kg overweight, I tried to convince my doctor that Mr Mallard said it was not fat, it was just "muscle that is not being used very well" - just like the $160 million. My doctor persisted in calling it fat. I argued that if anyone should know what it was, the Minister of Education should, given that he is in charge of education. My doctor replied: "I rest my case."
Jim Burns, Christchurch, 21.7.05

* * *

I found it interesting that United Future leader Peter Dunne should staunchly reiterate his party's non-negotiable stance on cannabis. When the Green Party had a non-negotiable stance on genetic modification, Mr Dunne accused its MPs of being petulant children who threw the toys out of the cot when they did not get their own way. How is his position on cannabis any different?
Stuart Young, Pt Chevalier, 21.7.05

* * *

I watched with absolute amazement the television coverage of Don Brash refusing to say whether he would have sent New Zealand troops to Iraq if he had been Prime Minister. We all know that he would have supported the Americans at the time, but the mark of leadership is to acknowledge that the decision would have been wrong. How can it be otherwise when day after day we see film of the carnage in Iraq because of the American occupation, not to mention the London bombings? A major issue in this election has to be New Zealand's identity, integrity and independence.
P.G. Hill, Parnell, 21.7.05

* * *

"National has earmarked the job [foreign minister] for New Zealand First leader Winston Peters", said the Weekend Herald. What? The king of xenophobia as our representative overseas? They must be mad. If there was anyone who still thought political parties were motivated only by what is good for the country, rather than by whatever might get them into power, they must now be thoroughly disabused.
- Stephen Attwood, Ponsonby, 20.7.05

* * *

The achievements attributed to Labour between 1999 and 2004-5, as listed in the Weekend Herald, were somewhat selective. The improved crime resolution rate, to cite one discredited example, is no substitute for a genuine reduction in serious crime. A number of the other statistics are similarly tarnished with political spin. Additional key economic and social indicators that might have been included to provide a more balanced evaluation were: balance of payments; student debt; total household debt; proportion of court sentences served in prison; and Government tax take as a percentage of GDP.
- L. Doolan, Bombay, 19.7.05

* * *

One of the key points that seems to be overlooked in questions surrounding nuclear ship visits is that of insurance. Insurance companies do not insure nuclear-powered ships. A correspondent wrote in glowing terms about the American nuclear merchant ship Savannah. It, like the other two merchant ships, one from Germany and the other from Japan, failed because no port authority outside their home countries was prepared to accept them, mainly because of a lack of insurance coverage. The risks of reactor meltdowns are incredibly low; the risk of collisions at sea in crowded coastal waters is far greater and could have the same consequences. Extra precautions are taken in the general handling and berthing of nuclear-powered ships and New Zealand, like many other countries, has a safety code, with guidelines indicating where and how nuclear powered ships should be berthed. Nothing is fail-safe. The issues of handling merchant and nuclear-powered warships are rather different. The latter is basically a political issue.
- Roy Vaughan, Mangawhai, 18.7.05

* * * 

Robert White asserted that only nuclear ships carry nuclear weapons. That is not right. The Tomahawk cruise missile, popularised by videos of it being launched from battleships during the Gulf War, can carry a nuclear warhead. Whether it does is irrelevant to his assertion. Three classes of United States warships, none of which, to my knowledge, is nuclear-propelled, carry them as standard armament, or are capable of doing so. And these are just the US ships. There are many French, British and Russian ships in the same category. There is no direct link between nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion. Weapons are versatile and can be fired from just about any platform - air, sea, land, or under the sea. Where they are mounted has little relevance to how that mount is propelled (if it is mobile). It is not right to draw a simplistic connection. If Mr White is so concerned about nuclear weapons aboard a warship, he would be advocating that we ban all British, French, Russian, Chinese and US warships from our ports, not just the nuclear-powered ones. A nuclear weapon does not care whether the ship it is fired from is nuclear-powered or not, nor does it need a nuclear engine to facilitate its launch.
- Adrian Wong, Forrest Hill, 18.7.05

* * *

Andrew Straw commented on stamping feet and knee-jerk reactions when a change to our nuclear policy was suggested. Given that our nuclear-free policy is one of the defining aspects of being a New Zealander, that response is consistent with the line we have always taken in this country - that nuclear power is not necessary here. Why the United States cannot accept or respect this seems typical of its "with us or against us" attitude. Anyone who does not follow what it dictates is punished. Andrew Straw says the things people think about in regard to the US are the Iraq war, non-entry to the Kyoto Protocol and nuclear-powered warships. Given America's decision on these issues and the repercussions, Americans should worry about their own country's policies. Trade with the US is important but maintaining our ideals and independence is most important for future generations of New Zealanders. As an American living here, Andrew Straw should respect our laws and policies - and if he does not agree with them, return to the dubious freedoms of the US.
- Andrew Robinson, Muriwai, 18.7.05

* * *

With the ongoing debate about tax cuts, surpluses and so on, there is one area where we could save heaps without anyone noticing any difference to life as we know it. This is the Minister for Disarmament and the accompanying ministry. The only country that has successfully been disarmed is New Zealand. With the loss of our air strike force, our below-strength Army, our scaled-down Navy and the fact that most of our equipment is incompatible with that of countries which should be our allies. The next Government must disband this pacifist dinosaur and appoint a responsible Minister of Defence.
- Nick Cottle, Papakura, 18.7.05

* * *

I am surprised that any political party, let alone National, would even consider lowering GST when it is one of the most efficient of all forms of taxation. Everybody has to pay it, including tourists and those operating in the black economy who do not pay income tax. There is, in fact, a strong case for increasing GST to allow for larger cuts in income taxes. If increases were done in stages, it would not be inflationary.
- David Boskett, Stanmore Bay, 18.7.05

* * *

It is irresponsible, smug, and cynical of the Prime Minister to keep everyone guessing about the general election date. There is no current crisis that would justify changing the date. It should, therefore, be announced forthwith. Sensible debate and considered evaluation of policies would be enhanced. No doubt that is not the way Helen Clark wants it to be, given the constant revelation of policy blunders by her Administration. The only reason to keep the date secret is to help Labour manipulate public opinion. Are we going to vote for a Government that cynically tries todivert us from making an informed decision? The target, as with all political campaigns, is the swinging voter. If voters are in that category because they are thinkers, they will hopefully rebel against the Prime Minister's cynicism.Announcing the date forthwith would permit all those involved in this important event to make careful preparations in a timely manner. In particular, it would also respect the public's right to be able to avoid clashes with other activities.
- Hugh Webb, Hamilton, 15.07.05

* * *

So Don Brash, if elected, would formally apology for the Agent Orange saga and provide healthcare for Vietnam veterans. Does he really expect the veterans to forget that it is 30 years since the war ended, and that when National was in government for 18 of those years they sat on their hands. Not that Labour has done any better. Even now Helen Clark's Government continues to drag the chain. Shame on both National and Labour for playing politics with the veterans' lives. It is time they were given a fair deal.
- Ian Stephens, Tauranga, 15.07.05

* * * 

Labour's latest billboard has to be the most gratuitous use of a baby ever conceived for political posturing. "Look, no mum" should have been the headline. Now, with the amateurish addition of a pair of National scissors, it looks like National is set to free our people from the red tape that masquerades as assistance but is actually holding our society back by making families dependent on some benevolent string-puller. If Labour really wants to play nanny to the nation, it should know scissors should always be kept out of reach of baby.
- Stephen Prinselaar, Oratia, 14.07.05

* * *

It is interesting and of real concern to understand the large amount of tax motorists pay when buying petrol. All businesses are paying this tax and it is passed on to consumers because it increases the cost of providing goods. A similar situation arises with property rates. All households pay property rates, which is a form of tax to local government that includes GST of 12.5 per cent, which goes to the Government. The GST component on rates is a tax on a tax. United Future has four policies that will significantly lessen the tax burden on families. One of these is that the GST component included in property rates should cease.
- Michael Hamilton, West Harbour, 12.07.05

* * *

The Labour Party policy of 20 hours' free childcare in community-based centres is hugely unsatisfactory. Because of long waiting lists, pre-schoolers are close to being four years old before they get into community-based kindergartens in Auckland. Even then, until they are about four and a half, they attend only three 2.5-hour afternoon sessions a week, a weekly total of 7.5 hours. The morning sessions for the older children usually total 15 to 17 hours a week. How will the community kindergartens cope once all pre-schoolers over 3 are entitled to 20 free hours of childcare a week? The demand for childcare will surely increase once it becomes free, causing the waiting lists to get even longer. I see no evidence of new community kindergartens being planned to open in 2007, so it is unlikely that most parents will be able to claim their free childcare entitlement.
- Susan Loveys, Ellerslie, 11.07.05

* * *

Sadly missing from the polices of Labour, National, and the Herald editorial on childcare were the interests of our children. The main focus ought to be on what is in their best interests, not how more mothers can be persuaded away from their children and into the workforce to serve "the economy" and the interests of employers desperate for cheap labour. There is ample evidence that children benefit enormously from fulltime parental care. When are we going to have policies which put our children first ?
- Chris Sullivan, Pakuranga, 11.07.05

* * *

I find it interesting to see Don Brash's critics trying to subvert his word "mainstream" in a way that seems to exactly illustrate his point. Opponents have focused on this or that identifiable subgroup, and whether it can still be called part of mainstream New Zealand. They are trying to shift the focus out to the edges. The mainstream is simply where most people are - without making distinctions. It is a place where people just get on with it, rather than pleading they are a special group with special needs.
- Barry McDonald, Albany, 11.07.05

* * *

It seems both major parties are forgetting a group of voters. It is all very well promising to make it easier to put your child into care by strangers, but what about those who wish to raise our own children and consider it a worthwhile, if unpaid, job in itself. I can afford to be home full-time but there are plenty who do not have the choice and wish they had. Because I have chosen to be my child's primary caregiver, I am not eligible for any financial help with the next as I was with my first.
- Anna McDonald, Onehunga, 09.07.05

* * *

National's childcare policy shows the stark difference between the two parties. National allows those who can afford it to claim tax relief for their nanny with no quality control and no distinction between child-minding and early education. It denies help to sole-parent beneficiaries trying to retrain without amassing a student loan, and to women on a widow's benefit needing time out to put their lives back together.  Labour offers early childhood education for all 3 and 4-year-olds without the need to wade through tax returns or wait until the end of the tax year for a refund. It encourages community facilities that give quality education, not just baby-minding.
- Lindsey Rea, Kingsland, 09.07.05

* * *

Thank you Don Brash for recognising those mothers who go out to work; who not only pay tax like the rest of the productive working members of society, but also pay childcare for pre-schoolers. I have paid over $10,000 for one child for 10 1/2 months, but that is my choice and I am not complaining. The only thing I had to complain about is that my efforts were rewarded with a paltry personal tax rebate of $310.As for Labour's 20 free hours in a non-profit organisation, forget it. That was never going to help me. I would have to be up and down from my job moving my pre-schooler from one place to another.
- S. Bruce, Campbells Bay, 09.07.05

* * *

Does the National Party think it more important to pay parents to work, or for all pre-school children to have access to early childhood education? Don Brash is proposing that childcare costs will be tax-deductible to an amount of $1650 a child for working parents. But what about the children of non-working parents? The Government plans to pay the cost for more than 86,000 children aged 3 to 4 to go to community-based early childhood education centres, whether or not the parent goes out to work. Surely this is the better deal.
- Julie Cooper, Glenfield, 09.07.05

* * *

What Labour does not seem to understand is that most working mothers will not be able to take advantage of its planned 20 hours' free childcare because community-based early childhood education centres operate on a session basis only. You can have your child there for the morning session or for the afternoon session, but working mums need a whole day, or at least 9am until 3pm (school hours).
- Melanie Jenkins, Green Bay, 09.07.05

* * *

National's childcare policy is far from what it seems. First, the lower-paid need the money when they enrol their children for childcare, not 12 months later. Secondly, average workers on PAYE no longer have to put in tax returns. These people will have to get the correct material from Inland Revenue and spend time trying to fill out what are now unfamiliar forms.
- Peter Anderson, Paeroa, 09.07.05

* * *

The recent run of Labour rethinks and policy delays can have been brought about only by the two political doctors called Mrs Poll and Mr Election.
- D.M., Edendale, 09.07.05 

* * *

Without exception, the most valuable politicians are those who take a large salary cut when they go into Parliament.
- D.M., Rotorua, 09.07.05

* * *

Columnist Brian Rudman has some difficulty understanding what is meant by mainstream New Zealand. Perhaps they are people of working age, often with children, not high earners, struggling to balance work with family needs, and not gravy-train travellers. Of course, they include gays but not because they are gay; they also include many hard-working Maori as well as people of Dutch, British, Indian, Asian, European and Middle Eastern origin. And whether Rudman identifies with them or not, they include a few hundred thousand Aucklanders. They are people who deserve not to be taxed as "rich"; they are people beginning to realise they could better organise their own finances, their own small businesses and their own lives generally, without a Government that persists in meddling.
- Pat Moore, Orewa, 01.07.05

* * *

Can I suggest a definition of the mainstream New Zealander: a law-abiding citizen who is part of a family unit. The family unit will typically comprise providers and dependents. The providers typically work long and hard in order to build a life for themselves and their dependents. Non-mainstream New Zealanders are the people who choose not to work, and are happy to tap into benefits and handouts meant as a safety net but being used as a hammock. They are people prepared to live off the efforts of others, people who do not pay their way, occupy our jails, live off crime, sell drugs and destroy lives and families. Mainstream is not about race, creed or sexual orientation. Mainstream New Zealanders will vote to overturn any Government that puts the interests of the non-mainstream ahead of them.
- David Jans, Meadowbank, 01.07.05