Your views, July 25-31

I felt disgust reading Fran O'Sullivan's article recording the Labour Party's strategy of damning innuendos and unsupported accusations against Don Brash. I cannot trust a political party that feels so compelled to deal in spin which is simply a distortion of the truth. I could not trust such a party to deliver a compassionate and effective social policy to the poor, unemployed and homeless, or a health policy that adequately meets its citizens' needs, or equitable economic management. I do not wish to be governed by smart and duplicitous so-called experienced politicians, but rather by those men and women who have demonstrated their honesty and ability in the wider world and are now willing to serve their country.
- Rev Richard Buttle, Retired Auckland Anglican City Missioner. 29.07.05

* * *

We have an 18-year-old who, hopefully, will be starting a university course next year. Before Labour's bribe of interest-free student loans, our thinking was that we would do everything we could to help him avoid getting saddled with a student loan. After the bribe, our advice is to borrow as much as he can possibly wangle, put it on term deposit, collect the interest, then use the term deposit as the downpayment on a house in due course. Doing this means no saving for a house deposit, no interest to be paid on the deposit, minimal repayments of capital and all the repayments being in tomorrow's devalued dollars. All of which will be a complete fiasco and a complete waste of the $300 million this is estimated to cost. I am surely not the only person to have spotted this gift of free money.
- Richard Symonds, Onehunga. 29.07.05

* * *

Removing interest will, we are told, reduce the time it takes to repay student loans. This is true if you are so financially irresponsible, or so poorly paid, that you repay only the compulsory minimum. However, most graduates are capable of paying extra. Indeed, the Inland Revenue website clearly explains the benefits of this. Without interest, there will be no incentive to pay back loans at a higher rate than required. When inflation is considered, a borrower will pay back less than he or she borrowed. This inflationary discount increases the longer the repayment period is drawn out, providing an incentive to delay repaying the loan as long as possible. This hardly teaches the value of financial responsibility. But this plan will encourage saving. Even the dimmest student will realise that money can be made by borrowing (interest-free) the maximum amount and placing it in an interest-bearing savings account. Of course, this colossal bribe will, therefore, encourage higher levels of borrowing. A low level of interest should continue to be applied to student loans to account for inflation and provide an incentive for repayment. Alternatively, the Government should be honest about the fact that it is simply gifting money to students and provide a universal student allowance.
- Paul Johns, Pt Chevalier. 29.07.05

* * *

The average New Zealander knows taxes will rise to cover the costs of the student loan promises and none of us will be any better off. My loan has grown to a point where it is no longer feasible to stay in New Zealand. I could stay here and Labour tells me the interest will stop accumulating, but it fails to mention that it will still take years to pay off the interest I have already accrued, and that I cannot afford to be a homeowner or a mother. I will head overseas because I have no choice. Although the interest will accumulate, I will be earning enough money to actually repay my loan and live a life.
- Kieley Rae, Albany. 29.07.05

* * *

With one of us back studying while the other works to support us both, National's election bribe will save us less than $300 a year. With two student loan debts, Labour's election bribe will save us more than $3000 a year. Is that enough to convince two "A" students to remain in New Zealand until the debts are paid off? Well, yes, it is.
- Kerryn and Gregory Olsen, Mt Roskill. 29.07.05

* * *

As a 28-year-old woman who spent six years at university and has easily managed to pay off my student loan (as have many of my friends), I am tired of hearing students bleating about their inability to pay off their loans. Students who are prepared to actually work while studying (hard but by no means impossible) and who are prepared to make financial sacrifices in their first years of full-time employment, do not generally have trouble paying off their loans in a reasonable time. Those students making all the noise are simply looking for a Government handout. The cost of tertiary education is an investment in one's future earnings and should not be supported by taxpayers. Provided students make sensible choices about what to study (philosophy and anthropology majors, take note), this is easily achievable.
- Kath Davies, Glendowie. 29.07.05

* * *

No-interest loans are cheap money. But student loans are already cheaper than most other forms of borrowing. As a graduate, I have found it preferable to save and invest rather than pay off my loan early. Loan balances will decline faster under Labour's policy because graduates' compulsory repayments will not be swallowed up in never-ending interest charges. Under Labour, graduates will be able to be more rational about financial commitments - meeting the cost of their education over their working life and perhaps having the opportunity to save for a house, family, retirement or to start a business without fear of their student debt spiralling out of control.
- Michael Wallmannsberger, Grey Lynn. 29.07.05.

* * *

Lynley Hood wrote an entertaining piece about Labour's failed campaign against National in 1988-1989. But what if that Labour campaign had succeeded? Some "achievements" of that National Government are still with us. A few examples: Lockwood Smith brought in the student loan scheme and the NCEA. Max Bradford restructured the electrical supply and distribution industry. Bill Birch tried shifting trade training out of polytechnics and left it to the marketplace, effectively destroying the apprenticeship system. Ruth Richardson's "Mother of All Budgets", backed by Don Brash, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, stamping out economic growth in the name of inflation control, gave business a dismal decade. The Employment Contracts Act came in to drive down labour costs, so that our manufacturing could compete with imports, including those from China. Driving down of labour costs worked, but now the best and brightest head overseas to get their due.
- W.P. Judd, Hamilton. 29.07.05

* * *

Popular talk of the Resource Management Act being a failure and the need to change it (again) is naive and wrong. The act has always provided a mechanism for central government to provide direction for local authorities, especially when it comes to issues of national interest. Central government is able to issue national policy statements, with which any decision under the act must align. This process enables local authorities to make decisions that are in accordance with the "nation's interests" but are applied to a local context. The only problem is that no government has ever bothered, or had the guts, to issue any. Hence local authorities have been left to stumble their way through matters that have implications beyond their own community with nothing more than popular opinion to guide them. People need to stop blaming the act and local government for central government's failure to carry out its responsibility to provide national guidance.
- Gerard McCarten, London. 29.07.05

* * *

Your correspondent Luke Hassall has not thought through all the potential developments of the Maori Party's proposed earlier pension date for Maori. Statistically, men die earlier than women, so they should get the pension earlier. And obese people are reported to have a lower life expectancy. So, an obese Maori man could get the pension at 50, an obese Pakeha man at 55, and so on. There are other factors that could be worked in, and the retirement age could fall even lower, say 40 or so, for a stressed, obese, Maori male smoker.
- Jean Favier, Greenhithe. 29.07.05

* * *

Don Brash says the public is tired of social engineering and will vote National. This is as intellectually dishonest as his billboards. People who express horror at social engineering apply the label only to social or economic policy they do not like. Policy they do like is, mysteriously, not social engineering. How this can be so is never explained and, in truth, they simply prefer one form of social engineering over another. National's promised tax cuts are an example. It is likely these would return more money to high earners than to low or moderate earners. Their effect would be to increase inequality, and if a deliberate increase in inequality is not social engineering, what is? If we are going to use the silly expression at all, we could legitimately say that Dr Brash is a radical right-wing social engineer. The bottom line is that anyone who whines about social engineering is a propagandist, or a fool, or both.
- W.A. Beasley, Beach Haven. 29.07.05

* * *

The latest election bribe from Labour should be seen for exactly what it is ... a kick in the teeth for every hard-working taxpayer who does not feature in the Government's money scramble. During the 1990s, we used money that we could easily have used for other purposes to help put our son through university, and he worked his butt off, nights and weekends, to ensure that he did not need a student loan. He passed with flying colours, in more ways than one. We did this because we wanted to ensure our son had the best possible career opportunity, and considered it an investment, rather than a burden. Under Labour's new policy we would have borrowed the maximum amount available, invested it at 6.5 per cent and had a real laugh at all the poor taxpaying suckers out there who are paying the Government about $6 billion more than it needs. But hold on, that includes me. Michael Cullen and Trevor Mallard need a reality check if they do not see that what is now a $7 billion debt will quickly become $10 billion and more.
- Lindsay Holmes, Manurewa, 28.07.05

* * *

Labour's new policy for students is wonderful news. No interest on student loans. Ever. From April 1 next year, interest will no longer be charged on student loans, and student allowances will be increased to cover half of students. The catch? No catch. This is great for students, and the future of this country.
- David Do, Mt Eden, 28.07.05

* * *

For six years, all we have been hearing from Labour is that there is not enough money for tax cuts and that borrowing is fiscally irresponsible. Yet there is suddenly at least $300 million in the kitty to stop interest on student loans, thus providing students with a massive incentive to borrow as much as they can. Student debt will surely skyrocket. What is there for students like me who have worked hard so we can study without having to get a student loan? Nothing. What does Labour offer for those who have slaved away to pay off their loans? Nothing. What is in it for my lecturers who are striking because Labour wasted so much money on useless courses that the universities cannot afford to pay them internationally competitive wages? Nothing. What is in it for the tradesmen and women who are in desperately short supply? Nothing. This lolly-scramble offers a free ticket to some students at the price of condemning all New Zealanders to a lifetime of Labour's "if it moves, tax it" dogma.
- Tim Bond, Howick, 28.07.05

* * *

Two months ago, I was a happy man, I had made the final payment on my student loan, eight "interest"- filled years after I left university. I signed up for a student loan when there was no interest while you were at university. Of course, they changed that quickly. By my second year I was paying interest higher than that of the banks. After paying $15,000 interest over the years I am no longer happy. Generation X? Only if that means Generation Experiment. I agree with the policy, despite being told for years, by both National and Labour, that it was vital that I pay exorbitant interest. So why has this changed now? Of course, silly me. It is because the people on the other side of the playground we call Parliament decided they would go for a few votes, so Helen Clark played the political copycat game. Isn't election year fun? Can't wait to see what else is in the Christmas stocking.
- Paul Wiggins, Grafton, 28.07.05

* * *

Alexis de Tocqueville may not have had Labour's student loan policy specifically in mind when he said that democracy "will endure until the day that [Parliament] discovers it can bribe the public with the public's money", but as a recent student, I am pretty sure the sentiment still applies.
- Roshan Allpress, Royal Oak, 28.07.05

* * *

I grinned and bore it when the drinking age was lowered to 18 a few weeks after my 20th birthday. I grimaced a bit when I finished university and it was generously announced that interest would be scrapped if you were still studying. After all, my classmates and I had been paying from day one. So a few years and many payments later, when most of us are nearly about to knock the bastard off, I hear that interest payments are being wiped altogether. Good news, I suppose, but could the Government slip a couple more twenties into the Christmas card this year?
- Charles Lord, Iwate-Ken, Japan, 28.07.05

* * *

Trevor Mallard claims total student debt will not rise substantially because students will pay off their loans more quickly. Why would they? Since there is no interest to compound, why wouldn't paying off the loan suddenly become a very much lower priority? No interest equals no incentive.
- Lloyd McIntosh, Hobsonville, 28.07.05

* * *

The Government has descended to a new depth of cynicism with its policy to negate the interest on student loans. If it genuinely had the best interests of the nation at heart, it would simply wipe the debt of those graduates who possess skills that are of greatest value to the community. This would dramatically reduce the exodus of, for example, healthcare graduates from New Zealand and reduce the need to pilfer those with equivalent skills from Third World countries that can ill-afford to lose them. At the same time, it should reintroduce a standard examination for university entrance to ensure that those entering tertiary institutions have the ability and the will to complete courses. This would reduce the demand for student loans. These strategies may not be vote-winners but they would ultimately serve the greater good.
- Andrew Montgomery, Remuera, 28.07.05

* * *

It was with a feeling of deja vu that I heard of National's grand plan to eliminate daytime community classes. A market-driven economy is blind to the advantages of education for education's sake. Many tertiary institutions run computer courses during the day. Participants come from all sectors of the community, but a large proportion are senior citizens learning how to cope with the internet and email, and understand some of the other mysteries of the digital age. What good does it do them? It keeps minds active, email keeps the elderly in touch with family and friends, and the internet provides access to knowledge. All this keeps them mentally active and independent. Such people are more likely to be capable of taking care of themselves in their own homes. It is short-sighted to imagine that we will have a net gain from cutting out daytime courses. What is won on the swings will be lost on the roundabout of fulltime care.
- Joan Rosier-Jones, Wanganui, 28.07.05

* * *

Had Fran O'Sullivan bothered to check with this office about Trevor Mallard's comments last Thursday on National's campaign finances, she would have been told the truth - that he was flying solo. Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good story, Fran.
- Mike Munro, Prime Minister's Office, 28.07.05

* * *

I was aghast when I heard of the Maori Party policy that Maori should receive pensions from 60, rather than 65. With the pension system already becoming a severe weight on government expenditure there is no room for such an extension. More importantly, the reasons Maori have lower life expectancy than the general populace are mostly socio-economic. Maori are over-represented at the poor end of society, and poor people have a lower life expectancy. So what we have is a policy that serves Maori alone, including those Maori who live longer, while those who are on the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum and are not Maori, and are predisposed to an earlier death, remain under the old age of 65. If there are cultural factors at work specific to Maori that are lowering life expectancy, that is Maoridom's problem, not an issue for the Government. If there exists genetic evidence that Maori are predisposed by their genes to an early death, I would like to see that put forward.
- Luke Hassall, Remuera, 27.7.05

* * *

In a democracy, freedom of choice is the only thing we need to exercise to maintain it. Bearing this in mind, I am increasingly disheartened by the willingness of the public to regard health as the fiscal responsibility of the Government. It is not. Asking, indeed demanding, as a matter of re-election, the astronomical funding of an ineffectual lumbering health system is a clear example of society wishing to give up its freedom of choice, choosing instead to have the Government take control. Despite what the mainstream medical fraternity and pharmaceutical companies might say, most major health issues - from colds and flu through to cancer, heart disease and diabetes - are diet- and lifestyle-related. The sooner we take individual responsibility for what we eat and what exercise we do, the sooner the Government can be released from parking more and more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff.
- Shaun Robinson, Cambridge, 27.7.05

* * *

With National promising to radically change the Resource Management Act, one wonders what position Judith Collins, the MP for Clevedon, will now take on Transpower's proposal to put pylons through her electorate. Under National's proposals, residents would be unable to take their case to the Environment Court. Their views would be ignored. It does not sound like listening to mainstream New Zealand to me.
- John Carbutt, Mt Albert, 27.7.05

* * *

There are matters needing clarification in the wake of John Key's support for the Irish economic model, and Michael Cullen's response. The first is that European Union subsidies accounted for 0.5 per cent of Ireland's growth in the 1990s, when the economy was growing at 8 to 10 per cent. Secondly, the Misery Taxation index shows Ireland has, overall, one of the lowest rates of taxation in the world. Ireland also has a pro-business Government and a world-class industrial development agency. Mr Key is right to say that New Zealand can learn a lot because, while the EU was an important factor, why is it that today 23 per cent of exports go to the United States, together with growing trade with Asia? Yes, New Zealand is far from the major markets and Ireland has its problems, but technology has broken this distance, and the Irish are creating policies to solve their problems. Governments that refuse to change and embrace best practice internationally will never change their nation. Political leadership is needed, not political intransigence.
- John White, Manchester, England, 27.7.05

* * *

Some people reckon New Zealand could never repeat Ireland's success. They contend that New Zealand could never attract overseas investment with tax breaks. They forget that New Zealand has already done exactly that with the movie industry, and that it has been successful beyond everyone's wildest dreams.
- Paul Nola, Ponsonby, 27.7.05

* * *

I am surprised that Perspectives writer Kate Nicholls, in her comparative piece on Irish economic success, did not also mention that a major difference between tax in New Zealand and the Emerald Isle is that in Ireland the first Euros 9000 ($16,000) of income is not taxed. How much would a similar move cost the New Zealand Government? But, more importantly, what a fillip this would be to low- and middle-income earners. William Turner, Green Bay. Driving to school As someone who drives regularly through Mt Eden and Epsom, I cannot help but notice the marked decrease in inner-city traffic during the school holidays. Is there any possibility that the secondary schools in these areas could follow the socially responsible example set by Mt Albert Grammar to reduce the number of its students who travel to school by car?
- Rosemary Cooper, Sandringham, 27.7.05

* * *

As we embark on another election, I would like to offer the suggestion that all publicly elected officials should be paid the average weekly wage, and no more. The number of candidates for public office shows the supply exceeds the demand, so clearly the current emoluments are excessive in relation to market supply and demand. Reducing the spoils of office would discourage the candidates for whom public office is the most attractive employment option; those who cannot earn more than present MPs' salaries elsewhere. This would improve quality. And it would provide some small incentive to MPs to act in the country's interest and increase its overall economic performance. It may even have the benefit of making MPs more aggressive in reducing waste in the public service. At the very least it would reduce the cost of MPs and local-body councillors. Benjamin Franklin argued at the establishment of the United States that publicly elected officials should not be paid at all. They should serve for the power and glory of office, not money. It is particularly sad that his view was defeated in the US, but we might still benefit from his wisdom.
- John Pearce, Remuera, 27.7.05

* * *

Work-for-the-dole schemes have been tried many times overseas, and by National here in 1996. They fail because of high administration costs and problems with replacing real jobs, do not lift unemployed people out of poverty and rarely lead to actual jobs. Yet National is proposing we try again. If we were burdened with armies of lazy bludgers too undisciplined to get off their chuffs, it might have a point, but there is no evidence we are.All but a few unemployed people would prefer to have jobs, but many cannot afford such work-related costs as transport, clothing, safety gear, or childcare. Others cling to the minimal income a benefit offers because the only available jobs involve casual employment, in which employers expect workers to be available for work at all times but only pay sporadically, making it impossible for them to plan or budget for their families to survive. We have plenty of social or environmental work that could be done, but we should provide poor people with training and full-wage jobs, as the Green Party has proposed, rather than punish them with slave labour. A civilised nation should ensure that everyone can contribute to society and live with dignity.
- Ottilie Stolte, Hamilton, 27.7.05

* * *

Your correspondent Dave Salisbury is right to be concerned that neither of the main political parties is addressing the crisis facing us if we do not produce enough children to support the older generation. Two serious issues need to be addressed. The first is to provide help to middle-income families to produce more children. The second is to honour those graduates with student loans who choose to stay and work here with rewards or write-offs. The cost of losing young graduates to work in Australia, for example, is immense. And when one compares the help they receive from the Government once they start producing children, they choose to stay in Australia forever. Middle-income families who have student debt repayments and high mortgage repayments are also being told to save for their old age. For some, the price of children on top of this becomes too expensive. Labour may lose this election because the only hope these people have is a promise of lower taxes and a very small tax relief on the interest on student loans.
- Judy Johannessen, Waiheke Island, 27.7.05

* * *

Larry Baldock's Marriage (Gender Classification) Amendment Bill betrays the hypocrisy within United Future. In March last year, Peter Dunne, while protesting against the Civil Union Bill, said: "Why are we putting gay marriages before making sure there are enough police on our streets, before ensuring that the sick get quick and effective treatment at our hospitals, before unclogging our roads and before giving our kids the education they need to survive in an increasingly complex world?" Can we assume that United Future considers this limp marriage bill, which will literally make no change to the current law, more important than these issues?
- Dominic Sheehan, Otahuhu, 27.7.05

* * *

The basics of reading and arithmetic were once subjects for primary and secondary education, with a level of skill essential before one entered tertiary education. We now have the ridiculous situation where the basics are not learned in the first 13 or so years of schooling, and money better used for paying proper salaries to university staff is diverted into remedial tertiary courses to compensate. Education is still the only sector of our society in which unionism dominates, eliminating payment on merit and encouragement of the best performers. Somewhere in here there seems to be a self-generating cycle of under-achievement and under-payment. Our educationists need to take a good, hard look at the system they have created, a system now abandoned by much of the rest of society.
- Lindsay Mayo, Hillsborough, 26.7.05

* * *

"Myth" is about to be added to "painful but necessary" in the repertoire of the 1980s and 1990s economic restructuring. Some of the reforms were needed. But we had options, such as retargeting our domestic manufacturing sector to export production. Instead, we quickly dismantled around half of it, removing most of the value-added jobs which went with it. Our exports still depend on primary produce. The Kiwi dream is now beyond many people. Although employment is high, the jobs are not the solid high-value ones previous generations enjoyed and which are still enjoyed in a more slowly reforming Australia. Oddly, Weekend Herald columnist Jim Eagles seems to see low wages as a benefit of reform. Much of the investment that flowed in targeted not new greenfields enterprises but existing assets like electricity, which supplied power efficiently at rates that were the envy of the world. I remember when this country was the envy of the world. Very few of the necessary reforms played any part in that; a lot of the unnecessary ones put paid to it.
- Alan Hartley, Mt Wellington, 26.7.05

* * *

National's health spokesman, Paul Hutchison, argues that universal funding for health means the Helen Clarks and Don Brashes of this world get the same subsidy as a mother of five who cannot afford to take all her teenagers to the doctor, or who has not got a choice of breast cancer drugs. I doubt middle-income earners with five teenagers could afford all the health care they need. Thus, under the "needs-based" system National plans to implement, their families would be denied the health care they deserve just to make sure the Helen Clarks and the Don Brashes pay for their own health care. Given that the latter make up about 5 per cent of the population, I, as a middle-income earner, have no problem with my tax dollars subsidising Helen Clark's and Don Brash's health care because I know this ensures the other 95 per cent of us also get the health care we need. Helen Gaeta, Eden Terrace. Maori and health Things certainly seem to be going well for the National Party. First, Trevor Mallard makes his silly comments, now the Maori Party is pushing for special treatment with pensions. Many people do not reach retirement age. Why do Maori believe they should receive the pension at an earlier age of 60? Tariana Turia and her party should focus on getting Maori off tobacco, away from liquor and out exercising, instead of gambling or feasting at the local takeaway.
- Clifford Martin, Papakura, 26.7.05

* * *

The National Party should be congratulated for being the only party to recognise that the basis of a justice system lies in upholding the rights of an individual. I applaud its commitment to setting up an appropriate inquiry into the Christchurch creche case and the circumstances of the unfortunate conviction of Peter Ellis. A solid moral foundation for justice is urgently required. Other social and justice issues associated with race, gender, sexuality, poverty, health and the courts need urgent attention. These can be better addressed by building on such a foundation using the same ethical standards.
- Brian Robinson, Hamilton, 26.7.05

* * *

What right does a New Zealand Government have to, in effect, double-tax the profits of a company from another jurisdiction, such as Australia, the United States or Britain, just because it did not get the first bite of the cherry (that is, the tax paid in that company's country of domicile) on what the Government chooses to call the "underlying profits". This is what the Government is proposing to do to New Zealand-domiciled investors with overseas portfolio investments, using the mechanism of a capital gains tax. It is like deliberately double-billing someone for goods and then using the power of the legislator to legitimise the crooked double-billing. Where is the morality? Your economics editor, Brian Fallow, should not be misled. This is an undisguised and dishonest tax grab, nothing less, and punishing to New Zealanders reliant on investment income for all or the bulk of their income. It is forcing them, because of the disadvantages involved, to repatriate their capital into a small, relatively unstable, high-risk equities market, offering a narrow range of investment sectors and in general second-rate, third-rate and fourth-rate companies to invest in. It must not be allowed to go ahead.
- Hugh Perrett, Remuera, 26.7.05

* * *

One may see some irony between being exhorted to save for retirement and the introduction of a capital gains tax to punish those who choose to look outside the increasingly limited New Zealand market and make share investments in the countries of our major trading partners. Of course there is no irony. The communisation of wealth, real or imaginary, is both good socialism and, for the confiscators, seemingly preferable to, and more morally satisfying than, the rigour of building an economy in which everyone can earn a larger portion. Perhaps the real irony is in the little red hens devouring a cake that they not only have had little hand in baking but of whose ingredients and construction they have shown scant ability to comprehend. With their initial terms encompassing increases in the marginal tax rate, higher indirect taxes and now the proposed capital gains tax, one wonders what stimulatory delights await the earner and saver should the Government have another term.
- R F. Nickless, Pakuranga, 26.7.05

* * *

Contrary to the Prime Minister's assertions that Larry Baldock's Marriage (Gender Classification) Amendment Bill is unnecessary legislation, nowhere does the Marriage Act specify that a marriage must be between a man and a woman (or that two people of the same sex cannot marry). Common law has just determined this to be so over time. The only restrictions in the act are to do with age, degrees of blood relationship, and so on. During the civil union debate we were told by its supporters that marriage would continue to be solely available to a man and a woman. But the Marriage Act, as it stands, is wide open for ideological takeover through the courts. Parliament needs to codify the common law position that marriage is considered to be between one man and one woman to prevent this from happening. It is the