Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including Sir Russell Coutts, Government, and Gaza.
A question of equality when talking honours
I wish I could be equally proud of two sons of Dunedin, but I can’t.
Local boy made good, Grant Robertson has as yet no honorific, unlike Sir Russell Coutts who with the support of his crews has made him wealthy.
He seems to think that his financial interests are more important than our native flora and fauna, in this case particularly the survival of Hector’s Dolphins and he now hold Cantabrians and indeed all New Zealanders to ransom in his endeavours to add to his fortune.
Though I think he undoubtedly deserves a knighthood for his management of New Zealand’s finances through the Covid pandemic I am reluctant to nominate Grant Robertson for a knighthood if it puts him on equal status to Sir Russell.
Euan Thomson
Mornington
We care a lot
While this government claims to care about all of us, it clearly does not care about hungry children, the disabled, those on benefits, those on low incomes, the homeless or worker safety.
It also does not care about endangered species, the environment or the seabed. This coalition also wants to make animals suffer by bringing back live exports.
However the government does want to give money to those wealthy enough to own multiple properties. The proposed Fast Track legislation is extremely concerning as it will make many of their actions unable to be scrutinised adequately. I am extremely worried about the future.
Lou Scott
Kenmure
Hector’s dolphins. PHOTO: SHAUN WILSON
Shame on you
To say that the efforts of so many people trying to protect our native animals and plants is "weaponising" is a sad indictment of the current government's view and lack of respect for our natural world. Shame on you.
Janine Thompson
Owaka
Laughing stock
The "100 days of shame'’ has ended and changes made are at best galling, at worst reprehensible. The one to come is the one I fear most, making semi-automatic weapons available for "shooting practice'’ on ranges. When these weapons are targeted by gangs or similar and end up in the wrong hands and are then used in a crime which may result in death what will their catchcry be then — "people kill not guns’'? (as per NRA). Change for the sake of appeasing a few gun activists is not good policy and makes us the laughing stock of the world, again
Graham Bulman
Roslyn
A boy stands next to canned food on offer in Gaza. PHOTO: REUTERS
A question
The news item "Call for Gaza visas’' raises an interesting point. Why is it that Gaza's close neighbours, Egypt and Jordan, are not interested in doing this, while New Zealand, at the other end of the world, is expected to? It is an axiom of refugee policy that these unfortunates should be relocated to the nearest safe location, to await the opportunity to return home.
Rob Harris
Masterton
Premise fine, questions about buttressing
The Weekend Mix cover story (ODT 19.3.24) described and promoted an economic boycott of Israeli products. It was about supporting Palestinians and weakening Israel through what we as consumers buy and don’t buy.
Linking convictions to where and what we buy is sensible. My difficulty with this piece is the level of historic distortion involved in buttressing the discussion.
History can be used creatively. Might the dairy market around the world be encouraged to boycott Fonterra as so much of our prime dairy land (Waikato and Taranaki) was stolen from Maori by military force with rape and pillage part of the process? Documented facts would support this but it is not going to happen.
Meanwhile in the Weekend piece we are told the 1936 Great Arab Revolt and First Intifada "brought economic pressure to bear" as part of a "peaceful demonstration". Five minutes with Google will dismantle this depiction.
What would really bring more light is either Tom McKinlay or Dr Talahma clarifying their use of the term "occupation". When did that occupation start and what region(s) does it cover?
Francis Noordanus
Dunedin
Penny Simmonds
Nothing to worry about with Penny
Invercargill MP and Minister for Disability Issues Penny Simmonds is a real piece of work.
First, she tried to blame carers for disabled people who receive occasional and very brief respite from their difficult work for misappropriating money allocated to them.
Then, she blamed her officials for blowing the budget allocated for care, including provision of equipment.
Neither of these charges are true. The Pre-Election Financial Update (PREFU) contained a true and correct picture of the public accounts, including the amount appropriated for care of disabled people. Either Simmonds and her colleagues were too stupid and lazy to read the document, or they calculated that we are.
Instead, the government made sure there was no money for disabled people and their carers, while Simmonds ordered cuts to the equipment and services they receive, while simultaneously handing landlords billions of dollars of revenue that could, and should, have been spent on things that really matter, such as the wellbeing of disabled people.
Readers will be delighted to know that Simmonds is also responsible for our freshwater resources. So we have nothing to worry about there, either.
Michael Gibson
Invercargill
