Latest news with #MMP
The Spinoff
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
The highs, lows and WTFs of Winston Peters, deputy prime minister
Thank you for your service, Winston Raymond Peters. On Saturday, Winston Peters will finish his third stint as deputy prime minister of New Zealand, so here's a selection of highlights from the storied career of the National-NZ-First-coalition-deputy-prime-minister-turned-outcast-turned-Labour-NZ-First-coalition-deputy-prime-minister-turned-outcast-turned-NZ-First-Act-National-coalition-deputy-prime-minister-turned … ? High: The king kingmaker The MMP system has (mostly) been kind to Winston Peters. The NZ First leader's willingness to partner with either major political party has led to him essentially deciding the outcomes of the 1996, 2017 and 2023 general elections, each time having enough bargaining power to secure the role of deputy prime minister. Perhaps the kingmaker was the king all along. WTF: Causing the 1998 coalition collapse A dark time in Peters' career, though it certainly kept him in the headlines: following the introduction of MMP in 1996, NZ First formed the first coalition government with National, which lasted about 21 months before Peters was sacked from cabinet. He and prime minister Jenny Shipley – who had staged a coup against Jim Bolger in 1997 – had failed to see eye-to-eye over her plans to sell off the government's shares in Wellington Airport, and Peters walked out of government altogether. The coalition may have been over, but Shipley's government limped on with the backing of some of Peters' former NZ First colleagues who were unwilling to join him on the opposition benches. Only one of the people mentioned above is still in government now, so who's the real loser? High: Covering Jacinda Ardern's maternity leave As deputy prime minister to the Labour prime minister Jacinda Ardern from 2017 to 2020, Peters' primary role was handbrake, whether it was preventing the introduction of a capital gains tax, delivering Auckland's much-mythologised light rail system, reaching a settlement for the Ihumātao occupation, repealing three strikes legislation, putting cameras on fishing boats or passing hate speech legislation in light of the March 15 terror attacks, among other things. Then, for six weeks in 2018, Peters got to be prime minister while Ardern took maternity leave, and despite concerns from some quarters, his tenure passed pretty uncontroversially. WTF: Bussygate It was a fine Saturday morning when Peters took to X to let everyone know that Green MP Benjamin Doyle had used the word 'bussy' and was also a parent. What ensued was about two weeks of political reporters running around the halls of parliament trying to figure out what 'bussy' really meant, if we should be offended, and whether a spiral emoji was a kind of Batman symbol for paedophiles. In the end, it must not have mattered that much to Peters after all, because he declined a one-on-one conversation with Doyle and has moved onto fighting hecklers at Wellington central train station. But it was kinda weird and homophobic, and made a good case for government officials needing to follow at least five young gay people on Instagram before purporting to speak for all New Zealanders. High: Foreign affairs, ministered There's something to be said about a minister who manages to do his best work outside of the country. Three-time deputy prime minister and three-time foreign affairs minister, Peters has been described as a ' born diplomat ', and his air miles leave no question of his commitment to the role. During this term alone he has spent 152 days travelling, visiting 44 countries, pushed for Aotearoa to retain an independent foreign policy, made Phil Goff jobless, and faced Trump officials. It really all goes to show that sometimes the best export a country can have is a crotchety older gentleman. Low: Something something Mexicans? Despite the strides made in foreign affairs, maintaining positive domestic relations with New Zealanders who also happen to be immigrants (specifically from Mexico or something frighteningly similar, like perhaps the Philippines) has been a sore spot for Peters and his cohort lately. While his NZ First deputy Shane Jones has called to 'send the Mexicans home', Peters has opted for a softer policy, one which asks for New Zealanders born overseas who have the gumption to see themselves as New Zealanders to 'show some gratitude' and also never, ever use the word Aotearoa. No intel yet on whether a Latin America Reset will be established. WTF: Putting the PM in his place Slagging off the prime minister is not a skill you'd expect his deputy to have, and yet here we are. Luxon was 'struggling' in the top job because he was 'so new to politics', Peters told The Post in November, and by March the deputy prime minister was reminding everyone he had 'made' Christopher Luxon the PM. Come April, Peters told Luxon (via RNZ) that he should 'call me next time' before giving a speech to world leaders that supposedly included some 'hysterical' takes on the US trade war. Watch this space. High: Living to see another day Peters turned 80 in April. Surely that's something to celebrate. High: Some great comebacks 'Lefty shill'; 'wokester loser'; 'you look like bollocks'; 'moron'; 'don't be a stupid little schoolboy'; 'on the marae, Megan, you keep quiet'; to name a few. Low: Entrenching woke in the parliamentary vernacular Some things should only exist on the internet. High: Fighting declining parliamentary standards It's just not the same place it was back in 1979. Low: What is a woman? Who the fuck cares? WTF: Whatever comes next A snap election? An increased focus on fighting the war on woke? and sending him in an ambulance hitting 100km/h? Basically more of the same? Only time will tell.
The Spinoff
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
The highs, lows and what the fucks of Winston Peters, deputy prime minister
Thank you for your service, Winston Raymond Peters. On Saturday, Winston Peters will finish his third stint as deputy prime minister of New Zealand, so here's a selection of highlights from the storied career of the National-NZ-First-coalition-deputy-prime-minister-turned-outcast-turned-Labour-NZ-First-coalition-deputy-prime-minister-turned-outcast-turned-NZ-First-Act-National-coalition-deputy-prime-minister-turned … ? High: The king kingmaker The MMP system has (mostly) been kind to Winston Peters. The NZ First leader's willingness to partner with either major political party has led to him essentially deciding the outcomes of the 1996, 2017 and 2023 general elections, each time having enough bargaining power to secure the role of deputy prime minister. Perhaps the kingmaker was the king all along. What the fuck: Causing the 1998 coalition collapse A dark time in Peters' career, though it certainly kept him in the headlines: following the introduction of MMP in 1996, NZ First formed the first coalition government with National, which lasted about 21 months before Peters was sacked from cabinet. He and prime minister Jenny Shipley – who had staged a coup against Jim Bolger in 1997 – had failed to see eye-to-eye over her plans to sell off the government's shares in Wellington Airport, and Peters walked out of government altogether. The coalition may have been over, but Shipley's government limped on with the backing of some of Peters' former NZ First colleagues who were unwilling to join him on the opposition benches. Only one of the people mentioned above is still in government now, so who's the real loser? High: Covering Jacinda Ardern's maternity leave As deputy prime minister to the Labour prime minister Jacinda Ardern from 2017 to 2020, Peters' primary role was handbrake, whether it was preventing the introduction of a capital gains tax, delivering Auckland's much-mythologised light rail system, reaching a settlement for the Ihumātao occupation, repealing three strikes legislation, putting cameras on fishing boats or passing hate speech legislation in light of the March 15 terror attacks, among other things. Then, for six weeks in 2018, Peters got to be prime minister while Ardern took maternity leave, and despite concerns from some quarters, his tenure passed pretty uncontroversially. What the fuck: Bussygate It was a fine Saturday morning when Peters took to X to let everyone know that Green MP Benjamin Doyle had used the word 'bussy' and was also a parent. What ensued was about two weeks of political reporters running around the halls of parliament trying to figure out what 'bussy' really meant, if we should be offended, and whether a spiral emoji was a kind of Batman symbol for paedophiles. In the end, it must not have mattered that much to Peters after all, because he declined a one-on-one conversation with Doyle and has moved onto fighting hecklers at Wellington central train station. But it was kinda weird and homophobic, and made a good case for government officials needing to follow at least five young gay people on Instagram before purporting to speak for all New Zealanders. High: Foreign affairs, ministered There's something to be said about a minister who manages to do his best work outside of the country. Three-time deputy prime minister and three-time foreign affairs minister, Peters has been described as a ' born diplomat ', and his air miles leave no question of his commitment to the role. During this term alone he has spent 152 days travelling, visiting 44 countries, pushed for Aotearoa to retain an independent foreign policy, made Phil Goff jobless, and faced Trump officials. It really all goes to show that sometimes the best export a country can have is a crotchety older gentleman. Low: Something something Mexicans? Despite the strides made in foreign affairs, maintaining positive domestic relations with New Zealanders who also happen to be immigrants (specifically from Mexico or something frighteningly similar, like perhaps the Philippines) has been a sore spot for Peters and his cohort lately. While his NZ First deputy Shane Jones has called to 'send the Mexicans home', Peters has opted for a softer policy, one which asks for New Zealanders born overseas who have the gumption to see themselves as New Zealanders to 'show some gratitude' and also never, ever use the word Aotearoa. No intel yet on whether a Latin America Reset will be established. What the fuck: Putting the PM in his place Slagging off the prime minister is not a skill you'd expect his deputy to have, and yet here we are. Luxon was 'struggling' in the top job because he was 'so new to politics', Peters told The Post in November, and by March the deputy prime minister was reminding everyone he had 'made' Christopher Luxon the PM. Come April, Peters told Luxon (via RNZ) that he should 'call me next time' before giving a speech to world leaders that supposedly included some 'hysterical' takes on the US trade war. Watch this space. High: Living to see another day Peters turned 80 in April. Surely that's something to celebrate. High: Some great comebacks 'Lefty shill'; 'wokester loser'; 'you look like bollocks'; 'moron'; 'don't be a stupid little schoolboy'; 'on the marae, Megan, you keep quiet'; to name a few. Low: Entrenching woke in the parliamentary vernacular Some things should only exist on the internet. High: Fighting declining parliamentary standards It's just not the same place it was back in 1979. Low: What is a woman? Who the fuck cares? What the fuck: Whatever comes next A snap election? An increased focus on fighting the war on woke? and sending him in an ambulance hitting 100km/h? Basically more of the same? Only time will tell.
Newsroom
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
Parliament left speechless as Winston walks, Māori leaders absent
The next razor gang that's convened at Parliament needs to take a blade to the time allocated for speeches by party leaders on Budget Day. Though they demand efficiency and effectiveness, outputs and outcomes from everyone else, the nation's biggest political celebrities need to look to themselves: their contributions following Budget 2025 were variously bloated, unfocused or Just. Too. Long. Most made their points, strove for arcs of ideology and philosophy, reached natural conclusions and then just started up again, rhetoric on repeat, filling in the 20 yawning minutes allowed on the big day. Nicola Willis' Budget speech is exempt from the time limit, a fixed set-piece that has to say what it says and take the time it needs to say it. She carried off her second attempt with a measured purpose, having had the advantage of knowing its contents and working on its wording for weeks. The Leader of the Opposition, who goes next, has almost no time to prepare, anticipating and winging it to form a passable response. Then the Prime Minister and leaders of other parties in the House in descending order of MMP representation. The governing ones know the details in advance; the opposing ones are instantly reactive. Both Te Pāti Māori's co-leaders were absent, their courtesy copies of the big document hand-delivered by Willis to empty pews, ironic in the extreme given the House had ostensibly adjourned Tuesday's Privileges Committee punishment debate so they could take part in the Budget. Whether intended or not, it was a very 2025 trolling of their accusers. And the New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, a stickler for parliamentary propriety, heard Willis and some of Hipkins and then disappeared as well, an astonishing act for someone who relishes the main event and could be expected to claim victory for the Budget's many triumphs. His deputy and the fill-in NZ First orator Shane Jones told the House Peters had advised him he was to take over the speaking role only at 1.15pm, 45 minutes before the Budget speech. Peters' sudden exit was linked by his office to his need to fly north and prepare for an official visit to Australia on Friday. But why leave it so late to drop the surprise on Jones? How could Winston Peters not claim his place at the annual leaders' showpiece? Soon to step down from the deputy prime ministership, perhaps he is grooming Jones for an earlier than expected elevation to the party leadership? Willis, and four party leaders did get to speak, stretching out over more than two hours with a festival of rhetoric. Willis may have promised a 'No BS Budget' but sadly couldn't control some of the BS that followed. Here's a summary of their performances, and how they rated: Nicola Willis, holder of the Budget – 7.5 The format of the Budget speech is good for Willis, requiring a relatively straight and formal delivery and restraining her natural impulse to condescend to those on the other side of the House. There was no escaping that the Budget had served up an easy ball (in the form of the $12 billion cut in projected contingency funding to cover pay equity settlements) for Hipkins to hit, sitting across from her. But Willis fronted that, talking up the 'repurposing' of $2.7b a year for other things. She denied her document was austere, and claimed it was 'deliberate' and for the medium-term, and revealed the hidden centrepiece, Investment Boost, which allows businesses a tax write-off for a portion of new kit, buildings, and machinery. A possibly unprecedented, humanising moment came when Willis talked of the need to limit debt to protect kids of the future. Both in her scripted speech and unscripted, she acknowledged her own children in the public gallery above her, apologising to one that Mum had been too busy to attend a show on Wednesday night. And it was for the kids, on education, that she broke ministerial mask again, telling the education minister: 'The Honourable Erica Stanford – we did it! It is a great Budget.' Willis' biggest applause, however, was when she teased the Greens that the coalition 'would not be defunding the police'. Whoop, whoops from an excited Government side. Her sign-off, that 'every Kiwi can know that this is a government that has their back' was hardly climactic. But it elicited a standing ovation from her side, hugs from the PM and Christopher Bishop. And a modest clap from Winston Peters. Chris Hipkins, for the prosecution – 7.0 Hipkins had the advantage, this year, of knowing that the pay equity law change gave him material to work with, and for much of his speech he hammered Willis and the Government for taking money for pay equity settlements to cover for their 'bad choices and failures' elsewhere. Other than an occasional breaking note in his voice, he spoke strongly and had the line of the session, declaring that when Willis had promised no lolly scramble she had been right. 'This is a scramble without the lollies' he pressed, noting the Government's moves to take monies from one place to pay for others. On the $200m Crown investment into offshore mining, the Labour man remarked 'they are adept at mining the pits of division'. Hipkins played up Willis' 'No BS Budget' line, offering alternatives that it had no 'bold solutions, bread and shelter, backpaid settlements, or better society' but did have 'big subsidies' for oil and gas. He checked off the incumbents' failures – record numbers leaving for overseas, more people living on the streets, more children hungry, women earning less. 'They are offering growth but it's growth in all the wrong places.' His pace and hitting of raw nerves was good until it kind of reached an end point, but didn't end, reached another and didn't end and another and finally a tame round-off: 'New Zealanders deserve better from their Government than what they are being offered today.' Christopher Luxon, for the defence – 6.0 Luxon, oddly, dedicated much of the first half of his Budget speech to attacking Labour and the Greens at length. He won clubroom cheers from his backbench with several taunts of Hipkins as 'Mr Bo Jandals', a line he felt the need to explain related to his opponent's flip flopping and once holding a press conference in thongs. Luxon elicited groans when he asked the Government team to imagine Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori trying to run the economy. 'They can't run a bath, let alone the economy.' Copying Willis from the general debate on Wednesday, he spent time highlighting differences between Hipkins and his finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds on debt. It all seemed a bit beneath the position of PM, particularly when there was so much to talk about in the main event of the day, the Willis document – the Investment Boost, debt track, infrastructure spend. The Prime Minister did eventually get to it, after saying what every political strategist in the building had been muttering: 'Enough about the Labour Party.' Luxon praised his National number two as 'the great Nicola Willis. How lucky is New Zealand and how lucky are we?' Education Minister Erica Stanford was declared 'brilliant' and Simeon Brown went global: 'Our fantastic, world-class Minister of Health, Simeon Brown.' The PM praised the Budget for its growth aspects, and rattled off dozens of New Zealand towns in an 'I've been everywhere, man' style to emphasise investment in extra urgent and after hours healthcare. After a 'back on track' to wrap up, Luxon also won an ovation from his side, but it seemed less than ecstatic. Chlöe Swarbrick, for radical change – 6.5 Parliament got the full finger-thumping, hand-chopping, arm-waving, frowningly expressive Swarbrick, not content for this big moment to criticise a Budget as much as to critique a system – 'a game' – of the neoliberal order from the last 40 years. Her vigour threatened to overwhelm the message at times, but it was as clearly articulated a view of anti-neoliberalism, of challenging the prevailing economic orthodoxies, as the House has heard for some years. Swarbrick eviscerated the coalition for its changes to Best Start, the funding for new parents, contrasting taking $200m away from young families with a similar investment in gas exploration. 'In a planet on fire they're taking money away from babies and setting it on fire.' She reached for a moniker for the Budget, trying 'the trickledown … the child poverty is all good … the Let them Eat Cake' budgets and ending with a label about pay equity that was too long to note. Throughout, the Green co-leader derided the narrative adopted by Willis and governments over the past decades. 'They say 'don't hate the player, hate the game'. Well, we hate the game. The rules of the game were made by those politicians 40 years ago, outdated, self-imposed targets in this made-up game.' Again, Swarbrick could have wound up earlier but saw out her time with memories back to the 1930s and 1940s and an era of public education, healthcare and housing right up until before she was born. Public goods and assets were sold and 'regular people have been left fighting for crumbs'. David Seymour, for 'firms, farms and families' – 6.5 Seymour said an Act Budget would have been different (cough, better) but played nice, saying how proud he was to be part of the coalition that had saved taxpayers billions when inflation and the population were rising. He saluted another year of stable government, but diverted off to ridicule the Greens' alternative Budget and Swarbrick for what he called 'thundering cliches', Te Pāti Māori for 'not knowing what a Budget is, or that it is on today' and more about unicorns and TikTok. The Act leader did try to strike a high-minded pose, musing on virtuous circles and (surely not a cliche) that 'the government that governs best is the government that governs less'. So philosophical did he get that he said Budgets weren't about who gets what, but about values. 'Making the most of your time on Earth.' Then, with the luxury of the 20-minute speech slot, he moved to extol the value of his coming Regulatory Standards Bill, how it would 'punish the bad lawmakers' and adding in something about 'frickin cones'. He riffed off into the right to be 'safe in our bodies from thugs abroad and at home', praised Defence Minister Judith Collins and declared the $500m Act had lobbied for for more prison beds was 'the best money you will ever spend'. His grab-bag flicked at RNZ, which is losing 7 percent of its public funding over the next four years: 'Should help focus the organisation on high-quality news reporting.' And he had a swipe at former National education minister Hekia Parata's 'communities of learning', which had been axed, saving $375m. 'There are so many savings I'm going to run out of time.' He didn't. Shane Jones – from the bench – 5.0 Jones had 45 minutes' warning, he told the House, that he was to take his leader's speaking slot. Peters had teased him about always wanting to challenge himself without notes. 'Please talk about rail' Peters had urged his deputy. As it turned out rail got a glancing sentence or two in a feat of on-your-feet oratory that wasn't saved by its structure, content or conclusion. Matua Jones started by holding up a little lidded bottle that he claimed contained Maui oil and offered to let the Greens sniff it, but also to protect it from Te Pāti Māori who might lay claim to it. His forceful words careened across the NZ First-inspired $200m investment in mining 'to keep the lights on, power prices down and energy flowing' through Chris Hipkins kissing frogs in search of a future coalition prince and Kaikohe meth, the RMA and victimhood haka. Like Seymour he hit out at the Greens, complaining of their MPs' 'conceit and false superiority' and seemed like he was heading for a soaring conclusion multiple times, before, eventually holding aloft his oil bottle and abruptly taking his seat.
Kiwiblog
16-05-2025
- Business
- Kiwiblog
Parker's valedictory
Quite a few interesting things said by David Parker in his valedictory speech: Dame Anne Salmond describes the Treaty as an exchange of gifts—tuku—between the Queen for her subjects and a rangatira on behalf of hapū. I agree with Dame Anne that Te Tiriti is not a partnership between races. She criticises both the phrase and that legal construct from the decision of Lord Cooke in the 1987 land case. I don't think those comments from Cooke are a necessary part of the ratio decidendi of that case, and it would be helpful for the senior courts to say so if they are of that view. I agree it would be very useful for the Supreme Court to say exactly that. Cooke actually said that it was akin to a partnership, and as noted that was not a binding view. Kelvin Davis says that article 1 plus article 2 equals article 3. Treaty rights are substantial, but there is no Treaty right to a parallel system of Government that would breach article 1. Does Willie agree? The Greens and TPM certainly don't. Now, there's a debate about the relative merits of a capital income tax or realisation-based capital gains tax (CGT), which I've also advocated for, and either solution is good. And, yes, if I had my way, we would have both with appropriate credit for one against other. Capital income would not be double-taxed. That would allow everyone to get the first $20,000 income tax free, $10K immediately, and the next $10K phased in as CGT revenue grew. I'd fix interest deductibility again, and I'd let everyone inherit $1 million tax-free, be it from trusts or deceased estates. Good God, he wanted to implement a Capital gains Tax, a wealth tax and also a death tax! His death tax would kick in at around the level of the median house price in New Zealand, so basically if you end up owning your own home and die, Parker would tax you! Capital flight is exaggerated. The land, the buildings, the cows, the fish, and the trees stay; even pigs can't fly. This means the means of production remain. This is a view that might have been true in 1900 or 1950 but definitely not in 2025. The means of production are no longer land and buildings. Our most successful global company Xero is not dependent on NZ land and buildings. Same goes for Zuru. We are all hostages to MMP. Why else would so much political capital be frittered away on identity politics while others fan culture wars and size society polarisers? To be clear, MMP drives these behaviours in main parties too. Under first past the post, New Zealand became amongst the best country in the world, but MMP was meant to be better. Perhaps Dr Hooten is right and MMP gets worse over time. It's the people's system, not ours. As things polarise and the hard issues don't get fixed, we should allow the people to, again, make their choice. I'd vote STV. All 120 of us would have to serve in a seat. I agree that STV would be a far better system than MMP. It is still roughly proportional, but it means voters, not party lists, would determine who gets to be an MP – and every MP would have to keep their electorate happy to be re-elected. And if we become a Republic—not high on my list—please avoid giving a president executive powers. Absolutely. They should have the same powers as the Governor-General.
NZ Herald
02-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Letters: KiwiSaver subsidy increases wealth gap; no real accountability for Covid-era decisions
John Trezise, Birkenhead. MMP What a great piece of writing by Bruce Cotterill reflecting on our MMP system of voting after 30 years of experimentation. I don't know many who support MMP for all the reasons Bruce digs into. A best-case start point is the reduction in MPs to 90; sensible if not timely. Will our leaders listen? Initially not likely because of self-interest. Daily we see MPs not listening to understand but simply listening to formulate their reply. When the next election comes around a groundswell of community voices across every region could shift many with blinkers on. Linda Melrose, East Tāmaki Heights. Covid reflections Sir Ashley Bloomfield, our former director-general of health, has recently reflected on his time leading the pandemic response, saying he wishes he had kept a diary. That may be personally helpful to him, but the more pressing concern is what we now know: the extended Auckland lockdown – lasting four months – could likely have been avoided if New Zealand had acted faster and paid a premium to secure vaccines earlier, as other countries did. That delay cost us dearly. Businesses failed, mental health suffered and the economic fallout will be with us for a generation. But the damage wasn't just economic. The extended lockdowns and the harsh MIQ regime kept families separated, prevented dying relatives from saying goodbye, and stranded thousands of New Zealanders overseas – many of them citizens desperate to return home. That is not a success story; it is a national trauma. Dr Bloomfield was very well paid to do his job. He was the most powerful unelected official in the country during the crisis. Yet there has been no real accountability for the choices made under his watch – choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and better international comparisons, were far more damaging than necessary. A knighthood is supposed to be a mark of exceptional service. In this case, it feels like a reward for presiding over one of the most divisive and economically destructive public policy periods in our history. We should acknowledge Dr Bloomfield's service. But given the human and economic cost of the decisions made, the awarding of a knighthood was – and remains – excessive. It should be reconsidered. Champak Mehta, Remuera. David Seymour I see David Seymour is getting a bit of Trumpian-like practice in readiness for his takeover of the deputy prime minister duties at the end of this month. Declaring that the Government has too many ministers and ministries, which need some serious reviewing, has a familiar ring to it. The question is whether he will be doing the hatchet job himself or will he enlist the soon-to-be redundant Elon Musk, as his duties with Doge are just about done? He managed to decimate the democratic system in the US in under 100 days. I'm sure Act Party members and MPs would be proud to achieve what he did so efficiently and effectively in such short time. Jeremy Coleman, Hillpark. Public transport In reply to a letter from Susan Grimsdell, there is no such thing as free transport. There is no public transport system in the world that does not operate without a subsidy. This subsidy has to come from Joe Public in the forms of levies on your rates or government taxes. If these people believe in free transport, are they prepared to see a large jump in their rates? Auckland, unlike Wellington and Christchurch, does not have a central feed with everyone coming into a central point. Auckland being so long (Bombay to Warkworth) can not have or sustain an efficient transport system, thus making people rely on cars. Auckland's congestion is a result of the stopping of all major road works in the late 80s, but kept increasing the population, and as a result you will never have adequate resolve to the density problem. Trevor Green, Matamata. Auckland's stadiums Paul Lewis' analysis of the Auckland Stadium debate has sound merit. I was a supporter of Eden Park until I read the proposed upgrade keeps the number 1 stand as far away from the field as it is now by pretending to be closer with extra seating. I have been on the top deck of the number 1 stand and you cannot recognise the players or read the number on their back. So rationalisation of Auckland stadiums makes sense. The Wynard Quarter location works for transport and proximity to hospitality and I understand it is cheaper – we certainly need a better value as New Zealand becomes more financially challenged. Perhaps a fixed-price contract like Christchurch stadium would be a good idea. Paul's humor was appreciated. Gary Carter, Gulf Harbour. A quick word As traffic congestion goes Auckland is ranked 22nd in the world, which is pretty high up when you consider the number of cities globally,and still makes our traffic congestion worse than New York. Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay. A picture is not always worth a thousand words. However, Rod Emmerson's broken and despondent Statue of Liberty of May 1 was. How much poorer our reading life would be without insightful cartoonists such as him. Bernie Allen, Hobsonville. While Nicola Willis and the Government seem to be discussing the possibility of means testing KiwiSaver and Best Start why is there no discussion of means testing Superannuation? While lots of elderly people need Superannuation, there are clearly many rich people who don't. Why doesn't the Government means test Superannuation and spend the money in more needy areas? Danna Glendining, Taupō. I read with interest a letter by Emere Mcdonald (May 1) expressing shock that someone was fined $7000 for feeding some birds. Emere clearly does not understand feeding human food such as bread is very dangerous and can actually kill or harm all birds. There are signs in Auckland stating this in many parks there. And the same signs also appear in most London parks. While I think a $7000 fine is a bit excessive it is not clearly understood by most people birds do not thrive on human food. Michael Walker, Blockhouse Bay. Nicola Willis questions, 'Is that (Best Start payments) really necessary when there's a two-income household?' Making ends meet in the current economic climate is nigh on impossible for many two-income families working long hours on low wages. Does Nicola Willis even know how little anyone on the so-called 'living wage' earns? Sarah Thompson, Papakura. There has been much discussion recently on educational standards, but I have heard nothing about our quality of speech. From the Prime Minister down, including members of Parliament, school principals and many of our media, we are being continuously barraged with a plethora of 'ums', 'aaahs' and 'you knows'. How can we function efficiently as a society if our communication is sub standard? I would like to see our leaders set us a better example, along with more emphasis in schools on oral communication. Trevor Brown, Opotiki. The realities of current so-called 'reality' television shows are an opaque mixture of either real life and genuine human dramas or they are thespian staged, concocted and 'unreal' play acting. The faux variety productions have the negative effect of casting doubt upon the genuine article. The producers of these programmes have an obligation to issue a warning that some parts of their dramas are not actually true-to-life events and others are as they must accurately report, just 'based on real-life events'. Still others ... are fictional. Larry Mitchell, Rothesay Bay. David Seymour wants to shrink the number of Cabinet ministers and ministries – including Racing, which won't go down well in a certain quarter. Do us all a favour, David – start the cull by stepping down yourself. Peter Beyer, Sandringham. Regarding the 'Total ban on prisoners voting spiteful' (editorial May 2), the current law that those serving less than three years in jail can vote and is true and fair for those people and our current electoral system. So is the sole reason to ban all people in jail from voting solely because the Government believes the majority of people in jail would vote Labour and it does not want their votes to be part of the next election? Am I wrong? Murray Hunter, Titirangi.
