Outrageous article
Although I don’t share Paula Bennett’s politics, I think her profile was itself outrageous (“Outrageous fortune”,
June 20).
Apart from the unfortunate and messy situation with her daughter’s boyfriend, there was nothing in the story to indicate she had dropped the ball in any of her portfolios. When will a story be published on male Cabinet ministers who could at best be described as bumbling?
The statement that “Bennett’s Cinderella story is almost as compelling as Key’s own rise from state house inhabitant to Parnell multimillionaire” was remarkable. Bennett’s story is far more compelling.
Key’s state house origin was the only factor counting against him, and that was not a particularly large one: state house upbringings are not uncommon backgrounds for successful people in New Zealand. In contrast, Bennett seemingly had everything against her, not least being female and a teenage mother.
Alex Sims
(Grey Lynn, Auckland)
I wish to voice my profound disappointment at the wording of the question for the pending referendum, mentioned in the Paula Bennett story, on the decision to repeal the section of the Crimes Act that removed the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically punish their children (so often incorrectly referred to as the anti-smacking bill).
The wording of the question in any referendum is extremely important because it strongly influences the response. The current wording of the pending referendum – “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand” – can have only one response for the reasonable person: no. I would have to answer no to the question as it is currently worded, yet I wholeheartedly supported the legislation change.
The question does not accurately reflect the effect of the legislative change. It would be more accurately worded as: “Do you think that parents who use physical violence to discipline their children should be protected by the law?”
I have no desire to criminalise people who give their children the odd smack as long as they are otherwise loving and provide good care for their children. However, all the emotive debate has so far distorted the real issue – and that is whether children deserve protection under New Zealand law against physical violence.
The attitudes and morals of our society are reflected by our laws. I am sorry that a question of such importance has been rendered meaningless by its wording.
Sunita Azariah
(Freemans Bay, Auckland)
The Bain verdict
“We will never know” is the opinion most of us onlookers to the Bain case will have to live with, perhaps forever.
The Crown’s forensic evidence seemed to strongly point to David Bain’s guilt. However, if I had been on the jury, I think I would have acquitted him, because the defence managed to establish enough doubt about the prosecution case and because the judge said to find David guilty the jury had to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
The Crown’s case was weakened by some less-than-satisfactory investigation and by the destruction of much evidence since the murders. The destruction of evidence also made it easier for the defence to cast Robin Bain as a more credible killer.
Russell Finnemore
(Whenuapai, Waitakere)
Power to the people
Jane Clifton’s piece on the power market (Politics, June 13) was amusing and doubtless caught the public mood exactly.
After detailed analysis, though, I must agree with other local experts that the assumptions behind the $4 billion of overcharging estimated by the Commerce Commission report do not reflect local realities. Even if the figure is accurate, it would mean only 10-12% of domestic power bills was a “markup” required to provide an acceptable return (about 7%) on the capital invested by all New Zealanders in a power system built to maintain supply security at current levels. Hardly shocking stuff.
But let me respond to Clifton’s challenge. I was once one of those brilliant cardy-wearing chaps who, under the Ministry of Energy, was responsible for planning methods, wrote the electricity chapter of the first Energy Plan, and wrote a good bit of pricing policy, too. So I can tell you how the heck we used to deliver such cheap power, and also why, in my opinion, those happy days should not be allowed to return.
Clifton is right. There was a lot more doing in those days, and sometimes a lot less thinking. In the national energy planning process, I probably saw less hard data on actual costs, risks and environmental impacts than I would for a small wind farm today. And I do not recall ever seeing what an actual power station had really cost to build, after the fact. It did not seem relevant to pricing in those days.
Hydro stations were being built that would not be economic, even at today’s prices. Politically, though, prices had to be low, and domestic consumers were heavily subsidised by businesses. Our resources were being squandered to maintain the illusion of “cheap, abundant hydro power”, while debt built up for our children to pay off.
Development now matches load growth much better than it used to, and power stations, like houses, are built only if consumers are willing to pay the costs. The old Energy Plans showed a whole programme of further hydro stations that would have been built long ago if the market had not found cheaper options.
With cheap Maui gas gone, prices may now rise enough to make some of those options economic, bringing the true national cost levels back closer to where they were in the 80s. Sad, but inevitable in the long run.
Like anyone who is involved enough to understand how the market works, I am naturally biased. But the evidence does suggest the cost to the nation has been substantially lowered over the past two decades.
Grant Read
Adjunct professor in management science, University of Canterbury
The two letters on power pricing (June 20) demonstrate clearly what is wrong with the electricity industry and indeed the economy: enormous financial power propped up by wrong-headed political ideology.
In the old days, there were public utilities, maintained by government departments for the benefit of all. Even some of our money supply (Housing Corporation, Rural Bank) was created by the Reserve Bank as a public utility. Prosperity ensued, as most individuals and levels of the productive sector could own property and carry on business supported by the affordable and reliable essential infrastructure.
Since the neoliberal economic revolution that claimed to herald an age of individual prosperity, the notion of essential infrastructure has been discredited. Everything, including labour, is now regarded as a commodity, exploitable for private profit.
However, under the new god, Market Forces, only a few individuals have benefited. Cycles of boom and bust happen more frequently and more severely, the productive sector has been gutted or moved offshore, individual debt level is at an all-time high, wages have stagnated, prices keep rising and fully a quarter of our children live below the poverty line, innocent victims of a commoditised economy.
The fundamental difference between the old Electricity Department and the “electricity as commodity” model is clear: on the one hand, Geoff Robinson writes of a mandate to supply a public utility at a cost that funded forward planning and maintenance of infrastructure but not bloated executive salaries, advertising campaigns or rebranding exercises; on the other, Professor Andy Philpott uses economic double-speak and personal put-downs to defend an unjust, inefficient, profit-driven industry, while politicians continue to talk and prices continue to rise.
Come back, men in cardies.
Katherine Ransom
(Matamata)
China confusion
Your commentators are quite right to draw attention to the economic opportunities offered by China and to acknowledge the problems posed by China’s political and human rights shortcomings (“All eyes on China”, June 13), but other aspects of our burgeoning relationship with the world’s most populous country deserve a mention.
Away from the sensationalist glare of the world’s media seeking to highlight practices we find unacceptable are examples suggesting New Zealand has a unique opportunity to help China emerge from the sinister shadows of its once secretive and repressive regimes.
In Dunedin, drawing on our increasingly meaningful sister-city relationship with Shanghai, we have for the past three years hosted delegations of civic leaders and officials seeking to learn about our justice and penal systems. They have also been interested in the progress we have made in the field of equal rights and opportunities for women.
Their unsolicited interest in such unlikely areas is cause for hope that exposure to different cultures may lead to significant changes sooner rather than later. Dunedin will continue to keep its door open to such exchanges in the hope that the fresh air they bring in will offer enlightenment – to both of us.
Peter Chin
Mayor of Dunedin
Rodney Jones’ assertion that no New Zealand journalist accompanied Prime Minister John Key during his recent trip to China is incorrect.
Radio New Zealand press gallery journalist Chris Bramwell accompanied Key to China. Her stories, live interviews and audio packages were broadcast by Radio New Zealand News, Morning Report and Checkpoint, and were carried on the Radio New Zealand website. Bramwell also compiled a comprehensive Insight documentary examining the impact of the recession on China and its flow-on effects for New Zealand trade.
The Insight programme, broadcast on May 31, is available at www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/20090531.
John Barr
Communications manager, Radio NZ
Chicken soup for the cold
Linley Boniface’s otherwise useful column on cold remedies (Health, June 20) misses the point about which chicken soups work to alleviate cold symptoms. The article ends with a claim that anyone who cannot get chicken soup cooked from scratch will wind up with “a discouraging bowl of chicken-flavoured two-minute noodles”. Cleverly put, but not necessarily correct.
The original article by Barbara Rennard et al was published in Chest in 2000. It’s available at www.chestjournal.org/content/118/4/1150.full.
This interesting study used an indirect test-tube method to estimate anti-inflammatory effects of not just homemade chicken soup but also 14 commercially available soups. Campbell’s Ramen chicken-flavour noodles were no better than tap water. On the other hand, Lipton Chicken-Noodle Cup-a-Soup was extremely effective, being among the top five. A number of what seem to be tinned rather than dried soups were also good.
Hence, people with bad colds but without dedicated soup-making partners may still obtain symptomatic relief from supermarket-bought chicken soups. They might have to try different brands to get one that works.
Disappointingly, no one seems to have followed up this research to determine which soluble chemical(s) from chicken has presumed anti-inflammatory properties. My first impression from the bar graph in the Chest article is that glutamate might be partly responsible.
Jay Mann
(Somerfield, Christchurch)
Clayton’s ads
Recently TV3 was chastised for showing advertisements on Sunday morning. Yet on Sunday morning, TV1 regularly inserts several breaks in its Q+A programme, during which it plays promotional advertisements for its own programmes.
I have also noted that on Christmas Day and other holidays when the ad breaks are similarly restricted, the networks insist on interrupting their programmes for these self-promotions.
Surely an advertisement for a forthcoming attraction is as much a commercial as an advertisement for a shampoo. Fortunately, in these days of recorders, we can fast-forward these irksome interruptions. But this still leaves a question: why do they do it?
John Balneaves
(Fendalton, Christchurch)
National kapa haka team?
Decision time has arrived for the All Blacks: do they want to be a kapa haka group or a rugby team? If the latter, they should stop giving an offensive, aggressive performance that sets the scene for war rather than sport and save their energy to concentrate on the basics of the game.
The three Ps need to be revised:
position – note how well the French did this compared with the All Black straggle;
possession – note how often the All Blacks kicked the ball into the hands of the French; and
pace – instead of feeding the ball along the chain to the wings, who are best at spectacular high-speed dashes for the line, the inside backs run pathetically into the centre, creating yet another boring, scrappy maul and getting nowhere.
Until the All Blacks’ rugby matches the promise of their haka, surely we can be spared the embarrassment of a braggadocio opening followed by a dismal display.
Don Boswell
(Eastbourne, Wellington)
The state of denial
If Marten Hutt (Letters, June 13) really had an open mind on global warming, he would not fail to take action in case it was serious.
Scepticism, as he claims, may not be wholly unreasonable – only about 99% – but it is wholly impractical, if it leads to doing nothing.
He is right to criticise biofuel and carbon-credit schemes, but should not be deterred by them, as they do not represent rational thinking on the issue. They are attempts by the business-as-usual world to capitalise on the situation without remedying it, and fail to address the two pressing needs: contraction of the profligate economy, and convergence of our standards of living to an ethical level.
Gavin Maclean
(Cullerlie, Gisborne)
