More vital needs than te reo signs

How many millions will be spent on changing all our road signs so they include te reo as well as English, as reported this week? It is quite possibly a worthwhile idea but one New Zealand can ill afford at this time. Also reported is that New Zealand’s access to medicine is the worst in the OECD. Not that long ago, in 2021, NZ Post spent $15 million on their rebrand, another total waste of money for no tangible benefits I can determine. Common sense appears to have deserted New Zealand politicians. Let’s get back to basics, get our priorities straight, and stop spending unnecessarily.

Randal Lockie, Rothesay Bay.

‘Virtue signalling’

Waka Kotahi (NZ Transport Agency) wants to know if New Zealanders favour cluttering up road signs with Mā ori translations of the English words. Their reason is “to normalise te reo for our tamariki” and “to provide a local experience for overseas visitors”. When did it become NZTA's job to fulfil either of these objectives? When did it become okay to use their budget (our money) on anything other than a safe and effective roading network? When did it become okay to use road signs for any purpose other than communication and safety? Let's be absolutely clear, NZTA, we do not want road signs used as billboards for virtue signalling. Wendy Clark, Pukekohe.

Where are the benefits?

In my working life, I often had to justify the cost of a project. The gold standard was a cost/benefit analysis. The Mā ori Party say te reo road signage will help people learn their language. I don't see this as a benefit. Does knowing what the sign says in two languages make the sign more effective? Tourists aren't going to be here long enough to learn Mā ori. Permanent residents (99.9 per cent of us) won't derive any benefit from the extra signage. It's not needed. We speak English. So where are the benefits to justify the expense?

Malcolm Chartwell, Remuera.

Super rises done before

I am always puzzled when the question of raising the qualifying age for NZ superannuation that no mention is made of the fact that this was done before. In 1992 the qualifying age was raised from 60 to 61, and gradually increased to 65 between 1993 and 2001. This occurred as my husband and I were approaching super, and the goalposts seemed to be moving in front of us. Presumably the same counter-arguments, that people who do hard physical work, and Mā ori, who have a shorter life expectancy are disadvantaged, were raised then. But my point is that it worked, we all survived, if perhaps feeling a little hard-done-by. Many, if not most, overseas countries with such a scheme have already lifted the qualifying age to 67, and New Zealand should follow suit.

Gretchen Leach, Devonport.

Ageing society and Super

There is great jubilation that Labour will not raise the age for superannuation. Have these people ever asked themselves who is paying for superannuation? They do. When Super was introduced in 1972, the average superannuitant lived for another 7 years. Now it is 17 years, and this is not the end of it. Peter Kammler, Warkworth.

Tax cuts ‘basic maths’

As a Finance Minister with a degree in political science, the chances are better than even that Grant Robertson never attended any classes explaining the time value of money. If Act promises a tax cut of $1 today, that $1 is worth far more today than the promise of $1 in retirement income in 35 years’ time. It’s basic maths and a financial principle I was fortunate enough to be educated in at Unitec as part of a bachelor of business studies. I would expect a better knowledge of financial principles from our finance minister than I have – after all, due to pressures of work, I didn’t finish my degree but at least I do remember most of what I was taught.

John Christiansen, Mt Albert.

Abuse survivor commended

Kudos to Sophie Brown, the sexual abuse survivor responsible for putting two scumbags behind bars. Your bravery and confidence define you, not the experience you suffered in the hands of those two creeps. Ian Brady, Titirangi.

Housing hypocrisy

Chris Bishop accuses the Prime Minister of hypocrisy for changing his mind on what he supported 15 years ago, in that he now advocates keeping the Superannuation eligibility age at 65. If that is hypocrisy, what is it if the leader of the opposition changes his mind on threestorey housing he supported just a few months ago, or the deputy leader doing a backtrack on the scrapping of the $5 prescription charge she was adamant would completely go if elected? Is that political expediency based on polling of public opinion or hypocrisy?

Neil Anderson, Algies Bay.

Buy now pay later danger

The editorial (NZ Herald, May 26) puts into perspective the plight of not only mortgage holders but also those who put too much on tick. Since 1990 household debt has risen dramatically, much attributable to the enticements offered to consumers. Sixty months interest-free, cash back on purchase price, “four easy repayments” are common incentives. Much is made of scams that fleece the unwary but, in my view, some selling techniques are similar but much more sophisticated. People tend to make larger purchases when they use a credit card because they don’t understand the value of money when it’s not tangible. The reason some are finding it difficult to put fruit and fresh vegetables on the table is not just inflation but because it’s far to easy to buy now and pay later. Creditors have better memories than debtors.

Reg Dempster, Albany.

Climate urgency needed

Heather du Plessis-Allan in her opinion piece (Herald on Sunday, May 28) still shows her difficulty in getting her head around what the world, New Zealand in particular, needs to do to survive the coming years of destruction, ones of such magnitude we may not survive. I’m not sure she sees that, but she should. It is our children who will be coping with a changed world of astronomical winds, sea-level rises, extraordinary heat and pollution of such magnitude plastic islands may become normal. So what is she doing challenging every attempt Labour is trying to do to right it for the next generations? Why is she not pushing National's supporters to help bring consensus and amalgamate for the better good of the country/world. We all need to be urged to move quickly, otherwise it will become unstoppable.

Emma Mackintosh, Birkenhead.

Shared platforms

Gary Bond (Herald on Sunday, May 28) asks why Paula Bennett is given a platform via her column to publicise National. I would say it is the same reason why Mike Munro and Shane te Pou are given a platform to publicise Labour.

Mark Young, Orewa.

Late-night solutions

Weekend Herald columnist Bruce Cotterill paints a grim and doubtless accurate picture of the city later at night. Not stopping to ask why the problem exists, he offers a facile solution: a higher police presence. I have two suggestions, both, I suspect, more effective and a good deal cheaper. Firstly the availability of alcohol could be greatly curtailed; getting drunk in the small hours is not generally considered a human right and dispensing with it would harm only the trade, which is not exactly struggling. Alcohol is our greatest public health problem, and it should be a matter of party policy, but, both major parties being in thrall to the liquor trade, pretend it is a matter for their consciences. Secondly, the legalisation of cannabis, which is more expensive and harder to obtain than meth, would provide a much safer option than meth, which must be a large part of what Cotterill complains about.

R Porteous, Balmoral.

Time ticking on Ardie Savea?

AB selectors must be worried at the loss of form of some of the leading players. One in particular that will be worrying them is the mercurial Ardie Savea. Savea has been mainly anonymous in Super Rugby this year. At 29, could Father Time be catching up with this great player?

Jock Mac Vicar, Hauraki.

Justice served?

So, after being jailed on 28 occasions and multiple violent offences, Jason Maney is getting yet another final warning. The judge declined preventative detention, and considered a cultural report detailing Maney’s early life. Are people from dysfunctional backgrounds somehow superior and deserving of some right to create mayhem and harm?

Neville Cameron, Coromandel.

He will say whatever he has to to get elected and then do whatever he wants afterwards. We can't afford another three years of Labour. Jo M.

Labour know they are in trouble when all they can do is ridicule the opposition. They haven’t any plans and the fuel tax is due to rise by 25 cents, that will get the voters behind them for sure. Tony P.

Oh come on, National and Act have been doing nothing else but negativity and name-calling for 5 years! Susann S.

Labour, unable to rejoice in their “success” at their conference, resort to petty snide insults aimed at the opposition. A party bereft of ideas and out of touch. Michael H

So Grant Robertson is name-calling again — the sort of behaviour that is not tolerated in classrooms or workplaces is acceptable by a government minister?

Susan M.

You mean like the right-wing treated Ardern with horrific threats, accusations, and demeaning comments? That was bullying. At least Robertson makes his points in jest to illustrate a point: National

can’t think for themselves anymore. They need ChatGPT to do the job for them.

Timothy T.

When there is a portion of society that gets terrorised by a small group of antisocials, it is the anti-socials who should get the fence around them, not the shopkeepers.

Martin Carl F.