Will we get answers?
Campbell Barry, mayor of Lower Hutt and political head of Wellington Water, is being sent to England to investigate water infrastructure. This well-known supporter of water metering and, inevitably, volumetric charging, will probably learn nothing useful from his trip.
Water was privatised in the late 1980s by the Thatcher government. Their strategy to get that done was to restrict the right of water utilities to borrow. By 1980 the investment in water infrastructure had shrunk to a third of its 1970 level. By the late 1980s, selling it off to private investors became the way to fix the problems created by lack of funding.
Now, water utilities in England are mostly owned by private equity companies with their well-known tax avoidance strategies. According to a survey in 2017, 83% of the English would like water utilities to be re-nationalised. According to a study by the University of Greenwich the English pay £2.3 billion more for their water than if the utilities were state-owned.
The history of water privatisation in England reads like what we are part-way through here. Is Campbell Barry Labour, or is he a magenta-crested Roger Douglas neoliberal? I guess we will find out.
Graeme Clarke, Vogeltown
‘Mum and dad’ investors
The scheme to allow mortgage interest payments for landlords as tax-deductible is discriminatory. Why not every person with a mortgage? Additionally, for landlords, this is a goldmine when the lack of a capital gains tax is tethered to the proposal.
When the power companies, Meridian, Genesis, etc, were sold off, John Key claimed “mum and dad Investors” could purchase shares. But they didn’t have the additional funds required. On Q+A last Sunday, Chris Bishop was trumpeting the same opportunity now for “mum and dad investors”. Does he not realise they are struggling with their own mortgages/rents?
When the power companies were sold, the shareholders demanded increased profits from the companies. Who paid for that? That has contributed to inflation. At the time, a poll indicated 68% of those who voted were against the sales, and The New Zealand Electricity Corporation’s demise remains one of the worst decisions in our political history.
Keith Williamson, Raumati Beach
Cinema realities
While I can understand the concerns of independent cinema owners over the possible competition posed by a new Reading Cinema (March 14) I think their fears may be groundless.
The old Reading Cinema multi-screen complex was one of three such complexes I can recall that have come and gone in central Wellington in recent years. All were vast, dark, windowless caverns with minimal staff numbers, long confectionery counters and little atmosphere, warmth or convivial areas to gather and talk.
This is in stark contrast to the friendly, cosy atmosphere and well-stocked cafes and comfortable viewing and socialising experience offered at independent cinemas. Some might suggest that the two options cater to different film preferences and age groups.
However those who prefer the big-screen blockbusters once offered at the multiplexes have only to head to The Embassy Theatre for atmosphere, comfort and entertainment. All of which means any new cinema at the Reading site could be doomed to die another death while independent cinemas and The Embassy continue to grow and flourish.
Anabright Hay, Thorndon
We need answers
The questions raised by Tom Hunt around the Reading deal are excellent (Dear Reading owners, some answers please, March 9).
You would hope that the council, as part of its due diligence, had already both asked these questions and received satisfactory responses in order to recommend the deal. Given the bulk of the funding is now sitting in the draft budget it would be timely for the council to advise ratepayers what these responses were.
It would be fantastic if The Post could also publish the draft plan and draft budget in full in the lead-up to the consultation process and advise ratepayers both how and where they can have their say on this.
Clare Pohlen, Northland
Speech disrupted
Alastair Duncan’s letter (March 13) about US Under-Secretary of State Bonnie Jenkins’ disrupted speech at Victoria University is a gross distortion of the facts. He claims she was unwilling to engage in the “conversation” the event promised. The opposite is true.
A member of the audience interrupted her remarks at the start, but was allowed to make his point before being asked to sit down so she could continue. He refused, saying she had no right to speak. After he left, a second person did the same. Social media posts from protesters confirm they had stacked the room with the aim of preventing her speaking.
A conversation by definition requires more than one voice. By hijacking the lecture theatre, an intolerant few prevented the question and answer that would have followed her remarks. They, not Under Secretary Jenkins, were the ones afraid to engage in a conversation.
David Capie, Director, Centre for Strategic Studies, Victoria University of Wellington
Show will be missed
The proposal by TVNZ to cut Fair Go from its weekly programme offerings is bad news indeed. For decades Fair Go has kept viewers informed about their rights as consumers.
Without that knowledge, there is little protection from greedy or dishonest retailers and tradespeople. New Zealand-Aotearoa has very good consumer law, but that is of little use if people are unaware of it.
This applies to both consumers and providers of services.
Where a dispute arises, the mere mention of Fair Go is likely to bring unscrupulous tradespeople into line, bringing swift and satisfying resolution to the issue.
However where early negotiation fails, Fair Go has an impressive history in advocating for the injured party, usually with a successful outcome.
There are too few educational programmes as it is without axing the very one we most need and trust.
Terry Kennaway, Waikanae