Letters: KiwiMart – dictatorship of the shareholder, or access to a human right?

We all seem to think the law favours the maximisation of profit for the shareholders, but this is not strictly the case. The Companies (Directors’ Duties) Amendment Act 2023 formally amended Section 131 of the Companies Act 1993 to clarify that “a director may consider matters other than the maximisation of profit (such as environmental, social, and governance matters) when determining the company’s best interests”.

Instead of spending massive outlays on forcibly buying up outlets and risking the charge of “communism” (as has already been made by our Prime Minister) all a government needs to do is to prioritise this amendment to the Companies Act and make it enforceable, if necessary, under conditions of extreme hardship in the population. (Access to food should be a human right, right?)

No longer will it be a dictatorship of the shareholder, an issue that became a major discussion point in post-Thatcher Britain, but the primary focus of companies will be the wellbeing of the people, the social contract. How hard is that?

Paul Judge, Hamilton.

In defence of KiwiMart

Despite misgivings, KiwiMart (Sept 9) will bring down food prices. It will make profits – not excess profits. It’s not just KiwiMart that will offer lower prices; the commercial operators will be compelled to drop prices to compete. This is what happened in Britain once Aldi scaled up.

While it’s too early to say if Zohran Mamdani’s initiative in New York will work, the Mondragon co-operative system in the Basque region has operated successfully for over 60 years. Mondragon prioritises workers and consumers over profits. They have over 1000 grocery outlets and also operate in other sectors like finance and manufacturing.

Even if KiwiMart doesn’t come to fruition, it might prod our impotent mainstream parties and the Commerce Commission to finally take effective action to bring down food prices. What could be wrong with that?

Kushlan Sugathapala, Epsom.

Fed up over super migrant bashing

I have to say that I’m getting fed up with all the migrant bashing over superannuation. I came to New Zealand in 2005 from Britain and worked until retiring early in 2019 due to my failing health.

I claimed the New Zealand superannuation when I turned 65. The following year, I claimed the British superannuation, which is paid directly to the New Zealand Government. I am also in receipt of a private British pension. I am taxed on both pensions.

I cost the New Zealand Government virtually nothing and I pay $24,000 a year in income tax. This will almost certainly be the case for the majority of migrants from Britain and other countries with similar reciprocal arrangements, so can the likes of Winston Peters and his ilk please stop moaning about migrants claiming the New Zealand pension when in reality a large proportion of migrant superannuitants make a net contribution to the New Zealand coffers. For the record, I am now a New Zealand citizen.

Peter Brooks, Mairangi Bay.

Political party donations

I see the Taxpayers’ Union has resurrected its “Bribe-O-Meter”, calculating how much each political party promises to spend.

But if we’re going to measure political “bribes”, we should really be measuring the money going in the other direction.

New Zealand currently allows wealthy individuals and companies to make enormous political donations.

Canada has decided that ordinary voters shouldn’t have to compete with corporations and millionaires for politicians’ attention. Only Canadian citizens and permanent residents can donate federally, and the annual limit is about C$1775 ($2200). France also prohibits corporate donations and limits individual contributions.

New Zealand could do something similar: cap individual donations, ban corporate donations and make political funding genuinely transparent.

The Taxpayers’ Union asks how much politicians’ promises will cost us.

Perhaps we should really be asking how much does it cost to get a politician’s ear?

Huw Dann, Mt Eden.

Election hoarding vandalism

My wife and I went out for a morning walk this week for the week’s groceries in Mount Maunganui.

We were appalled to see the totally wrecked election signs, totally trashed and lying on the ground.

Both the National Party and New Zealand First signboards had all been specifically targeted, while the Labour Party and Māori Party signs were untouched.

This is sheer vandalism and you have to ask why people would even consider doing this, let alone actually doing it?

On our way back home, some of the party faithfuls were in the process of repairing them and our hearts went out to them.

This is not the New Zealand we love and wish for.

David Hallett, Mount Maunganui.

Endless choices everywhere

The term used by Jenni Mortimer (Sept 29), “an age of endless choice”, referred to the choice of streamed programmes to watch. But it applies in many areas of modern life.

A whole supermarket aisle can be given over to pet food and accessories or hair products and cosmetics.

Strolling through a mall it occurs to me that there are many such malls in New Zealand with stores teeming with clothing and other assorted goods. And the population of the entire country is only approximately 5.5 million, similar to the population of a city such as Melbourne.

It is not surprising that advertising becomes louder and more extreme to try to make a product stand out from the crowd, the cost of which must be passed on to the consumer.

Christmas products are advertised at the beginning of September to try and beat the competitors.

The wastage from unsold products must be gargantuan.

Anne Martin, Helensville.

Electoral fraud claims

As a resident of Manurewa for 25 years, and having stood as an independent local board candidate in 2022 and 2025, I feel the results from 2025 should be void and a new election held.

It is disappointing to read of the irregularities discovered after paying thousands of dollars on signage, mail drops, social media and candidacy fees to honestly stand and find possible cheating.

Stephen Holden, Manurewa.

Bed levy best solution

The rationale for the Government’s decision to not proceed with the bed levy is specious, and its Band-Aid replacement offer is complicated and unfair.

The reason for not imposing the levy was electioneering. To say it will unfairly add costs to New Zealand citizens’ travel expenses holds no water. All that is needed at hotel check-in is proof of citizenship – passport, drivers’ licence or letter. The hotelier deducts the levy. Easy. The alternative charging system and distribution to geographical areas also isn’t right. Who’s to know where an overseas tourist will go for accommodation? They could drive direct from Auckland without staying there, to Whangārei and Bay of Islands. How will that be calculated? Do Taupō, Rotorua, Hamilton – not to mention any places outside of Queenstown in the South Island – just get an arbitrary percentage?

This was a promise to all regions, whereby each got their correct levies as per the exact bed times in their zone. Why not implement something simple – unless it’s to attract votes by seeming to reduce or not introduce new taxes.

Julia Cameron, Ponsonby.

A quick word

What great reporting that Minister Mark Mitchell was displeased at not being told of Rajesh Naidoo’s political aspirations while at police events with him. Proof that Rajesh is able to keep his own counsel. He has my trust.

Beth Jarret, King Country.

How many more patients are going to collapse or die in ED before the Government does something to fix our broken health system?

Marie Kaire, Whangārei.

Like electric cars, from tomorrow all rail commuters will need to be alert and vigilant to approaching very fast, silent electric trains.

Bruce Tubb, Ngataringa Bay.