Letters to the Editor: The pressures on our infrastructure; AI is not a harmless toy
Letter of the week
Bed tax
David Seymour is right that Auckland faces serious infrastructure pressures from tourism and major events. But his criticism of the mayor’s proposed bed tax, and his promotion of Act’s Local Tourism Dividend, doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
First, comparing a bed tax to GST is a false analogy. GST is effectively unavoidable – it applies to almost every purchase. A bed tax is avoidable. It’s the difference between an air tax and a beer tax: one you can’t escape, one you can.
Second, Seymour warns of compliance costs for accommodation providers, yet his own proposal would require identifying and tracking overseas visitors, verifying commercial guest nights, and auditing thousands of providers. That is not “less bureaucracy”; it is simply bureaucracy shifted elsewhere.
Third, Seymour claims his scheme “rewards growth”, but growth itself requires central investment. More visitors mean more wastewater load, more road wear, more pressure on public spaces. Without matching central funding, “rewarding growth” becomes a cop‑out that leaves councils carrying the burden.
Fourth, a dividend based on guest nights favours major tourism centres while leaving many councils with high infrastructure strain and low commercial accommodation behind.
In short, Act’s proposal doesn’t address the underlying problem: councils pay the costs, central government collects the revenue. A targeted bed tax may not be perfect, but Seymour’s alternative doesn’t fix the imbalance – it just repackages it.
Jason Hitchen, Drury.
Splitting up the supermarkets
National’s idea to split up an efficient grocery distributor is as dumb as reversing the Super City and returning Auckland to 20 mayors and boroughs.
We need true competition in the grocery sector, more independent players, incentives rather than interference and legislation.
Peter Dodd, Chatswood.
Excessive profits?
Instead of relying on elaborate market forces remedies to solve the grocery price problem, we should consider a different approach.
Why not enact laws to punish profiteering and price-gouging? We know the supermarkets make excessive profits. So do the gentailers and the banks. Who benefits? Owners and shareholders. Who pays? The captive market, the public.
Australia is already doing just this and now New Zealand’s Labour Party is wisely following our neighbour’s lead.
It’s time to rein in the wealthy shareholders who are creaming it at our expense, every day of the week. And this is happening in a country with plenty of food, which reportedly feeds millions all over the world. It’s time to protect local consumers and penalise the profiteers.
Vivien Fergusson, Mt Eden.
Singapore v NZ
Colin Moore (Sept 16) is quite correct in stating that comparisons between Singapore and New Zealand are invalid in the context of prosperity. Having worked as a teacher in Singapore for a number of years, I observed a few other reasons for an invalid comparison.
Singaporeans value an education. An expression of this was parent/teacher days being held during weekends. Almost without exception, parents of pupils I taught attended. If they didn’t, the principal would be on the phone asking questions. In New Zealand, parent/teacher evenings were held where many parents were conspicuous by their absence. Those who did turn up usually were the ones you didn’t need to see. In fact, more parents were seen on the sidelines of school sports events than attended parent evenings.
Singaporeans have pride in their country. Their National Day is an expression of that pride. It shows a multicultural nation that is at one with itself and is uninhibited in that expression. Waitangi Day is our national day. Unfortunately, many people would see it as an expression of division rather than national unity.
Law and order are another aspect of a successful nation. In Singapore my wife felt perfectly safe while walking home at night. The law was respected and enforced. Can we say the same about our own country?
The above are a few social expectations that Singaporeans value and which undoubtedly contribute to its success economically and socially. We would do well to emulate them.
Bernard Walker, Mount Maunganui.
AI is not a harmless toy
Does Christopher Luxon’s knowledge of the possible dangers of AI rival his belief in dinosaurs? AI is the plaything of those who want to rule the world, the next nuclear genie.
Luxon’s special insight into the harmless play toy that AI researchers still fear is a warning to us all.
Steve Russell, Hillcrest.