Mulling over Luxon’s invidious position
Your editorial (22.4.26) about Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, got me thinking.
I’m in the 20% of floating voters. During my 90 years, I’ve voted just about every which-way.
Christopher Luxon is in an invidious position. He’s not a long-term politician and he did not gain experience by working in parliamentary offices . He succeeded to the leadership of the National Party at least in part because of his success at Air New Zealand. Much of his working life was spent overseas where he was also in senior positions.
He is being attacked right, left and centre by journalists, several of whom are demonstrating tactics which would not have been tolerated in earlier days, buoyed on, no doubt, by social media. The attacks have become quite personal. Luxon is leading a government, not a popularity contest.
We shouldn’t forget that the last Labour government was soundly defeated after starting with a record outright majority: it lost almost half its seats in 2023.
Jacinda Ardern lost the popularity contest and fled the country, and who can blame her?
Much of the current economic state of the country is completely out of the government’s control.
People are supposedly leaving the country to go to Australia as if everything in the ‘lucky country’ is rosy. However, the unemployment rate there is only a little better than ours and what it may well signify is the excellent qualifications of the New Zealanders who head in that direction, just as I did 65 years ago.
Perhaps the one question that needs adding to this discussion is ‘is it time for a four-year parliamentary term?’
Flawed premise
Prof Robert Patman’s claims (ODT 4.3.26; 16.4.26) that the government is ambiguous in its commitment to international law are false, resting on flawed legal premise.
Winston Peters’ Gaza statement was legitimate and wisely measured. The government’s response to the Iranian conflict is calculated, not muted. Prof Patman mis-labels the Iran assault "a flagrant violation of international law", while international law clearly preserves the right of anticipatory self-defence.
Pre-emptive US-Israel actions are grounded in a defensible legal rationale serving the broader security interests of the international community. Peter Magyar's win signals limited closer ties with the EU, his other policies solidifying a more nationalist political stance than his predecessor. Any ripple is a mere echo chamber, ignoring a right-leaning politician, although not as Trumpian, won again. To the contrary, this is reassuring.
Fresh depths
We have seen many letters from Ewan McDougall over previous months. His latest (17.4.26) plumbs new depths of moral bankruptcy. He states that Iran has shown no interest in "nuking Europe" and because of the current war "one can hardly blame them if they wanted to defend themselves under the deterrence of a nuclear umbrella".
Mr McDougall obviously discounts the behaviour of Iran over the last 47 years, whereby they have been the premier terrorist enabling state and have been responsible for the deaths of millions of their own citizens and other innocents throughout the world.
How anyone with even a modicum of unbiased thought can be so stupid and blase about allowing a country like Iran to have a nuclear capability has serious issues and needs to take a long hard look at himself.
Not just how we drive, but if we should drive
EECA (Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority) ads in the ODT (22.4.26) offer some sensible suggestions to reduce fuel use: reducing speed, checking tyre pressure, lightening loads.
However there are obvious omissions. Before doing any of these things, ask yourself whether your journey is really necessary?
Cars are generally designed to accommodate several people, but most have a single occupant: can you car share, for example, when travelling to work? Short journeys are the most polluting ones, and many trips made are short ones which most people could easily walk or cycle. Have you considered alternatives to driving? Is public transport an option? If it is, why not use it?
We are heavily reliant on fossil fuels, but it would have been more cost-effective if EECA had encouraged people to only travel if needed, to car share, and to use alternative ways of getting around: public transport, active transport (walking or cycling) or electrical vehicles.
Article prompts questions about long Covid rates
Amanda Kvalsig and John Potter's report on long Covid (Opinion ODT 14.4.26) was an in-depth report relating to men, women, Māori, non-Māori, children, and the fact that one in 11 adults are suffering long Covid symptoms.
One fact that I couldn't find was that pertaining to the number of unvaccinated that suffered from long Covid — or to put it another way, how many of the 401,000 sufferers of long Covid were unvaccinated?
I await their reply.
Prof John Potter, Research Associate Prof Amanda Kvalsvig and Prof Michael Baker reply: "The 2024-25 NZ Health Survey did not ask respondents about their vaccine history, but a high Covid vaccine uptake among survey respondents would have reduced the percentage reporting long Covid. As discussed in our Public Health Briefing [available at www.phcc.org.nz] vaccines continue to show a protective effect against long Covid in multiple studies, and the OECD considers this protection to be a key benefit of Covid-19 vaccination.
"The most recent major review of vaccines and long Covid is by Peine and colleagues, published in December 2025 and cited in our briefing. The investigators analysed findings from 89 different studies (including over 5.7 million participants) to conclude that vaccinated persons had a statistically lower risk of long Covid, compared with unvaccinated persons. The protective effect was observed to increase as the number of vaccine doses increased.
"Peine and colleagues estimated that there was an average protective effect from vaccines of one-third to one-fifth reduction in the risk of post-Covid symptoms among those who were vaccinated.
"For a common condition like long Covid with highly disruptive impacts on lives and livelihoods, that effect represents a substantial population benefit. New Zealand needs to urgently revisit its restrictive policy on these vaccines so more people can benefit from their protection."
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: letters@odt.co.nz
