My letter, published in the New Zealand Listener, about the value of volunteer work, and the potential value of  tax-deductible status to that work - 



Thanks for the recent article on the donations made by the very wealthy (“And the giver is …”, May 17). The donor’s largesse is a return to one of the better Victorian sensibilities: the generally understood moral imperative for the most fortunate to aid those least fortunate. Good on them and long may it continue.

I spend about a day a week doing volunteer work for a local charity. I drive, move furniture, take photos for them, fix and make things. The work has given me a far better understanding of people, and watching the way many deal with real adversity has taught me humility. Hundreds of people freely give far more of their time than I do for no better reasons than their belief that it’s the right thing to do and they can’t afford to donate money.

What about recognising their valuable labour the same way donations are recognised: with tax credits. This is done in some places; many areas in the US give their volunteer firefighters tax credits because they recognise the number of lives and value of the property protected by the “vollies” is considerable.

It could be of great value to New Zealand to open the conversation about tax credits for long-term volunteers in non-profit, socially beneficial institutions because of the financial and societal benefits of increasing volunteer rates for organisations that are expert at getting maximum value from money, while they foster learning new skills and greater social involvement.

David Cohen
(Dunedin North, Dunedin)

Deb Howell, a published local writer of the novel: "Healer's Touch", interviewed me for the launch "Felinity" - an anthology to which I contributed a story.

The half-billion dollar shortfall in rebuild funding - letter to the New Zealand "Listener"

Sir -
I lived in Christchurch for 45 years and the news of a 500 million dollar shortfall for a rebuild makes me wonder if it's time for both Central Government and the City Council to taihoa on some of the more grandiose projects that are attempting to force redevelopment into a CBD that is looking redundant and outmoded as the city reshapes its activity around multiple centres.

"Anchor" projects are inessential when compared to tasks like returning sewerage and storm-water systems to full functionality, and backing away from the giant projects - such as a city stadium - for the foreseeable future could substantially reduce the rebuild's financial burden while allowing the city to reclaim basic functionality.

After the Listener's excellent article "Shock of the View", I also wonder if it may also be better to let the people of Christchurch redevelop their city's liability organically rather than be regimented into a centralised plan that already looks inappropriate and too expensive.