Mosque shooting survivors celebrate as they leave the Christchurch High Court after the sentencing hearing for the Australian terrorist. AP Photo / Mark Baker
I, along with all Kiwis, applaud Justice Mander's entirely appropriate "full life" sentencing handed to the miserable terrorist, and I especially commend the manner in which the judge permitted so many emotional statements to be read out, "face to face" in court.
However, mutterings
among some of a preference that the murderer be shipped back to Australia as a cost-cutting measure are misguided and shortsighted.
He perpetrated the most serious homicidal rampage in the history of this country, and as such absolutely must be incarcerated here, at whatever the cost, for the term of his natural life. The mere thought of him being transferred to his "home turf", close to family and friends (assuming he has any) where easily facilitated prison-visitation rights and "support" would surely be to his advantage, whereas the same accessibility on our side of the ditch would be far less likely.
There are other considerations to be taken into account, too, should such an unthinkable relocation be allowed. There would be no surety, further down the track, that he would in fact serve the full term once he were out of our hands and far from the reach of our legal jurisdiction.
Remember what happened the last time New Zealand allowed foreign nationals to serve their time offshore after committing terrorism here in the 1980s. Perhaps a timely reminder is overdue.
Peter Cook, Lynfield.
Why is New Zealand not making it compulsory to wear masks everywhere in public?
As seen by what other countries have applied, it seems odd that we are not.
If we had started fining people before this week, I feel there would have been lower numbers of Covid-19.
Furthermore, perhaps some Aucklanders may have taken more notice instead of the blatant disregard for social distancing in public, e.g beaches.
Jude Collins, Ellerslie.
I can't believe that with more Covid cases popping up in Auckland, the Government would allow Aucklanders to start flying around the country. A recipe for disaster!
Suzanah Gray, Otago.
The call for the disbanding of Ateed (and its cancelled for the foreseeable future bedtax and Airbnb grab) is not answered by the creation of an unwanted new CCO (Friday's NZ Herald).
Folding the now unneeded Ateed into Regional Facilities Auckland does not even fit the broken CCO model. That merger does not create a business.
The only possible reason is to remove our rugby fields, parks, reserves and event facilities from direct ratepayer control. Next comes selling them off to pay one or two years' exorbitant CCO executive salaries. These are Auckland's assets, they are not for sale. So please just mow the grass with our rates money, rent them out where possible and otherwise leave them alone.
Tony Gavigan, St Marys Bay.
The Green Party presents itself as being concerned with issues such as social justice and inequity, which are usually championed by the left, yet once again, just before an election, it has shown its true colours to be both red and blue.
In 2014 then Greens co-leader Russel Norman, in response to very low polling by Labour before the election, spoke positively about jumping into bed with National. In 2017 Metiria Turei's admission of benefit fraud shortly before the election led to acrimonious division within the party and the resignation of two conservative Green MPs. Now it has transpired that the Greens have obtained $12 million in government funding for an expensive private "green" school.
Co-leader James Shaw's spurious justification that international student fees will generate revenue for the economy may please his blue-green supporters but it fails to recognise that the principle of government subsidising private education is anathema to those in the party who are on the left.
Cash-strapped state schools trying to provide a decent education for students whose families are battling to put food on the table, let alone pay for items such as stationery, are understandably outraged.
Raewyn Maybury, Westmere.
The call by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters for the deportation of Brenton Tarrant to the country of his birth is logical and justifiable.
Indeed, I suggest the continued detention of Tarrant here will constitute a lingering reminder to all New Zealanders of his appalling deeds in Christchurch in March of 2019. This country neither needs nor deserves that reminder.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has volunteered that he would be prepared to entertain an approach by our Government for the negotiated deportation of Tarrant to Australia where he would serve the balance of his life sentence. That offer now overtakes the somewhat feeble arguments that his deportation is not legally possible and that there is no agreement with Australia for his deportation. If agreement between the two Governments can be achieved then the law to facilitate his deportation is already available to be applied.
The New Zealand Immigration Act allows the deportation of an individual convicted of a criminal offence that carries a penalty of prison for three months or more if it was committed in the first two years of residency here. Tarrant entered NZ in August 2017. His killings occurred on March 15, 2019.
The act also provides that a person may be deported if they are determined to be a risk or threat to New Zealand's security, including security against terrorism. Deportation on this ground requires a certificate from the Minister of Immigration and an Order in Council from the Government. There is no right of appeal against deportation for this reason.
Tarrant's continued presence in NZ may constitute a continuing affront to members of our Muslim community and his proclaimed views on terrorism could present a threat to the country's security against terrorism.
Anthony Mercer, Howick.
Your pictures of beach gatherings are rather disingenuous — looking at them closely I see not random people, but social groups keeping reasonable distance from each other. The big danger was those on their phones, blissfully unaware of whether they were close to someone they didn't know. We have got to where we are because enough of us take personal responsibility to minimise risk.
Are we ready for level 2? Yes, if we take that responsibility. Yes, if we stay home if we have any doubt, and if employers support that. Yes, if we keep our distance if we can, wherever we are, and wear masks if we can't. Yes, if we are aware of our surroundings and who we are close to. There is always the danger of those who have the virus without knowing, but that applies equally in the animal markets of China and on Auckland's beaches. Each of us can help reduce that danger.
That responsibility is for each of us to accept if we want the freedom envied by other countries. Well, New Zealand, are we a team, or aren't we?
Mike Diggins, Royal Oak.
By supporting a millions of dollars grant to a private school, the Green Party has fallen from its lofty perch. The grant goes against Green Party policy and is a timely reminder that all political parties need to be constantly scrutinised by the public and its party members.
Nevertheless, the party will bounce back from this.
The Greens have a long list of impressive achievements from the past three years including the Zero Carbon Bill, nationwide cycleways upgrade, greater funding for clean public transport, DoC and nature-based jobs to fairer renting rules, improved support for domestic violence victims, home insulation schemes and maternity services.
The Greens deserve to be in government and I will still vote for them.
Michael McCutcheon, Birkenhead.
How wonderful for us carbon-loving, slack-jawed Taranaki yokels to be shown the error of our ways by the righteous James Shaw. What a great example he is to our simple, climate change-denying children. If they start with a privileged-enough position and keep their heads up their own backsides long enough, perhaps one day they too will be able to hand taxpayers' money to the already wealthy, while pontificating to the low-thinking provincial peasantry.
Frank Hagenson, New Plymouth.
As an ex-Aucklander, I'm disappointed in the attitude of those who flout the Covid-19 restrictions. While it's tough, it will be tougher still if you spread this disease and we all end up back in level 4 due to you.
We don't want the foolish minority destroying the country's businesses with another level 4 lockdown. Grow up, show responsibility, think of the risk to the vulnerable and of the long-term damage you may inflict on our communities. Sure, we want your business but we don't want your cavalier attitude infecting us.
Stuart Perry, Hastings.
On police cases
The New Zealand police are often said to be among the least corrupt in the world. Followers of the Mark Lundy case, and the Scott Watson case, and the Arthur Allan Thomas case might disagree. R Hodges, Mangere.
On green school
So James Shaw has swallowed some of the Shane Jones' "Kool-Aid". Politically, it will be poison for both. Neville Cameron, Coromandel.
On Mike Hosking
So your esteemed columnist Mike Hosking believes "recession shakes out the weak ... we need to be operating on gut instinct and courage" (NZ Herald, August 29). I wonder if he'd be so gung-ho if he were the owner of a fledgling business awaiting a government subsidy. Ted Jenner, Remuera.
On Watercare
When will Watercare tell us what steps it proposes to take to get Auckland's water supply back up to world class standards? Jim Radich, Red Beach.
On speed limits
How can the police enforce a zero tolerance on speed when average car speedos aren't that accurate? Chris Hatton, Silverdale.
On Swarbrick
Correspondent Lily Williams is spot on with her condemnation of MP Swarbrick's contempt for the elderly flowing from her "okay boomer" insult. The disappointment for me was that the Speaker did not appreciate it for what it was — a calculated insult towards the elderly. Ross Nielsen, Half Moon Bay.
Letters to the editor should be sent to: Private Bag 92198, Victoria St West, Auckland CBD Email: letters@nzherald.co.nz Letters should not exceed 200 words and must carry the author's signature, name and residential address. Emailed letters must include a full residential address and phone number, allowing a check on bona fides. Attachments will not be accepted. Noms de plume are not accepted; names are withheld only in special circumstances at the discretion of the editor. Letters may be edited, abridged or discarded.
Emergency services were called to the scene about 8.30pm.