Letters: Wharf extension, Israel Folau and Child poverty

Imported cars lined up at the Ports of Auckland on the Captain Cook Wharf in front of Queens Wharf. Photo / Jason Oxenham

Opinion

Re. intermittent Queens Wharf dolphins for large cruise ships. Now that approval has been given for these to proceed, a compromise arrangement could be achieved.

NZ has the engineering expertise to construct concrete anchors on the seabed onto which concrete columns could be lowered (and secured with bolts) each year to cater for the cruise ship season only and to be removed at the end of each season.

A temporary wharf structure could be barged out and either lowered over the columns or bolted around the columns.

This option would clearly have an initial higher capital cost and ongoing annual costs however the harbour intrusion would be restricted to only a few summer months.

Bruce Phythian, Parnell

The scoop on poop

In reply to Paul Evans-McLeod (Letters, May 5), a simple and efficient way for dog owners to manage the excrement of their dogs, and be kind to the environment as well, is to use newspaper rather than plastic bags.

I find this works very well the majority of the time. Newspaper is cheap, and it's easy to carry a few sheets in one's pocket or bag. The dog poo can be quickly wrapped in the paper and deposited in the nearest rubbish container. Job done! An exception is if it is raining, then a biodegradable bag needs to be used. It is just a case of re-educating the way we think and what we use.

Susan Brennan-Hodgson, Windsor Pk

An obvious difference

Those Pacific rugby players who have voiced their support for Israel Folau on religious grounds, have completely missed the point. The issue is not Folau's religious beliefs, the issue is what Folau did as a result of those beliefs. The difference is not even subtle. And neither is it a matter of freedom of speech; freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility.

Did Folau do what he did accidentally or deliberately?

The answer to that question dictates, or should dictate, what happens next.

Phil Chitty, Albany

Which truth is right?

Could E Richard Leary (Letters, May 5) please list some aspects of Christianity that he considers of "proven veracity". I thought it was called faith for a reason.

I'm also at a loss how no religions can be called spurious. With each putting forth competing claims of truthfulness surely only one of them, tops, cannot be spurious.

Claude DeBruin, Whitianga

Email appearing in hell

In reply to E Richard Leary, if my opinion turns out to be fact it won't need repeating in the Herald on Sunday, I'll already have said it. If it turns out to be wrong then, granted, it might be too late for a revision. Unless they have email in hell.

Ben Everett, Hastings

Blind faith

Gavan O'Farrell (Letters, May 5) writes of those who have "confined their thinking to what can be proved by empirical evidence". When blind faith produces a fraction of the worthwhile achievements of "confined thinking" what a world we will live in.

Jonathan Freeman, Hokianga

Make parents pay

It would appear that a major cause of New Zealand's child poverty is abandoned mums or, in some cases, dads.

This shocking lack of moral responsibility for siring a child is an indictment of our justice system, which allows one parent to walk away from his or her responsibilities.

Until our justice system has the mechanism to track down the abandoner and require him or her to pay half the share and cost of bring up the child or children until the working age of 16, the blight on New Zealand's society and reputation for child poverty — already one of the worst in all OECD countries — will continue to grow. In the case of a single parent remarrying I would imagine the previous partner would have his or alimony adjusted accordingly.

Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay