Letters: Te reo is frustrating

New Zealand Parliament. Photo / File

Recently I dialled into Question Time at Parliament to listen to the debate of the day.

While there was the usual cross-party scrapping which one has become familiar with, the 10 minutes of debate between two Labour Party Maori MPs, spoken in te reo, was frustrating to say the least.

Sure, the majority of MPs could switch into the English commentary available - but what about the thousands of listeners who had no idea as to what they were talking about?

Then we had to listen to the debate as to the interpretation of the Māori words spoken, which again tested ones ability to remain listening.

Hence the question must be asked as to the benefit of te reo in the highest court in the land, let alone everyday spoken language.

Consequently, one can only conclude that the suggestion of compulsory te reo in the future is not the way forward for a multicultural society such as ours. (Abridged)

Mike McVicker
Rotorua

Them's the rules

I write in somewhat disbelief regarding Rosemary McLeod's column (Opinion, September 14).

She writes not only in defence of Serena Williams' recent meltdown but in praise of it ("she should be honoured").

I find her assertions both absurd and somewhat disingenuous.

She somehow contrives to take the ingredients and turn them into a feminist issue as if Williams' perceived slights and errors by the male umpire were against women instead of against an angry, possibly declining sportsperson (Roger Federer in the US Open ).

Williams, as have countless male and female tennis players over the years, simply broke the rules. You cannot abuse your racket, you cannot abuse the umpire and in some competitions, you cannot wear certain clothes.

McLeod, them's the rules. Stick to them or take the consequences be ye female or be ye male. (Abridged)

William Wright
Rotorua

Rational thought please

Jim Adams states Richard Evans (Letters, September 14) does not understand the way the market works.

His suggestion to force landlords to sell the houses they do not live in, in order to drastically reduce the price to renters is ridiculous and naïve in the extreme

Adams needs to spare a rational thought for the homeowners who are heavily mortgaged, and the reaction from the banks when they realise the equity in the property they hold as security is suddenly considerably less than the mortgage owed.

Paul Robinson
Rotorua