Breaking point
Australia's planned acquisition of nuclear submarines and the new three power Cold War Aukus alliance is a significant threat to global peace. Your editorial (NZ Herald, September 20) correctly points out there is a risk of a new regional arms race and a more dangerous stand-off with China.
The submarine deal also threatens the integrity of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, because it will involve the transfer of weapons-grade enriched uranium. The treaty says that enriched nuclear material must be under international safeguards monitored by the International Atomic Energy agency. Think of Iran, subject to US sanctions and condemned for starting to enrich uranium to 20 per cent, much lower than weapons-grade. Iran continues to inform the IAEA. Even if Australia finds a loophole it is setting a terrible precedent that other nations may follow, with all the attendant risks of accidents and even weapons potential.
It is good that the Prime Minister has distanced us from the deal. However, she also expressed a hope for the preservation of the "international rules-based system".
Our traditional allies seem hell-bent on bending the rules to breaking point and it is time to tell them so.
Maire Leadbeater, Mt Albert.
Nuke world order
Excellent and thoughtful editorial (NZ Herald, September 20) on the submarine deal between Australia, the US and UK. Pity the Australian taxpayer to fund "at least eight subs". US technology will not come free - monetarily or politically.
Our Australian Big Brother can't even fund an entry to America's Cup. Our RocketLab is already shooting stuff into space before them.
However every nation, big or small (except NZ, we hope), Tom, Dick, and Harry should be entitled to have nuclear subs and nukes and dotard-leaders should have huge big red buttons to push. No need to worry about climate warming. Nukes will make us even warmer.
I will hide under my bed, cover my head with the Herald and a pillow over my face. I'm unable to go out anyway.
Hing Yu, Pakuranga Heights.
Uranium club
Hylton Le Grice (NZ Herald, September 20) must have been out of the country when we proudly declared ourselves nuclear-free. We did it after making a decision as a country that the making of nuclear energy was not a safe option anywhere in the world. It's why Germany has closed down nearly all its nuclear reactors. It doesn't matter what you are using it for, it still has the potential to destroy the planet on a massive scale. Not only does it have a contamination life of thousands of years, but no one yet has found a safe way to store nuclear waste. The residue from the making of nuclear energy instead is stored under the sea or under our land, in mines, for future generations to "discover".
A submarine is a battleship, a nuclear submarine is a sailing time bomb. New Zealand is not "embarrassed, foolish or short-sighted" in this stand. We are proud to be nuclear-free and many in the world envy our position. It's just Mr Muscle Man across the ditch that doesn't see the danger. Gosh, we can even smell the uranium on his breath.
Emma Mackintosh, Birkenhead.
Naming rights
John Tamihere (NZ Herald, September 20) is correct that the Māori language became an official language in 1987. And correct in asserting that people are entitled to assert the name Aotearoa.
But that certainly does not mean that the Government has any right to start changing the name of the country without formally seeking the agreement of the people by means of a referendum.
"New Zealand", or its Dutch equivalent, has been the name of our country since 1642. There was no word for New Zealand in the Māori language at that time and, indeed, Māori had no concept of what we now call New Zealand as a nation until many years later.
When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840, the words for New Zealand in
the Māori version of the Treaty were "Nu Tirani". There is no record of any of the chiefs who signed it objecting to that name.
The first record of "Aotearoa" being used to describe the whole country was in the second half of the 19th century.
Polls show that the great majority of New Zealanders don't support a change in our country's name.
Don Brash, Eden Terrace.
Coincidentally
Someone should gently remind John Tamihere (NZ Herald, September 20) that 1863, the date he states in his article that Holland outlawed slavery, was also the date that Rēkohu (Chatham Islands) Moriori were officially released from being enslaved by mainland Māori.
Both dates should be celebrated and discussed openly, not selectively.
Larry Tompkins, Waiuku.
Power struggle
I absolutely agree with Rod Pascoe (NZ Herald, September 20) that Simon Power would be a huge vote-getter for the National Party, lifting the percentage support way above the current level of only close to 20 per cent.
But please do not do it. Judith Collins was such a huge election asset for Labour at the last election and will for sure be their huge asset again at the next one. Collins in charge will be win/win for Labour again, with enough votes to govern alone again without needing deals with the minor parties that can reduce their accomplishments for the whole three years.
Murray Hunter, Titirangi.
Te Herora o Aotearoa
Thank you for your coverage of te wiki o te reo Māori. I'm also pleased to see you have finally retained Te Herora.
I hope it's not there because someone forgot to remove it. It takes up a miniscule amount of space but makes a small but important statement.
Hopefully it will be permanent.
Jenny Senior, Waipawa.
Short & sweet
On dobbers
My word, what a nation of tell-tales and virtue-signallers we're becoming. Put this energy into vaccination so we can all become grown-ups again. P. Raine, Auckland Central.
On Aotearoa
Why trash the value of our now respected international brand Pure New Zealand? Terry Dunleavy, Takapuna.
On Aukus
Memories of the Rainbow Warrior debacle will colour our reaction to France's chagrin over their cancelled submarine deal. Shades of schadenfreude. E.W. Doe, Epsom.
On Covid
Covid is just a virus. We are humans. But many of us are stupid, so it's 1-0 to the virus before the game even kicks off. Phil Chitty, Albany.
On 90%
As a small business owner, I can't wait until November for us to get to 90 per cent. We need to be there in six weeks. And we can if we really try. Richard Dalton, Greenlane.
On driveways
Dame Jenny Gibbs (NZ Herald, September 20) believes she hasn't broken any rules but she certainly has encouraged others to do so. Drinks in someone else's driveway is not one of the reasons to leave home. David Tyler, Beach Haven.
On lockdown
There's still no escape from Auckatraz. Mike Wagg, Freemans Bay.
The Premium Debate
MIQ system swamped
This is beyond a cruel joke. With availability of pre-flight testing, post-flight testing, smart technology, there should be no problem with self-isolation for the fully vaccinated. Why should a fully vaccinated person be effectively banned from travel, or banned from home? So many heart-breaking stories, and nothing but an automated response. Now an automated queue on top. How fair is that - no prioritising of personal circumstances. NZ, get a grip. Where is the famous kindness and compassion now? Angela R.
Just returned from visiting my dying father in UK, in Grand Mercure MIQ despite being double-vaccinated and having two negative tests in five days. UK has returned to normal, not even self-isolation at home required for international travel to/from green list countries for double vaccinated people. NZ's system is not fit for purpose. All because the Govt wasted a year not securing vaccines for Kiwis. Shameful. Steve S.
Which Western country in the world would make their citizens enter a lottery to see if they are lucky enough to spend 14 days in MIQ? And, in many cases, pay thousands for it? These are typically double-vaccinated people. Quite unbelievable really. Chad P.
My son, his wife and baby finally secured an MIQ spot today after 10 months of heart-breaking stress! See you in December. So happy. Cheryl H.
The simple fact is there's limited capacity for NZ to accept more than a few returnees until we're mostly vaccinated. No IT solution will solve this capacity issue . The greater good is served by limiting numbers. Helen E.
Are the 3000 rooms available just for NZers returning or does that number include rooms set aside for sports teams, MPs heading overseas, 400+ people off to the trade exhibition in Doha and the hundreds heading off to Antarctica on a science trip? Marie F.
There was never a chance of the system working to everyone's satisfaction - it may be fairer but there weren't any more spaces available, so the percentage who got a place was unchanged, so the numbers unhappy were also unchanged. Steve N.
