Big rugby not dressed for success

With South African rugby crowds thinning, Australian teams in the doldrums, and blocks of empty seats at local venues, rugby authorities would be unwise to neglect anything which might contribute to improving the viewing spectacle of matches. It seems the NZRFU is missing an important aspect of rugby’s appeal by lowering the standards required for players in terms of the their uniform.

Looking at international sporting arenas from European football to American NFL, from synchronised swimming to aerobatics, it is obvious that identical uniforms, strictly matching colours and complementary livery play an important role in enhancing the thrill of the action.

So when the Hurricanes ran on in Wellington last weekend dressed like a group of decorators in old painting clothes I wondered if the union understood the psychology behind the concept of a uniform. We had boots of all colours, socks up and down, haphazard bandages, and all manner of painted head gear. Advertising on the jerseys looked like the outcome of an ink fight in the sheds.

Although not the only issue behind diminishing interest, attire is an important aspect of the attractiveness of action rugby. The union should reflect on other successful international codes and consider more rigid apparel rules.

David Duignan, Campbells Bay There is an easier way to reduce illegal rubbish dumping than the complicated set-up the council has proposed costing $200,000 with cameras and people reporting etc.

Many years ago when with the North Shore City Council we were all given a free tip pass with our rates bill. Doing this would ease the situation. Not everyone would use it, they could give it to someone who needed it. The council would only pay for the vouchers used. Organising a pick-up as the present arrangements ask for is quite timeconsuming and not everyone can do it, or be bothered.

Return to roadside collection (messy but it worked) or consider the tip voucher.

J. M. Page, Browns Bay On Monday, March 19, Prime Minister Ardern met Greenpeace protesters at Parliament and accepted a petition calling for an end to oil exploration in New Zealand. Ms Ardern said the Government would need time to “consider” the proposal. Less than one month later, on April 12, with no consultation with the oil and gas industry, the “considering” was done and she said the Government would no longer grant new offshore gas and oil exploration permits.

The Labour Party did not campaign on this policy and therefore has no mandate to put the economy at risk for generations to come. Greenpeace and the Greens will be celebrating the decision, but Green MPs are only 6 per cent of the Parliament.

Some 80 of our energy is generated by renewable sources and New Zealand, along with the rest of the world, is already transitioning to electric vehicles.

Such vehicles on our roads have risen 2290 per cent since 2013 to 4500, with the previous Government setting a target of 64,000 by 2021. New Zealand is transitioning without this drastic, shortsighted and damaging Labour-led Government policy.

New Zealand’s contribution to global emissions is less than one fifth of 1 per cent. Is that worth the 11,000 jobs the oil and gas industry will lose, many highly skilled and specialised? Many industrial activities need a reliable supply of natural gas. Based on current production, Government officials estimate the decision to end off-shore drilling will cost the country more than $6 billion.

Even without the $6b cost of this policy, economists are forecasting the Government will borrow billions more than was outlined during the election campaign. Policy backdown on cheaper doctors’ visits, tree planting and the immigration numbers needed to keep our economy running look set to be just the beginning.

Steven Joyce may have been conservative with his $11b hole.

Judith Grant, East Tamaki Heights on the soap, falling onto a hot tap, difficulty breathing under water and so on, but done safely, it is also always very meaningful, we find. I think Worksafe will be impressed. John Steele, Cooks Beach Before any child is selected for reading recovery, I suggest the following checklist as essential for a positive outcome.

1. Eyesight to be checked by an optician who understands that some learners find it difficult to read black print on white paper.

2. Hearing must be checked by a practitioner who is capable of working with children.

3. An additive-free diet. A five-day/ forever additive-free trial usually results in a child with new found concentration.

4. The availability of books in the home. Libraries are willing to allow sets of books with extended time limits.

5. Oral health. Children with dental decay often need to be referred to the hospital for treatment.

The late Dame Marie Clay stated children write to read. Writing every day on a chosen topic is essential for reading progress. But writing is hard work especially in a country that does not provide learning assistants on a regular basis. Julienne Law, Kerikeri I understand Auckland Council has identified 13 Auckland sites (apartment buildings) as having flammable polyethylene core panels in their aluminium cladding — potentially highly combustible like London’s Greenfell Tower. However Auckland Council states “we will not be providing details of the 13 buildings” which translates to “we won’t say which buildings these are”.

Construction consultants Prendos advise people to do their own due diligence if they are looking at buying an apartment. This would require an expert to remove a panel from a building and test it. Can anyone see a body corp agreeing to this test?

Why won’t council name the buildings? They have already done the testing. According to Ian McCormick, council’s building-consents GM Council has communicated its findings with owners or the body corporate of the 13 buildings.

Does the building owner or body corp have an obligation or legal requirement to inform the apartment owners?

Let’s not forget that 71 people died in the Greenfell tower and it was only a 24-level building. How many levels are there in the 13 identified buildings housing how many people?

Surely council has an obligation to name these buildings for everyone’s safety? Better to know and be prepared than to remain clueless.

Brenda Barnes, St Heliers