Letter writers today hold opposing views on the Project Wai initiative that Gisborne District Council gave “in principle” support to last week.
OPINION
On principle a ‘no’ to Project Wai support
Cold water should have been poured on the vague proposal grandiosely called “Project Wai” and council should not have agreed to offer support “in principle”.
It seems these days anyone can walk in with some cooked-up idea (viz Grey St) and somehow sweet-talk council into providing staff time and assistance.
This happens without any public input at all, and seemingly without a thorough examination and fully informed debate before council weakly signs approval.
I object to staff being involved and ratepayer money being wasted in such careless fashion.
I note that the proposers of Project Wai do not appear to have revealed who their project is aimed at; after all, public water supply is a local body matter - private water supply for other than health purposes is another matter entirely.
A lot of money has already been spent investigating irrigation for horticulture (I refer to the work looking at whether the Flats’ aquifers could be boosted by Waipaoa River water). That project seems to have been abandoned - and in any case, supplying water for horticulture or other commercial use is a business matter in which user pays - not the residential ratepayer.
I would want far more detail - and indeed to see the proposers in person, not by Zoom - before indicating any form of backing.
I am glad councillor Gregory voiced some misgivings. It is a pity other councillors did not see any fishhooks and say “hang on a minute, mate!”
The council should stick to the straight and narrow of fundamental business - there is a pile of important matters to attend to as it is.
Support “in principle”, whatever that means, is not needed - if the idea is sound it would secure backing on its own merits.
Roger Handford
Well done Clive and team
Re: Project Wai - Council offers in-principle support of plan to secure water, September 24 story.
A big congratulations to Clive Bibby and the team to finally get this sensible project this far forward.
This is what our district needs - practical, visionary thinking ahead.
All the best to get this project off the ground.
Council would do well for our community to support this project rather than engaging in woke projects like telling our farmers what to do with their own private farmlands.
Simin Williams
Timely debris removal
Re: District ‘better prepared’ for floods, September 24 story.
The manual guides Gisborne District Council in the lead-up to and during a severe weather event. It outlines clear steps on how to respond to these events.
Does this include monitoring and proactive measures implemented during a severe event to remove debris from the city bridges in a timely manner, before damaging back-up of waters upstream encroaches and enters properties, and not ignore offers made by others to provide that service as happened during Gabrielle?
Peter Millar
Our collective interests
Some wrongly say Maori are prioritised over others. Yet NZ healthcare has always been needs-based and non-Māori don’t miss out if Māori health is improved.
Life-threatening emergencies are prioritised in any A&E, with most waiting their turn and hoping to survive the process.
Generally, Māori have a shorter life span and more serious health issues, often a result of poor housing and inability to afford doctor visits. We should fix that, starting with regular health checks and prevention programmes for serious illnesses like strep throat or rheumatic fever.
Pākehā were also called for regular health checks to identify health issues early. Sadly that seems to have stopped, and I think it will increase the risk of contracting more expensive and serious health conditions for everyone.
There’s also a pretence that customary rights will give exclusive rights to the foreshore and seabed. The legislation doesn’t allow for Māori to stop you going to beaches, no matter what you’ve been told.
This will affect seabed miners and mussel farmers who might need to get resource consent though. Under the terms of the Treaty, they’ll need to consult with Māori first and I’m happy with that as we have a collective interest in having clean water, less pollution and little damage.
Our wants and needs are the same as that of Māori but maybe not the same as those in extraction industries or under “fast track”.
We don’t hear screams that landlords or the wealthy are prioritised in tax matters. We don’t see continuous stories to tell us low-wage earners are disadvantaged or missing out because of their poor economic status.
The wealthiest pay only 9 cents in the $ for tax but the average New Zealander pays around 20 cents. It seems that Māori are a very convenient distraction and scapegoat.
I think the real goal is to silence voices and have minimal consultation about the rapacious extraction and pillage of the minerals in oceans and on conservation lands.
Māori are not a threat and should be seen as a handbrake acting in the collective interests of most of us.
I’m not fooled.
Mary-Ann de Kort
Scarce resources
Re: Ex-councillor calls Ngāti Porou proposal for a new roading entity ‘quite ridiculous’, September 24 story.
Bill has a great depth of experience and makes a very good point that GDC and NZTA are doing a great job, given the resources available.
Unfortunately we are a relatively poor country and do not have the funding required to build SH35 to the standard we would like.
Peter McConnell