We need to look at how our water can profit us

I SAW on the BBC Asia Business Report (10.9.20) that Chinese bottled water company Nongfu had raised $US1.1 billion after going public.

Its shares ‘‘soared over 50%, making its founder China’s thirdrichest person’’; to achieve this position would indicate that he has been catapulted into multibillionaire status.

I believe that Nongfu is also the company that Whakatane locals are upset with as it has been granted rights to fill up to 3.7 million bottles a day from an aquifer, this after paying only a nominal sum for the licence. The water apparently costs it nothing.

Surely, if our milk exports to the world are worth billions of dollars — and we do have eager international buyers — bottled water exports must be worth at least as much, if not more to our economy, particularly given our Government is currently having to borrow on a massive scale as a result of the pandemic.

I would ask that the Otago Daily

Times urgently approach political parties, requesting a policy statement regarding the exporting of our water to other countries at no cost; clearly, it is an incredibly profitable business for such foreign companies to be involved in.

Their responses would allow voters the opportunity to form a valued opinion before the election.

Graeme Bell

Dunedin

[A New Zealand First spokesman replies:

‘‘New Zealand First has been a passionate advocate for the need to regulate this industry and make sure that bottling companies pay a reasonable price for the water they take. Like coal or anything else we’re exporting or extracting, there should be a royalty on it. This is a precious resource.

‘‘The Labour/New Zealand First coalition agreement includes a commitment to ‘introduce a royalty on exports of bottled water’. The Minister for the Environment David Parker has been exploring the options for implementing a royalty.

‘‘We have been considering the benefits and drawbacks of a number of alternatives but no decisions have yet been made on a preferred way forward.’’

Other political parties did not respond.]

Referendums

I BELIEVE that we should vote No to both marijuana and euthanasia in the referendum.

Regulation on both these options requires more research and possible rejection or alteration. Both areas have been underresourced in our broken health system. We have not yet found perfect answers, but by voting Yes, we will not find those answers in legislation.

The political and commercial sales pressure, to vote Yes has been damnable.

Marijuana will have medical benefits by prescription but the developmental effects of THC on the brain of young people and the foetus in particular is a chemical minefield.

I believe no sales are acceptable and no consideration should be given to hundreds of commercial outlets which will blight our landscape. Haven’t we already done enough damage with alcohol? Shouldn’t we put marijuana and alcohol on the same social slide as nicotine?

The euthanasia discussion indicates that more research and resource is required to improve palliative care. Let’s do that.

Palliative care potentially gives the best relief and is the compassionate option for those in chronic pain. There is an implicit message in euthanasia which devalues life; our most precious gift. Let’s not do that.

It is always vulnerable people who suffer. Let’s look after one another.

Alex Familton

Palmerston

[Abridged]

..................................

BIBLE READING: The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. — Proverbs 8:13.