Memorial a pledge to a better future
I had my school ball in the Napier War Memorial. I arrived in a borrowed dinner suit, entering past some dimly lit names by the path. In by doing so, I became one of thousands of kids who had benefited from the facilities bestowed by those who survived World War II.
After the War Memorial project was first begun, the Daily Telegraph carried a warning about building “purely utilitarian” memorials.
The editor reminded Napier that: “A memorial is intended to commemorate. The true test of its value is how far it will commemorate the nation’s part in a great world conflict, how eloquently it will tell of the service and sacrifice given to victory in that conflict, and how far it will afford remembrance of those who gave their lives and are not with us to enjoy the fruits of victory.”
When I left my school ball, not a single thought had been afforded to the purpose of the building or the lives that had been lost. In that sense, the memorial failed with its admirable purpose.
The recent removal of the War Memorial Centre name and all references as a memorial from its walls was the final step of many in abandoning Napier’s once solemn commitment.
The war memorial restoration is more than restoring the War Memorial Centre name and correcting the Roll of Honour. It must recognise that the title of a building and names on a wall, by themselves, don’t fulfil a city’s pledge of remembrance. Every person who walks through the centre’s doors, or stands in its grounds, is supposed to be reminded of the unique effort this city spent to secure a better future for today.
Our story belongs in the rooms, walls, grounds and activities of the centre built for that purpose — not as a museum, but as a living and vibrant memorial in the heart of a thriving community. Laurie Rhodes Victoria, Australia The furore that has gone on for far too long over the changes made to the naming of the former Napier War Memorial Centre needs to be finalised post-haste haste.
A return to the title “Napier War Memorial Conference Centre” kills two birds with the one stone so to speak. If our current councillors cannot see the wood for the trees over this then they shouldn’t be holding down the role.
The aforementioned name recognises both the nation’s past servicemen and women as well as publicising the fact that the smart updated facility of which Napier ratepayers have a vested interest in on this prime seashore location, is now a wellappointed conference centre which must be an attractive option for any conference organiser. Eddie Wilson Napier In response to Fred Robinson’s Talking Point ( March 27) on new borrowing and joining the Local Government Funding Agency scheme, the regional council believes the benefit to ratepayers outweighs the minimal risk in joining this scheme. Becoming a guaranteeing member of the scheme would give us access to lower interest rates on borrowing above $20 million.
LGFA currently has 54 council members and is the largest lender to the local government sector. It delivers cost-savings of $20m each year, which would otherwise need to be funded by higher rates. Forty-five councils have currently signed the (joint and several) guarantee with LGFA, which guarantees LGFA and not individual council borrowings.
While the risk is low, there is potential liability associated with a call under the guarantee. We have considered this and believe there is very low probability due to the strong performance of New Zealand’s local authority sector, rates security, LFGA’s financial covenants, capital, governance and government relationship to name a few.
If we become a guaranteeing council, our share of the guarantee would be 0.37 per cent. For example, if a $100m call was made under the guarantee, the Hawkes Bay Regional Council’s total exposure would be $370,000.
There has never been a default by a New Zealand Council. In addition, there is strong oversight of the sector by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).
Similar financing vehicles operate in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, France, United Kingdom, Japan and Canada. They all use a cross-guarantee structure by member councils similar to the structure of LGFA. There has never been a call under the guarantee in any of these countries.
LGFA would not achieve the AA+ credit rating without the guarantee structure and therefore there would be no savings in borrowing costs to councils. Jessica Ellerm Corporate Services Group Manager, HBRC Russia never “invaded” Crimea. Russia always retained leasing rights to its Black Sea Base which it had occupied for 221 years. In terms of a SOFA agreement up to 25,000 troops were located there.
Russia’s “annexation” was the result of a referendum with overwhelming support. Rather than conducted out of the barrel of a gun it was monitored by 135 observers from 25 countries including the European Parliament. Stratfor’s George Friedman described America’s intrusion as the “most blatant coup in history”.
Leonard Poon’s version of events in Afghanistan is even more fanciful. US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance confirmed “there was no evidence of Russian complicity in the revolution”. In the 1960s a popular revolution swept Afghanistan with a reformist programme, abolition of feudalism religious freedom, equal rights for women and social justice for ethnic minorities (1966 US Army Afghanistan manual).
In August 1979 US embassy in Kabul advised America would be better by the demise of the PPDA whatever the cost to social reform programmes providing $500,000 in arms and logistics to the Mujahedeen, the forerunner of al Qaeda and IS.
In an interview with Nouvelle Observateur in 1998, Zbig Brzezinski — architect of the present debacle — confirmed the US had been meddling in Afghanistan six months beforehand contrary to media reports and he wrote to President Carter it would force Russia to invade and give it its “Vietnam”. Donald Wm.Martin
Greenmeadows