Maori Party future
By now we all know that the relationship of Maori with officialdom in New Plymouth and in parts of the Taranaki region has over recent years been at times very controversial.
So much so that in that region any discussion on important Maori issues has now become so sensitive that it is totally influenced by what is regarded as politically correct and what is not.
The latest ‘‘headliner’’ has been to do with a New Plymouth District Councillor stating his own personal view that he saw there was little future for the Maori language and as a result he has now been forced to apologise by the mayor. What nonsense!
The mayor did concede that his councillor’s comments were entirely personal and were not the official view.
Instead of seeking an apology the mayor when approached should have simply said the councillor was entitled to his own personal view.
For a long time and gradually we have become a nation where anyone making reasoned public comment, particularly on Maori issues, has to ensure such comment will be interpreted as being entirely politically correct or the individual making the comments will be castigated and publicly condemned.
If we continue down this road the important right of free speech,which as New Zealanders we rightly treasure, will be lost. Is that New Zealand ‘‘the way we want it’’ . I doubt it. their own addictions
One can only hope Greg Thompson’s perpetrators get the full weight of the law - crushing their disgusting behaviour - at tax payers’ expense of course.
Robbing tourists should carry an extra penalty as they are more vulnerable and those who carry out such despicable acts are willfully degrading our national character and committing treason in effect. satisfactory answers to the following questions:
1. Action is necessary, but the major water use is agricultural irrigation so why should the urban user fund any expensive project to rectify the situation?
2. Is it true planned urban growth alone would not justify a project of this size?
3. If the cost of any enhanced storage and supply were placed on the main user, agriculture, would it be a valuable incentive for more efficient use?
4. Although millions of dollars have been spent on technical advice, is the project, a dam without any piped distribution, the most appropriate solution? Would large additional investment be necessary at a later date to deal with this inadequacy?
5. Increasing the size and intensity of agriculture on the Waimea Plain could result in chemical leaching into the aquifer. Will this put the entire regions drinking water at risk?
If our councillors do not receive adequate answers I would expect them to act appropriately on our behalf.