Is history bunk?

As a retired school teacher, I was interested in Mr Moeahu’s recent comments in the media on school curricula.

As I spent much of my time teaching in Hawke’s Bay, I recalled a report from a teacher of 37 years’ experience who told of an incident that occurred in 1986 at Te Hauke School, south of Hastings. An advisor from the ministry arrived. A Ma¯ ori woman, who demanded that all material at the school be reviewed and that any that related to the existence of Moriori, cannibalism, infanticide and any other negative aspects of Ma¯ ori culture must be immediately destroyed.

Is this the sort of curriculum material that Mr Moeahu is seeking?

BRYAN JOHNSON

Omokoroa needed to help create a more humane, socially and environmentally responsible economic system (as used to exist in the past, before governments and corporations brainwashed the population with pro-extractive industrial and neo liberal economic system propaganda).

Oh, how I wish children were taught comprehensively about economics in schools! They would be shocked to learn the truth of how destructive debt-based, competitive, capitalistic economics really is.

However, because a capital gains tax is fundamentally aimed at helping to achieve equitable distribution of wealth in society, I would advocate at least one exception to the general rule: iwi authorities.

Why? Because tangata whenua started off as the ‘wealthiest’ (in terms of kaitiakitanga, access, use and management control over land and natural resources) in Aotearoa, until, by nefarious means, that wealth was stripped from Ma¯ ori and transferred to others (as was done to other indigenous peoples in other colonies).

Some of that unjustly transferred wealth has been returned to iwi, but only about 1 to 3 per cent of it. So, it’s only fair that full equity is progressively achieved for Ma¯ ori, and exempting iwi authorities from having to pay tax on their assets is but one way the 97-99 per cent of the total value of Ma¯ ori loss can be incrementally clawed back.

Resistance to this approach is a proxy for supporting (1) the continuation of indigenous peoples being forced to subsidise the development of colonised countries, and (2) indigenous peoples being systematically discriminated against in the justice system.

It will seem counter-intuitive to some,

but restoring an equitable share of wealth back to tangata whenua would return Ma¯ori to a more resilient position whereby they could more freely demonstrate values like aroha (compassion) and manaakitanga (generosity, care and protection) to the nation.

CATHERINE MURUPAENGA-IKENN

Whanga¯ rei don’t care if his bore’s a mile deep or 10. My original point was that he and the mayor have good bore water at Sweetwater, and Kaitaia residents don’t, despite the millions spent on the bore project.

Also he says he suggested that I contact the NRC re who is connected to the aquifer, and that I declined to do so. I did not decline to do so. I declined to take the phone number he was trying to give me, as I said I already had it.

His reason why a conflict of interest was placed on him eight years ago, because his property was close to a proposed (bore) on private land, is stretching things.There was an allegation of a conflict of interest because he filed a submission under his wife’s name against the Sweetwater proposal, and I can understand what his position was as a councillor, but let’s get it right. (Perhaps he might like to Google himself).

He also stated at that time he was one of 105 owners of shallow bores at Sweetwater, and with Landcorp having consent to take 15.5 million litres daily and the FNDC wanting to take another five million litres daily, his and the other shallow bores would soon dry up, and that could well be a possibility in the future.

I’m not a hydrologist, but although his bore is not at a depth to be in the actual aquifer, and given the fact that water takes from the aquifer would impact on his and other bores, surely it could be argued that the source of the water is interconnected.

Regarding my conflict of interest allegation, in my earlier letter. I have a copy of a July 21, 2015, FNDC edict, statement, whatever, headed, A Fresh Look at Water Options, which goes on to state that the FNDC will review all options, and that the FNDC will set up a water reference group etc, etc. It clearly states that Mayor Carter and Cr Mate Radich, who have bores in the Sweetwater aquifer, were not considered for the reference group to avoid any potential conflicts of interest, so clearly the FNDC itself considers Mr Radich to have a bore in the aquifer, and that is all I will have to say on the matter.

Far more importantly, what now will become of the existing bores on the Hayward property, now that the FNDC is proposing a test bore on council land? Will the $1.6 million paid out for intellectual property just be forgotten, along with the millions of ratepayers’ monies already spent on the shambolic Sweetwater project? Will the pumps and equipment be recovered to be utilised for the new bores?

Let’s hope the spend on this new bore project is more controlled than the previous one, which must go down as one of the most expensive bore projects in history.

As a long-term councillor, one I have voted for (that’s doubtful in the future), who probably knows more about this failed bid to future-proof Kaitaia’s water supply via the Sweetwater project than almost anyone else, I invite Mate Radich to explain why there are access problems re the aquifer, how they originate and when this matter will be rectified, if ever.

It is not good enough for Mayor Carter and FNDC spokespersons just to state that there are access problems. Ratepayers deserve a more succinct and truthful explanation.

IF BURKE RD3 Kaitaia