Letters: The big picture beyond seabed mining

Wednesday October 09, 2019 Published in Letters to the Editor

Dear editor,

They sold our fish at the cheapest deal that the fishing boats have ever made and now they think they got a good deal for the seabed mining? Bunch of peanuts.

 

You dumb-dumbs are like a beggar on the street trying to sell the rich guy all your precious gold at the lowest price because you need money. But little do you know how valuable your gold is and how rich you actually are.

These money people will offer you more money for what’s under our oceans and pay to finance its resourcing and extraction of the resources. You don’t have to do a thing but give them a condition that will benefit both the country and its people for the days to come.

Be smart and start working on royalties, jobs and better pay for the locals. Make the locals priority on the job list and a must.

Start planning for the world that the seabed mining will leave the country in after mining comes to an end.

Also don’t sell off the unpopulated islands in the Cooks.

But we all know dollars is all they see.

Olly Rere
...

Dear editor,

Jacqui Evans and her supporters are doing a fantastic job and are to be commended for the stance that they are taking.

At the same time we need to be mindful that when employed people take a stance that may be at odds with the stated aims, responsibilities and accountabilities of their roles under their employment contracts, tacit or implicit, there could and will be fall-out.

Biting the hand that feeds you despite concerns being articulated by the employer is tantamount to breaking that contract, and naivety in such circumstances is not a defence.

If you feel strongly about such a stance then you need to take a step back and think, how would my employer feel if I went against their stated aims? And do I have the stamina for a prolonged stoush?

It is a different matter if the stance you are taking is based on verifiable evidence that your employer is in dereliction of their duty.

There are particular remedies to be followed in such a case.

However the fact that Jacqui, rightly or wrongly, seems to have professed a discourse at odds with the Government stance, means she was on a collision course with only one outcome – and that outcome has generated an emotional response and negative feedback from the public.

We don’t know the whole true story and depending on where your loyalties lie, we are hearing and discussing dialogue that adds more to the confusion and emotion and contributing to a trial by news media.

Equally, I am not sure if this is a gender focus as is being trotted around in community circles, but I definitely think that the particular stance that was taken by the Government has not been taken lightly.

It would have to have been the subject of much discussion and deliberation before the action to release her from her role was taken.

Te Tuhi Kelly

 

Leave a comment