Steve Clark

WITH regard to the September 18 Beacon front page story, “Minister seeks answers on boat harbour”, Shane Jones states that it is a “major understatement to say he is disappointed” that Te Rahui Herenga Whakatāne boat harbour is being delayed by the regional council’s reticence to consent the project.

In light of the discovery that contamination of the site was more extensive than originally planned or budgeted for, Bay of Plenty Regional Council is citing the cost overruns incurred during the relocation of toxic sludge from the Kopeopeo canal as the reason caution is being exercised.

By his silence on the matter, Mr Jones appears to accept that relocation of the contaminated material is an acceptable method by which the boat harbour site will be “decontaminated”.

It must not be forgotten that the proposed boat harbour site is one of 36 dioxin-contaminated sites in the Whakatāne district.

Were the landowners aware that the waste material from the mill that they agreed to have dumped on their land was contaminated with toxins?

This question is answered on page 6 of Dannielle Moewai Jaram’s research report, Joe Harawira: The emergence of a Matauranga Maori environmentalist.

Joe, his workmates and to a lesser extent the community, were aware that a dumping process occurred while the mill was operational. However, they were all completely unaware that the waste was contaminated. Authorities had provided no information or education to local hapū and iwi who used this waste as landfill at their marae, and there was no consultation with the wider community about the dangers of dumping these chemicals.

The systematic dumping of this waste by the mill during its operations occurred for over 39 years.

The revelations contained in Ms Jaram’s research help to narrow down the search for those liable for the cost of remediation of these sites.