Post by Kiwi Frontline on Sept 8, 2016 10:29:58 GMT 12
Hawkes Bay Today 8/9/16
PARK OWNERSHIP
The assertion in “Aniwaniwa tendering by the book” ( HB Today September 7) that Tuhoe “now owns” Urewera needs correction.
According to Tuhoe Deed of Settlement, Te Urewera, the former national park, has its own legislation and exists as a separate legal identity, governed by Tuhoe and Crown nominees, who are expected to act in the best interests of Te Urewera.
What we now have is Tuhoe acting as if they own the area waging a cultural war to get rid of any vestiges of colonialism, which in this case means demolishing the Aniwaniwa Visitor Centre.
Any area or entity put in a noman’s-land co-governance zone, such as the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, the marine and coastal area, and now the Urewera park, ends up being dominated by the tribal part of any co-governance deal.
I’m glad that a number are fighting to keep the visitor centre, which is a unique building in a beautiful location.
But I don’t hold out much hope when I see the Crown nominees behaving in such a gutless manner, while the cultural vandals, Tuhoe, act in the interests of Tuhoe, without giving a hoot for the scenic location.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Northland Age 8/9/16
MEANINGLESS BABBLE
Since the indigenous people of New Zealand were all but exterminated by Maori, the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people is irrelevant in New Zealand today, however Matike Mai or Anahera Herbert-Graves or anybody else "saw" it (Northland Age September 6).
In 1840, the missionary-coined expression lino rangatiratanga' meant ‘full possession', guaranteed explicitly to all the people of New Zealand. Falling into disuse afterwards, its revival since by racist groups is nothing but political propaganda. In Herbert-Graves' "constitutional terms" it is meaningless babble.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
NO NEED FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
Are those with Maori ancestry really so very different to all other New Zealanders? Do they have such special needs or are so dysfunctional that they can’t take responsibility for standing on their own feet and operating in the modern world?
Well, quite obviously, the answer to all of the above is no. A quick look around us and we see people with Maori blood achieving on their merits and performing brilliantly at the highest level in politics, the arts, the military, diplomacy, business, law, medicine, sports, and so the list goes on. To suggest someone needs a special entitlement just because of their ancestry (or part of) is just ludicrous in New Zealand.
The Treaty was a fantastic document for its time. The chiefs ceded sovereignty and in turn, the Crown extended the rights and obligations of British citizens to all people of this land. Maori seats were created to give communal landowners a say in government in a time when only male landowners could vote − all this long before any women were entitled to vote.
Well, guess what? It’s 2016 and everyone over 18 years has the right to vote. To suggest that Maori can’t cope with that and still need special systems is simply absurd.
Councils were not created to promote one interest group or ethnicity over others. Their job to ensure the city operates efficiently, effectively and healthily, i.e. roads, water, sewage and rubbish primarily – and to make sure ratepayers get the best value for money.
Our representatives are there to work in the best interests of the entire community, not one particular ethnic group. Nor are they there to fleece ratepayers for personal gain.
Contrary to Minister Flavell’s comments during a recent visit to Whangarei (Advocate 1/9/16), designated Maori seats tarnish anyone holding them as racist, unethical, incapable of standing on their merits and possibly corruptible.
The performance of the individuals “appointed” to sit and vote on Auckland’s Council has certainly not been commendable to date. The development of a Unitary Plan for the region had these mafia-like people demonstrating an unethical, bullying self-interest with no respect for homeowners, due process or corruption-proof systems. And they weren’t even elected or able to be challenged by the tribes they are supposed to be representing!
All New Zealanders have the right to stand for election and the right to vote. None of us are happy with the democratic outcome 100% of the time but most of us acknowledge that democracy is the safest, the most productive and peaceful form of government. At least we have a chance to vote any drongos out every three years. That is certainly better than dishing out permanent entitlements based on a random ancestor.
Minister Flavell and his fanatical ilk in the Maori Party make it fairly clear that they are after money, power and control, without the usual checks and balances. This is the sort of attitude that brings nations to their knees.
Sir Peter Buck once said: "Beware of separatism. Maori can do anything Pakeha can do, but we must all be New Zealanders first."
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo
Rotorua Daily Post 8/9/16
ETHICS QUESTION
In a previous letter (August 24) I questioned the ethics of the current council in providing a ladder to co-governance for Te Arawa.
Should any of the unelected appointees on committees of council get elected to council their places will automatically get refilled by Te Arawa Board appointees, further consolidating co-governance.
I and many others will never accept this arrangement for three reasons. First, these nominees can't be unelected. Power in perpetuity is dangerous because it generates tyranny.
Second, these nominees will inevitably serve factional tribal interests, not all of our people, in the public interest.
Third, the power of elected representatives is legitimised by the consent of the governed (ratepayers). These nominees will never have true consent and I will regard their authority as illegitimate. And so will, I predict, many others.
In my view most non-Te Arawa Maori and non-Maori will be voting for the restoration of democracy in everyone's best interest. ■ Abridged
R W
Rotorua
PARK OWNERSHIP
The assertion in “Aniwaniwa tendering by the book” ( HB Today September 7) that Tuhoe “now owns” Urewera needs correction.
According to Tuhoe Deed of Settlement, Te Urewera, the former national park, has its own legislation and exists as a separate legal identity, governed by Tuhoe and Crown nominees, who are expected to act in the best interests of Te Urewera.
What we now have is Tuhoe acting as if they own the area waging a cultural war to get rid of any vestiges of colonialism, which in this case means demolishing the Aniwaniwa Visitor Centre.
Any area or entity put in a noman’s-land co-governance zone, such as the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, the marine and coastal area, and now the Urewera park, ends up being dominated by the tribal part of any co-governance deal.
I’m glad that a number are fighting to keep the visitor centre, which is a unique building in a beautiful location.
But I don’t hold out much hope when I see the Crown nominees behaving in such a gutless manner, while the cultural vandals, Tuhoe, act in the interests of Tuhoe, without giving a hoot for the scenic location.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Northland Age 8/9/16
MEANINGLESS BABBLE
Since the indigenous people of New Zealand were all but exterminated by Maori, the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people is irrelevant in New Zealand today, however Matike Mai or Anahera Herbert-Graves or anybody else "saw" it (Northland Age September 6).
In 1840, the missionary-coined expression lino rangatiratanga' meant ‘full possession', guaranteed explicitly to all the people of New Zealand. Falling into disuse afterwards, its revival since by racist groups is nothing but political propaganda. In Herbert-Graves' "constitutional terms" it is meaningless babble.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
NO NEED FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
Are those with Maori ancestry really so very different to all other New Zealanders? Do they have such special needs or are so dysfunctional that they can’t take responsibility for standing on their own feet and operating in the modern world?
Well, quite obviously, the answer to all of the above is no. A quick look around us and we see people with Maori blood achieving on their merits and performing brilliantly at the highest level in politics, the arts, the military, diplomacy, business, law, medicine, sports, and so the list goes on. To suggest someone needs a special entitlement just because of their ancestry (or part of) is just ludicrous in New Zealand.
The Treaty was a fantastic document for its time. The chiefs ceded sovereignty and in turn, the Crown extended the rights and obligations of British citizens to all people of this land. Maori seats were created to give communal landowners a say in government in a time when only male landowners could vote − all this long before any women were entitled to vote.
Well, guess what? It’s 2016 and everyone over 18 years has the right to vote. To suggest that Maori can’t cope with that and still need special systems is simply absurd.
Councils were not created to promote one interest group or ethnicity over others. Their job to ensure the city operates efficiently, effectively and healthily, i.e. roads, water, sewage and rubbish primarily – and to make sure ratepayers get the best value for money.
Our representatives are there to work in the best interests of the entire community, not one particular ethnic group. Nor are they there to fleece ratepayers for personal gain.
Contrary to Minister Flavell’s comments during a recent visit to Whangarei (Advocate 1/9/16), designated Maori seats tarnish anyone holding them as racist, unethical, incapable of standing on their merits and possibly corruptible.
The performance of the individuals “appointed” to sit and vote on Auckland’s Council has certainly not been commendable to date. The development of a Unitary Plan for the region had these mafia-like people demonstrating an unethical, bullying self-interest with no respect for homeowners, due process or corruption-proof systems. And they weren’t even elected or able to be challenged by the tribes they are supposed to be representing!
All New Zealanders have the right to stand for election and the right to vote. None of us are happy with the democratic outcome 100% of the time but most of us acknowledge that democracy is the safest, the most productive and peaceful form of government. At least we have a chance to vote any drongos out every three years. That is certainly better than dishing out permanent entitlements based on a random ancestor.
Minister Flavell and his fanatical ilk in the Maori Party make it fairly clear that they are after money, power and control, without the usual checks and balances. This is the sort of attitude that brings nations to their knees.
Sir Peter Buck once said: "Beware of separatism. Maori can do anything Pakeha can do, but we must all be New Zealanders first."
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo
Rotorua Daily Post 8/9/16
ETHICS QUESTION
In a previous letter (August 24) I questioned the ethics of the current council in providing a ladder to co-governance for Te Arawa.
Should any of the unelected appointees on committees of council get elected to council their places will automatically get refilled by Te Arawa Board appointees, further consolidating co-governance.
I and many others will never accept this arrangement for three reasons. First, these nominees can't be unelected. Power in perpetuity is dangerous because it generates tyranny.
Second, these nominees will inevitably serve factional tribal interests, not all of our people, in the public interest.
Third, the power of elected representatives is legitimised by the consent of the governed (ratepayers). These nominees will never have true consent and I will regard their authority as illegitimate. And so will, I predict, many others.
In my view most non-Te Arawa Maori and non-Maori will be voting for the restoration of democracy in everyone's best interest. ■ Abridged
R W
Rotorua