Post by Kiwi Frontline on Oct 26, 2016 4:45:23 GMT 12
Rotorua Review 26/10/16
IN RESPONSE
In response to the letter from Elizabeth Mackenzie regarding ‘Race Based Appointments’, her allegations clearly indicate her lack of understanding of the democratic principles we live by today.
She also needs to understand that the Local Government Act states quite clearly that Councils must ‘Consult’ with Iwi, and nowhere is there any wording to the effect that unelected Maori appointments can be imposed on Councils.
MIKE MCVICKER,
Rotorua
Bay of Plenty Times 26/10/16
RACIAL POLITICS
Recently I listened to a radio programme where Maori lawyer Moana Jackson was discussing a plan for a written constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi, thus entrenching the Treaty as superior law.
We went through this nonsense a few short years ago with the Constitutional Advisory Panel and the people of this country made it abundantly clear that there were to be no race-based politics.
Any constitution created for our country must be for the common good of all of us, and not one that leads us to racial separatism and superiority.
Thankfully, we live in a democracy, of which the definition is that we must all be treated exactly the same regarding race, gender and religion.
Therefore all race-based politics must be firmly denied and immediately thrown into File 13 — aka in army parlance as the rubbish-bin!
Watch this space. (Abridged)
R B
Tauranga
Rotorua Daily Post 26/10/16
‘LAND GRAB’
What evidence is there to support your correspondent’s allegation that “most of the land grab was done by the churches”? ( Letters October 21).
The Crown confiscated very large areas in Taranaki, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and the East Coast. The churches on the other hand had neither means nor desire to confiscate land.
Some churchmen bought land, and some were given land, but those transactions, while significant, did not remotely compare in scale to the Crown confiscations, and in any case cannot be fairly categorised as a “land grab”.
If any land can be shown to have been “grabbed” by my church, it will either be returned to its rightful owners, or I will be looking for a new place to worship on Sundays.
G F
Rotorua
The Northern Advocate 26/10/16
ARTICLE INCLUSIVE
The wording “nga tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani” in Article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi that was signed by some 500 chiefs translates to “all the people of New Zealand”, meaning all the people were granted British protection, not just Maoris as M Armstrong (19/10/16) infers. Furthermore, Maoris became fully entitled British subjects — what a boon — especially for their slaves.
Article 1 clearly states ceding sovereignty to the Queen which is corroborated by the chief’s speeches prior to signing the 1840 Treaty and again affirmed in the chief’s speeches at Kohimarama 1860.
It is a creative imagination that reads sovereignty and/or governance into Article 2 of the Treaty, it was simply about legal ownership of property and for Maori landholders to sell only to the Queen’s agents for protection from unscrupulous dealers. With Article 1 ceding sovereignty, it is absurd to hint at Maori sovereignty/governance in Article 2.
In shrewdly switching between interpretations and wordings of Te Tiriti, and various English texts, treatyists arrive at a contentious vehicle that transfers wealth, assets and special rights to Maori which is racially dividing our society.
Contrary to Armstrong’s spin, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was about unity. The Government of the day with the support of NZ First placed the F&S in Crown ownership for the benefit of all New Zealanders, rather than a grab by opportunist tribes.
The Act did not confiscate the F&S but affirmed public ownership in accordance with British common law which had been the case until 2003. If tribes thought they had a right to areas they could still take their case to the High court under the F&S Act 2004, very few did.
GEOFF PARKER
Kamo
Hawkes Bay Today 26/10/16
UNLIKELY PARTNERS
One Pure, a Hong Kong-based corporation with the capital and expertise to conduct a massive water-bottling facility, felt the need to approach Ngati Paarau for "support and partnership" in their endeavour. According to Denis O'Reilly, this "support and partnership" is "good for our region and our nation, all of us, regardless of our ethnicity or derivation".
So can Mr O'Reilly answer the following questions on our behalf: What is the nature of the "support and partnership" which was "respectfully" requested of Ngati Paarau by One Pure? Are these "support and partnership" services of a scientific nature relating to preservation of our aquifer? If so, did One Pure approach any other organisation for this expertise?
If Ngati Paarau's knowledge regarding preservation of the aquifer (flowing tens of metres underground) is in the nature of traditional Maori knowledge, should this knowledge be preserved and accessible to those beyond Ngati Paarau, or can this traditional knowledge only be exercised by members of Ngati Paarau?
Mr O'Reilly states that One Pure's plant will have "minimal effect on the aquifer, if any". Did Ngati Paarau conduct independent tests on the bore to verify this statement, or did they simply accept assertions from One Pure?
Will Ngati Paarau, or any members of Ngati Paarau, receive any benefits or payment from One Pure by way of compensation for their "support and partnership"?
A response to these questions will certainly shed light on the nature of "partnership" between such unlikely parties as Hon Lung International and Ngati Paarau.
SARAH TAYLOR
Napier Hill
IN RESPONSE
In response to the letter from Elizabeth Mackenzie regarding ‘Race Based Appointments’, her allegations clearly indicate her lack of understanding of the democratic principles we live by today.
She also needs to understand that the Local Government Act states quite clearly that Councils must ‘Consult’ with Iwi, and nowhere is there any wording to the effect that unelected Maori appointments can be imposed on Councils.
MIKE MCVICKER,
Rotorua
Bay of Plenty Times 26/10/16
RACIAL POLITICS
Recently I listened to a radio programme where Maori lawyer Moana Jackson was discussing a plan for a written constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi, thus entrenching the Treaty as superior law.
We went through this nonsense a few short years ago with the Constitutional Advisory Panel and the people of this country made it abundantly clear that there were to be no race-based politics.
Any constitution created for our country must be for the common good of all of us, and not one that leads us to racial separatism and superiority.
Thankfully, we live in a democracy, of which the definition is that we must all be treated exactly the same regarding race, gender and religion.
Therefore all race-based politics must be firmly denied and immediately thrown into File 13 — aka in army parlance as the rubbish-bin!
Watch this space. (Abridged)
R B
Tauranga
Rotorua Daily Post 26/10/16
‘LAND GRAB’
What evidence is there to support your correspondent’s allegation that “most of the land grab was done by the churches”? ( Letters October 21).
The Crown confiscated very large areas in Taranaki, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and the East Coast. The churches on the other hand had neither means nor desire to confiscate land.
Some churchmen bought land, and some were given land, but those transactions, while significant, did not remotely compare in scale to the Crown confiscations, and in any case cannot be fairly categorised as a “land grab”.
If any land can be shown to have been “grabbed” by my church, it will either be returned to its rightful owners, or I will be looking for a new place to worship on Sundays.
G F
Rotorua
The Northern Advocate 26/10/16
ARTICLE INCLUSIVE
The wording “nga tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani” in Article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi that was signed by some 500 chiefs translates to “all the people of New Zealand”, meaning all the people were granted British protection, not just Maoris as M Armstrong (19/10/16) infers. Furthermore, Maoris became fully entitled British subjects — what a boon — especially for their slaves.
Article 1 clearly states ceding sovereignty to the Queen which is corroborated by the chief’s speeches prior to signing the 1840 Treaty and again affirmed in the chief’s speeches at Kohimarama 1860.
It is a creative imagination that reads sovereignty and/or governance into Article 2 of the Treaty, it was simply about legal ownership of property and for Maori landholders to sell only to the Queen’s agents for protection from unscrupulous dealers. With Article 1 ceding sovereignty, it is absurd to hint at Maori sovereignty/governance in Article 2.
In shrewdly switching between interpretations and wordings of Te Tiriti, and various English texts, treatyists arrive at a contentious vehicle that transfers wealth, assets and special rights to Maori which is racially dividing our society.
Contrary to Armstrong’s spin, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was about unity. The Government of the day with the support of NZ First placed the F&S in Crown ownership for the benefit of all New Zealanders, rather than a grab by opportunist tribes.
The Act did not confiscate the F&S but affirmed public ownership in accordance with British common law which had been the case until 2003. If tribes thought they had a right to areas they could still take their case to the High court under the F&S Act 2004, very few did.
GEOFF PARKER
Kamo
Hawkes Bay Today 26/10/16
UNLIKELY PARTNERS
One Pure, a Hong Kong-based corporation with the capital and expertise to conduct a massive water-bottling facility, felt the need to approach Ngati Paarau for "support and partnership" in their endeavour. According to Denis O'Reilly, this "support and partnership" is "good for our region and our nation, all of us, regardless of our ethnicity or derivation".
So can Mr O'Reilly answer the following questions on our behalf: What is the nature of the "support and partnership" which was "respectfully" requested of Ngati Paarau by One Pure? Are these "support and partnership" services of a scientific nature relating to preservation of our aquifer? If so, did One Pure approach any other organisation for this expertise?
If Ngati Paarau's knowledge regarding preservation of the aquifer (flowing tens of metres underground) is in the nature of traditional Maori knowledge, should this knowledge be preserved and accessible to those beyond Ngati Paarau, or can this traditional knowledge only be exercised by members of Ngati Paarau?
Mr O'Reilly states that One Pure's plant will have "minimal effect on the aquifer, if any". Did Ngati Paarau conduct independent tests on the bore to verify this statement, or did they simply accept assertions from One Pure?
Will Ngati Paarau, or any members of Ngati Paarau, receive any benefits or payment from One Pure by way of compensation for their "support and partnership"?
A response to these questions will certainly shed light on the nature of "partnership" between such unlikely parties as Hon Lung International and Ngati Paarau.
SARAH TAYLOR
Napier Hill