Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 10, 2016 9:09:42 GMT 12
Feel free to share letters from this page, BUT PLEASE REMEMBER TO ATTRIBUTE THEM TO KIWI FRONTLINE. That way, our voices and concerns will grow stronger.
Taranaki Daily News 10/3/16
TWO NAMES
Further to the front page feature "What’s In A Name?"on Saturday, March 5, it is true that in 1985 the New Zealand Geographic Board approved the change back to Mount Taranaki. Controversy then raged and a year later, as I understand it, the Minister of Maori Affairs, Koro Wetere, announced that the names of both Mount Egmont and Mount Taranaki would be the correct terminology for the future. I believe this to still be the case today.
B E
New Plymouth
Northern Advocate 10/3/16 Also Northland Age 10/3/16
THE UNELECTED
Through your columns I would like to inform readers about the Government's latest proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act, the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill.
The Government states that the overarching purpose of the bill is to create a resource management system that achieves the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in an efficient and equitable way. However, it would also significantly advance a shift in the constitutional relationship between local authorities and Maori.
It is clear that the proposed "iwi participation agreements" would strengthen the power that tribal groups have over local government and the country's natural resources, including fresh water. Such provisions would have a serious impact, not only on the democratic rights of citizens who are not members of local iwi, but also on the ability of councils to act in the best interest of all their citizens.
An excerpt from law firm Franks Ogilvie's detailed report gives the following advice: "The changes give a major role to some unelected people at the expense of others. They are poorly detailed. They contain few of the transparency and other safeguards evolved from long constitutional experience".
Submissions close March 14, for further details, and submission guides visit Democracy Action website www.democracyaction.org.nz/rla
GEOFF PARKER
Kamo
Rotorua Daily Post 10/3/16
CHANGE THE NATIONAL ANTHEM
Nothing wrong with our current flag, so why change it? It has over a century of history and it shows who we are. This nation was built — mostly — by the British. Our language, political, legal and education systems come from Britain. In spite of a massive and ongoing influx of Asian immigrants most New Zealanders are still of AngloCeltic ancestry. Our “Britishness” is a major attraction to migrants, especially Asians from third-world police states.
As a New Zealander of Maori heritage, I would have good reason to dislike the Union Jack — but I do not. I see myself as a beneficiary, not a victim, of British colonialism. I grew up in a prosperous democratic nation that provided me with free education and free healthcare.
If something is tasteless, tired, and old, it is our national anthem. It stank when I learned it at primary school and it was made to drone on twice as long by the addition of Maori. By all means keep the tune, but change the woeful lyrics. And leave our bloody flag alone!
C.C. M
Rotorua
Northland Age 10/3/16
HARD QUESTIONS
Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson recently smeared those questioning Treaty of Waitangi settlements as" the KKK element". Finlayson takes refuge in accusations of racial bigotry because his treatyist agenda is threatened by hard questions he's unable to answer.
This 'poacher turned gamekeeper' was a Treaty negotiator for Ngai Tahu before entering Parliament as an unelected list MP. No wonder he reflexively lines up with the poachers.
There are a number of elephants in the room.
First, the Maori of today are not the Maori of 1840. More than 170 years of racial mixing has given the lie to the existence of a unique race called Maori. There are only New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent, most of whom have more of the blood of the colonisers than of the colonised. Nobody who is less than haIf-Maori can claim on balance to be disadvantaged by alleged historical events.
Second, why have tribes that already received full and final settlements legislated for in the 1940s by Act of Parliament (Tainui, Taranaki, Ngai Tahu) been been allowed to double-dip?
Third, the Treaty was with tribes, not with a collective Maori. Most signed it, a substantial minority didn't. Why are non-signatories (Tainui, Tuhoe, Tuwharetoa) now receiving large settlements for 'Treaty breaches?' These are all legitimate concerns.
REUBEN P CHAPPLE
Devonport
Taranaki Daily News 10/3/16
TWO NAMES
Further to the front page feature "What’s In A Name?"on Saturday, March 5, it is true that in 1985 the New Zealand Geographic Board approved the change back to Mount Taranaki. Controversy then raged and a year later, as I understand it, the Minister of Maori Affairs, Koro Wetere, announced that the names of both Mount Egmont and Mount Taranaki would be the correct terminology for the future. I believe this to still be the case today.
B E
New Plymouth
Northern Advocate 10/3/16 Also Northland Age 10/3/16
THE UNELECTED
Through your columns I would like to inform readers about the Government's latest proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act, the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill.
The Government states that the overarching purpose of the bill is to create a resource management system that achieves the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in an efficient and equitable way. However, it would also significantly advance a shift in the constitutional relationship between local authorities and Maori.
It is clear that the proposed "iwi participation agreements" would strengthen the power that tribal groups have over local government and the country's natural resources, including fresh water. Such provisions would have a serious impact, not only on the democratic rights of citizens who are not members of local iwi, but also on the ability of councils to act in the best interest of all their citizens.
An excerpt from law firm Franks Ogilvie's detailed report gives the following advice: "The changes give a major role to some unelected people at the expense of others. They are poorly detailed. They contain few of the transparency and other safeguards evolved from long constitutional experience".
Submissions close March 14, for further details, and submission guides visit Democracy Action website www.democracyaction.org.nz/rla
GEOFF PARKER
Kamo
Rotorua Daily Post 10/3/16
CHANGE THE NATIONAL ANTHEM
Nothing wrong with our current flag, so why change it? It has over a century of history and it shows who we are. This nation was built — mostly — by the British. Our language, political, legal and education systems come from Britain. In spite of a massive and ongoing influx of Asian immigrants most New Zealanders are still of AngloCeltic ancestry. Our “Britishness” is a major attraction to migrants, especially Asians from third-world police states.
As a New Zealander of Maori heritage, I would have good reason to dislike the Union Jack — but I do not. I see myself as a beneficiary, not a victim, of British colonialism. I grew up in a prosperous democratic nation that provided me with free education and free healthcare.
If something is tasteless, tired, and old, it is our national anthem. It stank when I learned it at primary school and it was made to drone on twice as long by the addition of Maori. By all means keep the tune, but change the woeful lyrics. And leave our bloody flag alone!
C.C. M
Rotorua
Northland Age 10/3/16
HARD QUESTIONS
Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson recently smeared those questioning Treaty of Waitangi settlements as" the KKK element". Finlayson takes refuge in accusations of racial bigotry because his treatyist agenda is threatened by hard questions he's unable to answer.
This 'poacher turned gamekeeper' was a Treaty negotiator for Ngai Tahu before entering Parliament as an unelected list MP. No wonder he reflexively lines up with the poachers.
There are a number of elephants in the room.
First, the Maori of today are not the Maori of 1840. More than 170 years of racial mixing has given the lie to the existence of a unique race called Maori. There are only New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent, most of whom have more of the blood of the colonisers than of the colonised. Nobody who is less than haIf-Maori can claim on balance to be disadvantaged by alleged historical events.
Second, why have tribes that already received full and final settlements legislated for in the 1940s by Act of Parliament (Tainui, Taranaki, Ngai Tahu) been been allowed to double-dip?
Third, the Treaty was with tribes, not with a collective Maori. Most signed it, a substantial minority didn't. Why are non-signatories (Tainui, Tuhoe, Tuwharetoa) now receiving large settlements for 'Treaty breaches?' These are all legitimate concerns.
REUBEN P CHAPPLE
Devonport