Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 12, 2016 6:58:59 GMT 12
Waikato Times Weekend 12/3/16
TREATY CLAIMS
Water is being targeted by corporate iwi as the next public resource to control. They say it is their right under the Treaty of Waitangi. But it is just another money grab and our political leaders are allowing them to get away with it.
As Ngapuhi leader David Rankin says, ‘‘Prior to the arrival of Europeans in New Zealand, Maori never owned water. There is no cultural basis or historical precedent for the claim. Neither is it a Treaty right. This is just a case of opportunism, and on the basis of the foreshore and seabed issue, Maori have learned that if we keep pushing for the right to something, eventually, a weak Government will give in and hand it over to us.’’
If you believe that water is a public good resource that must not be owned by anyone, then please have your say www.mfe.govt.nz/consultation/next-steps-fresh-water (scroll down)
Your submission can address any issues relating to the proposals. The questions in the discussion document are intended as prompts and to help you organise your responses. Your submission does not have to address every question.
We need to send the government a strong message that claims for racebased rights akin to ownership must be rejected.
G K
Hamilton
The Christchurch Press 12/3/16
WEALTH NO SURPRISE
It’s not so hard really for Ngai Tahu to reach a total of $1 billion in assets, for which it is currently being hailed (Mar 10).
Not having to pay tax on its profits would put any company ahead of its competitors, and since Ngai Tahu, as narrated on its website, rolls 80 per cent of its untaxed profit each year into new investments, instead of distributing it to Maori groups, it must be way ahead of the game.
But this also means that genuine Maori beneficiaries are missing out, and they are the ones the community should be concerned about, instead of handing out spurious awards.
J B
Merivale
Wairarapa Times-Age 12/3/16
MYTH OF MAORI LAND SALES
The article by Marama Fox (March 7) provides an all too apt example of the concern she raises, that angst may be fuelled by misinformation, with the ridiculous claim that for Maori “95 per cent of our land was lost either by force or stealth”.
Land sales were from the first desired by Maori. Land was sold by Te Atiawa in Wellington, in the Marlborough Sounds and at New Plymouth, all before 1840.
One reason why Governor Fitzroy became unpopular with Maori around 1844 was that he did not have sufficient funds to buy all the land on offer.
Across the country, the great majority of land sales were by willing, often eager, vendors. Not by force or stealth.
As for the proportion, how can it be calculated that 5 per cent remain in Maori hands? How can it be determined from land registries that Smith and Jones have British ancestors only while O’Regan, Walker and Love have some Maori forebear?
Much of the land that is classified as in general ownership has Maori owners, given the current definition of who can be Maori. And why on earth should it matter?
JOHN ROBINSON
Wellington
NZ Herald 12/3/16 Also in BoP Times 12/3/16
RANGI WALKER
Let us not speak ill of the dead but let's not let nostalgia blind us to reality. In many years of reportage of the activities and opinions of Dr Ranginui Walker there have been few words from him of approval or even acceptance of most things Pakeha. lt was almost as if the considerable part of his non-Maori heritage was an embarrassment to him.
I cannot see that Professor PS Spoonley's comments in the Herald of an "inclusive and equitable society in the 21st century" would meet the wishes of Dr Walker. who was a strong exponent of Maori privilege and exclusivity.
B J,
0mokoroa.
TREATY CLAIMS
Water is being targeted by corporate iwi as the next public resource to control. They say it is their right under the Treaty of Waitangi. But it is just another money grab and our political leaders are allowing them to get away with it.
As Ngapuhi leader David Rankin says, ‘‘Prior to the arrival of Europeans in New Zealand, Maori never owned water. There is no cultural basis or historical precedent for the claim. Neither is it a Treaty right. This is just a case of opportunism, and on the basis of the foreshore and seabed issue, Maori have learned that if we keep pushing for the right to something, eventually, a weak Government will give in and hand it over to us.’’
If you believe that water is a public good resource that must not be owned by anyone, then please have your say www.mfe.govt.nz/consultation/next-steps-fresh-water (scroll down)
Your submission can address any issues relating to the proposals. The questions in the discussion document are intended as prompts and to help you organise your responses. Your submission does not have to address every question.
We need to send the government a strong message that claims for racebased rights akin to ownership must be rejected.
G K
Hamilton
The Christchurch Press 12/3/16
WEALTH NO SURPRISE
It’s not so hard really for Ngai Tahu to reach a total of $1 billion in assets, for which it is currently being hailed (Mar 10).
Not having to pay tax on its profits would put any company ahead of its competitors, and since Ngai Tahu, as narrated on its website, rolls 80 per cent of its untaxed profit each year into new investments, instead of distributing it to Maori groups, it must be way ahead of the game.
But this also means that genuine Maori beneficiaries are missing out, and they are the ones the community should be concerned about, instead of handing out spurious awards.
J B
Merivale
Wairarapa Times-Age 12/3/16
MYTH OF MAORI LAND SALES
The article by Marama Fox (March 7) provides an all too apt example of the concern she raises, that angst may be fuelled by misinformation, with the ridiculous claim that for Maori “95 per cent of our land was lost either by force or stealth”.
Land sales were from the first desired by Maori. Land was sold by Te Atiawa in Wellington, in the Marlborough Sounds and at New Plymouth, all before 1840.
One reason why Governor Fitzroy became unpopular with Maori around 1844 was that he did not have sufficient funds to buy all the land on offer.
Across the country, the great majority of land sales were by willing, often eager, vendors. Not by force or stealth.
As for the proportion, how can it be calculated that 5 per cent remain in Maori hands? How can it be determined from land registries that Smith and Jones have British ancestors only while O’Regan, Walker and Love have some Maori forebear?
Much of the land that is classified as in general ownership has Maori owners, given the current definition of who can be Maori. And why on earth should it matter?
JOHN ROBINSON
Wellington
NZ Herald 12/3/16 Also in BoP Times 12/3/16
RANGI WALKER
Let us not speak ill of the dead but let's not let nostalgia blind us to reality. In many years of reportage of the activities and opinions of Dr Ranginui Walker there have been few words from him of approval or even acceptance of most things Pakeha. lt was almost as if the considerable part of his non-Maori heritage was an embarrassment to him.
I cannot see that Professor PS Spoonley's comments in the Herald of an "inclusive and equitable society in the 21st century" would meet the wishes of Dr Walker. who was a strong exponent of Maori privilege and exclusivity.
B J,
0mokoroa.