Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 23, 2016 6:46:12 GMT 12
Waikato Times 23/3/16
GOVERNANCE WOES
As an aged war pensioner, I have staked a personal claim in our country and I have a growing concern for many aspects of present governance.
I believe New Zealanders are those permanent residents who regard themselves as primarily New Zealanders and make no claims for preferential treatment on the grounds of ethnicity.
Many citizens are unaware of the money, land and positions of power granted to Maori by the government at the recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal who handle Maori claims. These grants were initiated by Chris Finlayson, as Minister of Treaty Settlements, and previously the lawyer responsible for Ngai Tahu's extensive settlements. As a List MP, he is unelected. Ngai Tahu now has virtual control of the South Island.
The scant media reportage of these transactions may be the result of Government's covert reticence or media apathy. Winston Peters' claims that whanau being granted official status is "tribalism' and, as such, separate development or apartheid and should not be countenanced in New Zealand.
B J
Tauranga
Wanganui Chronicle 23/3/16
TREATY GAMES
What the Treaty of Waitangi truly is or means could have been sorted out over 20 years ago if our collective historians (not just Claudia Orange) had provided the public with the correct in-depth information. "Interpretation" of the treaty is an utterly futile undertaking until such time as the significance of the Littlewood documents (found 1988) is scientifically addressed.
Dr Michael Bassett said (National Business Review, March 2005): "What you have been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it."
Successive governments have not treated their electors with the respect or regard to gaining a majority consensus over treaty issues. That has resulted in tribal elite, institutionalised Maori driving politicians into creating and enacting government acts and policies that enrich and enhance one culture over other cultures, and that carries the label of racism.
M J A
Tauranga
Southland Times 23/3/16
THE TREATY
When I trawl through the unpublished letters to the editor submitted by both ordinary citizens and erudite, professional people, it is clear to me that a cloak of silence has been thrown over institutions, journalists, newspapers, TV and radio.
This cloak covers 50 years of legal battles funded by the public purse (that’s you and me) to the benefit of one selective race. This has been executed on the basis of misdirected legal interpretation of a document (Freemans ‘‘royal style’’ composite) that has no validity in our New Zealand history. All this, for the benefit of one selected culture.
This silence denies the reading, listening and thinking public the true facts of our history.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the only legally binding historical document. This treaty between Maori and the English Crown was drafted by Governor Hobson on February 4, 1840, and translated into Maori. Hobson’s authenticated draft (Littlewood draft) came to light in 1992. The law and government acts created in the 1970s based wholly on a bogus English version does not justly reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Justice Antonin Scalia, US Supreme Court, quote ‘‘championed the meaning of words as they were written and openly mocked the notion of living documents as nothing more than an excuse for those with vested interests to improve their own ideological or financial position’’. Unquote.
M J A
Tauranga
NZ Herald 23/3/16
KERMADEC SANCTUARY
I note with interest that the Maori Fisheries Trust, To Ohu Kaimoana, has filed proceedings against the Government over the proposed 620,000km no-take zone northeast of New Zealand because it would extinguish customary and commercial fishing rights. Is this the same trust that has leased New Zealand fishing rights to Chinese, Korean and other fishing companies while their own tribespeople still require education and work?
L L
Takapuna.
The Northern Advocate 23/3/16
REPORT HUI
Currently there are a series of hui, runanga and meetings being held around Tai Tokerau at which the ramifications of the September 2015 Waitangi Tribunal Report on the Ngapuhi Treaty Mandate process are being discussed.
At present there are three parties engaged in formal discussions, Te Kotahitanga, Tuhoronuku, and the Crown.
These parties have agreed there must be input from hapu groups as recommended by the tribunal, hence the current round of meetings.
This may be seen as a good thing, as it reflects a basic but curiously little known fact about the actual signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.
The Crown did not sign with Ngapuhi, it in fact signed with hapu rangitira. This was necessary because there was no one leader of “Ngapuhi” in 1840, just as there is no one leader of "Ngapuhi" at the present time.
The two major groupings involved in the mandating dispute, Te Kotahitanga and Tuhoronuku, are both well established and well organised. Neither will evaporate in the foreseeable future. Te Kotahitangi asserts that it is a group that stands up for hapu rangitiratanga, or self de-termination, and Tuhoronuku is known to be an offshoot of the Kaikohe based Te Runanga A Iwi 0 Ngapuhi, which stands for a centralised model of iwi governance.
The reality is that some hapu will never join in with Tuhoronuku, and vice versa other hapu will not go with Te Kotahitanga. Yet the sum of all hapu make up what we call Ngapuhi.
What these three indisputable facts show us, is that whether intentionally or not, the Waitangi Tribunal's determinations have brought about a situation which even with the best of intentions can never be fully resolved.
A cynic would call the tri-bunal's well-intentioned judgments a master stroke in the art of divide and conquer, others might simply see that its well-intentioned efforts to try to please everyone will, in fact, bring about an outcome which is unsatisfactory to all.
G M T
Whangarei
Bay of Plenty Times 23/3/16
MORE RMA INFO
The NZ citizen is faced with changes to the RMA and the control of fresh water without the Government physically and publicly informing the general public about the proposed changes.
If Government members and their ministries upheld their “duty of care” to the collective citizens of New Zealand, all changes to Acts should reasonably be inserted into the main regional papers every two weeks for three months before the opening of submissions to any Select Committee.
The information should include the heading, the number and the subset of “what the Act reads at the moment” and the “proposed change”.
Only then will you have an informed public who is given its right to respond.
The proposed changes will write into law, further tribal control over land, water and Local Government infrastructure without any elected responsibility.
M J A
Pyes Pa
Taranaki Daily News 23/3/16
LAND WAR HISTORY
I have just watched a programme on the anniversary of the Land Wars in Waitara and the comments made.
When I was growing up in the schooling system in the '50s and '60s, we were never taught New Zealand history. We never knew there was supposed to be a difference between our Maori, Swiss, Dutch, Indian, Chinese, Irish, or Scottish neighbours. As far as we knew we were all Kiwis, all one people, because we were all born in New Zealand so we were all the same. There are so many more nationalities here now and the majority of them are also Kiwis having been born in NZ.
I guess New Zealand history is now taught in school which is good because it needs to be told. I wish it had been all those years ago because maybe with that knowledge things would be a lot different today. But please, can we have a national day for all New Zealand, no matter creed, colour or race. And make it a name that represents all of New Zealand, not just one race.
J M
New Plymouth
GOVERNANCE WOES
As an aged war pensioner, I have staked a personal claim in our country and I have a growing concern for many aspects of present governance.
I believe New Zealanders are those permanent residents who regard themselves as primarily New Zealanders and make no claims for preferential treatment on the grounds of ethnicity.
Many citizens are unaware of the money, land and positions of power granted to Maori by the government at the recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal who handle Maori claims. These grants were initiated by Chris Finlayson, as Minister of Treaty Settlements, and previously the lawyer responsible for Ngai Tahu's extensive settlements. As a List MP, he is unelected. Ngai Tahu now has virtual control of the South Island.
The scant media reportage of these transactions may be the result of Government's covert reticence or media apathy. Winston Peters' claims that whanau being granted official status is "tribalism' and, as such, separate development or apartheid and should not be countenanced in New Zealand.
B J
Tauranga
Wanganui Chronicle 23/3/16
TREATY GAMES
What the Treaty of Waitangi truly is or means could have been sorted out over 20 years ago if our collective historians (not just Claudia Orange) had provided the public with the correct in-depth information. "Interpretation" of the treaty is an utterly futile undertaking until such time as the significance of the Littlewood documents (found 1988) is scientifically addressed.
Dr Michael Bassett said (National Business Review, March 2005): "What you have been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it."
Successive governments have not treated their electors with the respect or regard to gaining a majority consensus over treaty issues. That has resulted in tribal elite, institutionalised Maori driving politicians into creating and enacting government acts and policies that enrich and enhance one culture over other cultures, and that carries the label of racism.
M J A
Tauranga
Southland Times 23/3/16
THE TREATY
When I trawl through the unpublished letters to the editor submitted by both ordinary citizens and erudite, professional people, it is clear to me that a cloak of silence has been thrown over institutions, journalists, newspapers, TV and radio.
This cloak covers 50 years of legal battles funded by the public purse (that’s you and me) to the benefit of one selective race. This has been executed on the basis of misdirected legal interpretation of a document (Freemans ‘‘royal style’’ composite) that has no validity in our New Zealand history. All this, for the benefit of one selected culture.
This silence denies the reading, listening and thinking public the true facts of our history.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the only legally binding historical document. This treaty between Maori and the English Crown was drafted by Governor Hobson on February 4, 1840, and translated into Maori. Hobson’s authenticated draft (Littlewood draft) came to light in 1992. The law and government acts created in the 1970s based wholly on a bogus English version does not justly reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Justice Antonin Scalia, US Supreme Court, quote ‘‘championed the meaning of words as they were written and openly mocked the notion of living documents as nothing more than an excuse for those with vested interests to improve their own ideological or financial position’’. Unquote.
M J A
Tauranga
NZ Herald 23/3/16
KERMADEC SANCTUARY
I note with interest that the Maori Fisheries Trust, To Ohu Kaimoana, has filed proceedings against the Government over the proposed 620,000km no-take zone northeast of New Zealand because it would extinguish customary and commercial fishing rights. Is this the same trust that has leased New Zealand fishing rights to Chinese, Korean and other fishing companies while their own tribespeople still require education and work?
L L
Takapuna.
The Northern Advocate 23/3/16
REPORT HUI
Currently there are a series of hui, runanga and meetings being held around Tai Tokerau at which the ramifications of the September 2015 Waitangi Tribunal Report on the Ngapuhi Treaty Mandate process are being discussed.
At present there are three parties engaged in formal discussions, Te Kotahitanga, Tuhoronuku, and the Crown.
These parties have agreed there must be input from hapu groups as recommended by the tribunal, hence the current round of meetings.
This may be seen as a good thing, as it reflects a basic but curiously little known fact about the actual signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.
The Crown did not sign with Ngapuhi, it in fact signed with hapu rangitira. This was necessary because there was no one leader of “Ngapuhi” in 1840, just as there is no one leader of "Ngapuhi" at the present time.
The two major groupings involved in the mandating dispute, Te Kotahitanga and Tuhoronuku, are both well established and well organised. Neither will evaporate in the foreseeable future. Te Kotahitangi asserts that it is a group that stands up for hapu rangitiratanga, or self de-termination, and Tuhoronuku is known to be an offshoot of the Kaikohe based Te Runanga A Iwi 0 Ngapuhi, which stands for a centralised model of iwi governance.
The reality is that some hapu will never join in with Tuhoronuku, and vice versa other hapu will not go with Te Kotahitanga. Yet the sum of all hapu make up what we call Ngapuhi.
What these three indisputable facts show us, is that whether intentionally or not, the Waitangi Tribunal's determinations have brought about a situation which even with the best of intentions can never be fully resolved.
A cynic would call the tri-bunal's well-intentioned judgments a master stroke in the art of divide and conquer, others might simply see that its well-intentioned efforts to try to please everyone will, in fact, bring about an outcome which is unsatisfactory to all.
G M T
Whangarei
Bay of Plenty Times 23/3/16
MORE RMA INFO
The NZ citizen is faced with changes to the RMA and the control of fresh water without the Government physically and publicly informing the general public about the proposed changes.
If Government members and their ministries upheld their “duty of care” to the collective citizens of New Zealand, all changes to Acts should reasonably be inserted into the main regional papers every two weeks for three months before the opening of submissions to any Select Committee.
The information should include the heading, the number and the subset of “what the Act reads at the moment” and the “proposed change”.
Only then will you have an informed public who is given its right to respond.
The proposed changes will write into law, further tribal control over land, water and Local Government infrastructure without any elected responsibility.
M J A
Pyes Pa
Taranaki Daily News 23/3/16
LAND WAR HISTORY
I have just watched a programme on the anniversary of the Land Wars in Waitara and the comments made.
When I was growing up in the schooling system in the '50s and '60s, we were never taught New Zealand history. We never knew there was supposed to be a difference between our Maori, Swiss, Dutch, Indian, Chinese, Irish, or Scottish neighbours. As far as we knew we were all Kiwis, all one people, because we were all born in New Zealand so we were all the same. There are so many more nationalities here now and the majority of them are also Kiwis having been born in NZ.
I guess New Zealand history is now taught in school which is good because it needs to be told. I wish it had been all those years ago because maybe with that knowledge things would be a lot different today. But please, can we have a national day for all New Zealand, no matter creed, colour or race. And make it a name that represents all of New Zealand, not just one race.
J M
New Plymouth