Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 29, 2018 5:00:43 GMT 12
Northland Age 29/11/18
STARTING WHEN?
On November 12, the government announced that the Maori Housing Network, a division of the Ministry of Maori Development, funded by the taxpayers, will be given an extra $5.8 million to finance housing repairs, only of houses occupied by part-Maori. This is in addition to the extra $15m provided in the 2018 Budget.
The Ministry of Maori Development already spends over $19m per annum to “improve the quality of housing for wha¯ nau, build capability in the Maori housing sector, increase the supply of affordable housing for wha¯ nau, support Maori emergency housing providers”.
The ministry is also managing $9m over three years (2017/18 to 2019/20) to trial new models to assist low-to-medium income wha¯ nau Maori to move toward home ownership.
Given that part-Maori tribes and other such groups have taken billions already from the taxpayers for sundry grievances, is it reasonable to ask when they will start using a little bit of that to pay for their needs/wants?
LEO LEITCH Benneydale
HOT TOPIC
The Supreme Court has suddenly become a hot topic as Chief Justice Elias prepares to exit in March 2019. Mrs Elias was appointed by Prime Minister Shipley in 1999 and headed the new Supreme Court in 2004.
I agree with the critics who express concern about the current selection process and the last thing Kiwis need is the appointment of another judicial activist. Some of the likely names being bandied about are alarming and anyone with entrenched race-based or political views must not be considered as impartiality is the paramount test.
The Supreme Court has in my view operated ‘dysfunctionally’ since its inception and to be fair I can’t recall seeing many (if any) decisions I agreed with. Jettisoning the Privy Council which gave us access to the finest legal brains, at no cost to NZ while governing the excesses of NZ judges was a mistake — it was a major constitutional change, which necessitated a binding referendum. The job of judges and the courts is primarily to interpret and apply statutes/ common law, not make their own laws per se. The electorate must be sole arbiter on creation of laws, albeit unfortunately via politicians.
Binding referendums on all major issues might assist in settling some things that become contentious and at least this gives the ‘irrelevant majority’ a say in matters.
Any Supreme Court appointment needs a wide consensus probably involving NZ Law Society/ NZ Bar Association, and senior judges not simply someone chosen by the the Prime Minister who can’t even select a credible Cabinet — that would certainly be an accident looking for a place to happen. Anything else would be right up there with John Key’s effectively unilateral moves to appoint the new governor general and drive the new flag referendum. Perhaps the Chief Justice and President of Supreme Court posts should be separate appointments with 10-year time limits.
A by the way observation the Prime Minister, Chief Justice, GovernorGeneral, and three of five Supreme Court judges are women, now that’s what one would call gender equality in spades.
Literal thought for the day ‘quis custodies ipsos custodes’ or who judges the judges?
ROB PATERSON, Mt Maungonui
Rotorua Daily Post 29/11/18
IWITOCRACY' MEANING
The word "iwitocracry” as used in Reynold Macpherson's petition presentation at the council meeting on November 22 was deemed to be `offensive by the deputy mayor, mayor and several councillors following which the mayor terminated the presentation and ruled questions out of order.
Given the Powerpoint presentation was received by some the day prior to the meeting it would have been prudent to check the definition of any words the meaning of which was not understood.
I wonder if those who found the word offensive confused it with a take on "aristocracy".
However, it is a noun found in the Oxford Dictionary of New Zealandisms 2010, defined as 'jocular Maori tribal bureaucracy (blend of iwi and bureaucracy)”.
Hardly offensive, unless other types of bureaucracy are offensive. More puzzling was the statement by Kingi Biddle who opened his presentation at the same council meeting by mentioning the now infamous word by describing "iwitocracy" as “iwi leaders" who "guide us, lead us, teach us". Why was the word not deemed offensive this time?
PADDI HODGKISS Rotorua
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
STARTING WHEN?
On November 12, the government announced that the Maori Housing Network, a division of the Ministry of Maori Development, funded by the taxpayers, will be given an extra $5.8 million to finance housing repairs, only of houses occupied by part-Maori. This is in addition to the extra $15m provided in the 2018 Budget.
The Ministry of Maori Development already spends over $19m per annum to “improve the quality of housing for wha¯ nau, build capability in the Maori housing sector, increase the supply of affordable housing for wha¯ nau, support Maori emergency housing providers”.
The ministry is also managing $9m over three years (2017/18 to 2019/20) to trial new models to assist low-to-medium income wha¯ nau Maori to move toward home ownership.
Given that part-Maori tribes and other such groups have taken billions already from the taxpayers for sundry grievances, is it reasonable to ask when they will start using a little bit of that to pay for their needs/wants?
LEO LEITCH Benneydale
HOT TOPIC
The Supreme Court has suddenly become a hot topic as Chief Justice Elias prepares to exit in March 2019. Mrs Elias was appointed by Prime Minister Shipley in 1999 and headed the new Supreme Court in 2004.
I agree with the critics who express concern about the current selection process and the last thing Kiwis need is the appointment of another judicial activist. Some of the likely names being bandied about are alarming and anyone with entrenched race-based or political views must not be considered as impartiality is the paramount test.
The Supreme Court has in my view operated ‘dysfunctionally’ since its inception and to be fair I can’t recall seeing many (if any) decisions I agreed with. Jettisoning the Privy Council which gave us access to the finest legal brains, at no cost to NZ while governing the excesses of NZ judges was a mistake — it was a major constitutional change, which necessitated a binding referendum. The job of judges and the courts is primarily to interpret and apply statutes/ common law, not make their own laws per se. The electorate must be sole arbiter on creation of laws, albeit unfortunately via politicians.
Binding referendums on all major issues might assist in settling some things that become contentious and at least this gives the ‘irrelevant majority’ a say in matters.
Any Supreme Court appointment needs a wide consensus probably involving NZ Law Society/ NZ Bar Association, and senior judges not simply someone chosen by the the Prime Minister who can’t even select a credible Cabinet — that would certainly be an accident looking for a place to happen. Anything else would be right up there with John Key’s effectively unilateral moves to appoint the new governor general and drive the new flag referendum. Perhaps the Chief Justice and President of Supreme Court posts should be separate appointments with 10-year time limits.
A by the way observation the Prime Minister, Chief Justice, GovernorGeneral, and three of five Supreme Court judges are women, now that’s what one would call gender equality in spades.
Literal thought for the day ‘quis custodies ipsos custodes’ or who judges the judges?
ROB PATERSON, Mt Maungonui
Rotorua Daily Post 29/11/18
IWITOCRACY' MEANING
The word "iwitocracry” as used in Reynold Macpherson's petition presentation at the council meeting on November 22 was deemed to be `offensive by the deputy mayor, mayor and several councillors following which the mayor terminated the presentation and ruled questions out of order.
Given the Powerpoint presentation was received by some the day prior to the meeting it would have been prudent to check the definition of any words the meaning of which was not understood.
I wonder if those who found the word offensive confused it with a take on "aristocracy".
However, it is a noun found in the Oxford Dictionary of New Zealandisms 2010, defined as 'jocular Maori tribal bureaucracy (blend of iwi and bureaucracy)”.
Hardly offensive, unless other types of bureaucracy are offensive. More puzzling was the statement by Kingi Biddle who opened his presentation at the same council meeting by mentioning the now infamous word by describing "iwitocracy" as “iwi leaders" who "guide us, lead us, teach us". Why was the word not deemed offensive this time?
PADDI HODGKISS Rotorua
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers