Post by Kiwi Frontline on Aug 9, 2019 10:25:35 GMT 12
Dear Ed, (Sent to the NZ Herald 31/7/19)
Vincent O’Malley is being his mischievous self comparing Ihumatao with Stonehenge and asking “would the English allow housing to surround Stonehenge?”
It is not an issue likely to arise as Stonehenge is in the middle of nowhere with the nearest city 50km away.
Ihumatao is in the middle of our biggest city.
Every city of note in Europe has very significant heritage sites surrounded by houses and commercial activity.
I look forward to Vincent saying something good once in a while, but don’t think it is in his DNA.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Dear Ed, (Sent to the NZ Herald 30/7/19)
The “SOUL” group headed by Miss Pania Newton are either confused or willing to ignore history as to the reasons Māori land was confiscated in 1865.
The Māori king, Tāwhiao, had declared in 1863 that no Europeans would cross the Mangatawhiri river as his father Te Wherowhero claimed no Waikato Māori had signed the Treaty of Waitangi, so there was no obligation to accept Queen Victoria as their sovereign. A false claim, as in 1840 the signing at Port Waikato by 32 signatories were almost all Waikato chiefs.
Gov Grey refused to accept two sovereign nations in New Zealand. He demanded all Waikato Māori living north of the Mangatawhiri either plead allegiance to the Crown or leave the district. Following the Waikato war, the land around Ihumatao was confiscated.
In 1995 the Government accepted that the confiscations were unjust and offered Waikato- Tainui $170m. A ratchet clause in that settlement may result in $300m eventually being paid.
Treaty claim terms exclude private land, so recipients are expected to negotiate to buy back land on the open market. Waikato-Tainui have not sought to purchase the land in question yet Fletchers have been willing sellers.
Over many years both Manukau City and Auckland Council have negotiated with the recognised tanga whenua, “Te Kawerau ā Maki” resulting in an amicable agreement that “SOUL” now contests. That agreement also resulted in the purchase of land that is now the adjacent “Stonefield’s Reserve”.
The solution is simple. “SOUL and Te Kawerau ā Maki” need to ask the Māori King to arbitrate.
He may choose to negotiate with Fletchers, but I think his focus is more on another airport hotel rather than housing for his people.
The government has no place in the dispute. Taxpayers have already settled with those involved.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Dear Ed, (Sent to the Waikato Times 30/7/19)
I would urge our prime minister to cease any Government involvement in the Ihumatao affair. She should make a bold statement to our nation fully explaining the history of the land, post 1863 and advise the acknowledged tanga whenua, “Te Kawerau a Maki” and the group known a “Soul” headed by Pania Newton to settle their differences. They could ask the Maori King to appoint an adjudicator.
Fletchers and Auckland Council should not be parties to the dispute. They and the earlier Manukau City have followed all the rules and bent over backwards to meet the wishes of Te Kawerau a Maki over many years at significant ratepayer cost.
Under the Treaty of Waitangi, the Waikato-Tainui people were awarded $170m dollars in 1995. A ratchet clause related to the size of the “Treaty Envelope” will likely double that amount within a few years. Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act, no privately owned land was to be touched, with the cash awarded to be put toward purchases as the tribe decided. Evidently Fletchers have offered to sell the land with no takers.
Maybe Miss Newton could ask the King to cancel the $150m deal to build a new hotel at the nearby airport and offer it to Fletchers?
To sweeten the deal, they might ask Fletchers to tender to build some houses which they could then rent or on sell (at cost?) to tribal members under favourable terms.
As a taxpayer I have no wish to purchase the same piece of land twice!
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters
Vincent O’Malley is being his mischievous self comparing Ihumatao with Stonehenge and asking “would the English allow housing to surround Stonehenge?”
It is not an issue likely to arise as Stonehenge is in the middle of nowhere with the nearest city 50km away.
Ihumatao is in the middle of our biggest city.
Every city of note in Europe has very significant heritage sites surrounded by houses and commercial activity.
I look forward to Vincent saying something good once in a while, but don’t think it is in his DNA.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Dear Ed, (Sent to the NZ Herald 30/7/19)
The “SOUL” group headed by Miss Pania Newton are either confused or willing to ignore history as to the reasons Māori land was confiscated in 1865.
The Māori king, Tāwhiao, had declared in 1863 that no Europeans would cross the Mangatawhiri river as his father Te Wherowhero claimed no Waikato Māori had signed the Treaty of Waitangi, so there was no obligation to accept Queen Victoria as their sovereign. A false claim, as in 1840 the signing at Port Waikato by 32 signatories were almost all Waikato chiefs.
Gov Grey refused to accept two sovereign nations in New Zealand. He demanded all Waikato Māori living north of the Mangatawhiri either plead allegiance to the Crown or leave the district. Following the Waikato war, the land around Ihumatao was confiscated.
In 1995 the Government accepted that the confiscations were unjust and offered Waikato- Tainui $170m. A ratchet clause in that settlement may result in $300m eventually being paid.
Treaty claim terms exclude private land, so recipients are expected to negotiate to buy back land on the open market. Waikato-Tainui have not sought to purchase the land in question yet Fletchers have been willing sellers.
Over many years both Manukau City and Auckland Council have negotiated with the recognised tanga whenua, “Te Kawerau ā Maki” resulting in an amicable agreement that “SOUL” now contests. That agreement also resulted in the purchase of land that is now the adjacent “Stonefield’s Reserve”.
The solution is simple. “SOUL and Te Kawerau ā Maki” need to ask the Māori King to arbitrate.
He may choose to negotiate with Fletchers, but I think his focus is more on another airport hotel rather than housing for his people.
The government has no place in the dispute. Taxpayers have already settled with those involved.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Dear Ed, (Sent to the Waikato Times 30/7/19)
I would urge our prime minister to cease any Government involvement in the Ihumatao affair. She should make a bold statement to our nation fully explaining the history of the land, post 1863 and advise the acknowledged tanga whenua, “Te Kawerau a Maki” and the group known a “Soul” headed by Pania Newton to settle their differences. They could ask the Maori King to appoint an adjudicator.
Fletchers and Auckland Council should not be parties to the dispute. They and the earlier Manukau City have followed all the rules and bent over backwards to meet the wishes of Te Kawerau a Maki over many years at significant ratepayer cost.
Under the Treaty of Waitangi, the Waikato-Tainui people were awarded $170m dollars in 1995. A ratchet clause related to the size of the “Treaty Envelope” will likely double that amount within a few years. Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act, no privately owned land was to be touched, with the cash awarded to be put toward purchases as the tribe decided. Evidently Fletchers have offered to sell the land with no takers.
Maybe Miss Newton could ask the King to cancel the $150m deal to build a new hotel at the nearby airport and offer it to Fletchers?
To sweeten the deal, they might ask Fletchers to tender to build some houses which they could then rent or on sell (at cost?) to tribal members under favourable terms.
As a taxpayer I have no wish to purchase the same piece of land twice!
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters