Post by Kiwi Frontline on Aug 15, 2019 8:25:02 GMT 12
Hawkes Bay Today 15/8/19
STICKING WITH IHUMATAO STATUS QUO THE TOUGH OPTION
The status quo is the tough option and tests whether both iwi and the Government can honour a deal.
Giving land at Ihumatao “to iwi” is no solution because a process to settle grievances is already under way and rewarding a sit-in would only encourage more sit-ins.
And, by over-ruling the rights of private owner Fletcher [Residential] the Government would change the rules, making all private land subject to a Maori claim and Government intervention.
Maori affairs reporter Michael Neilson, who wrote “Four Ihumatao solutions” (HBT, August 14), fails to mention four Treaty settlements for that area.
Te Kawerau a Maki settled in 2015 receiving financial redress of $6.5 million, [1] Ngati Tamaoho’s deal worth $10.3m is awaiting legislation, [2] and the terms of negotiation for Ngati Te Ata and Te Akitai Waiohua have been signed.
Neither does he balance the “land was stolen” assertion in the photo with the fact that land in that area was confiscated as a punishment for fighting against the government.[3][4]
Neilson’s four solutions are only two solutions, being three versions of give-land-to-iwi and one of the status quo.
He didn’t consider the likely impact on other Treaty settlements of a gift of land worth $36m on top of the four other deals.
The status quo is the tough option and tests whether both iwi and the Government can honour a deal.
If they can’t, perhaps 30 years of Treaty settlements and $3.6 billion in financial redress [5] has not settled anything.
MIKE BUTLER, Hastings
Northland Age 15/8/19
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM
I find myself unable to reciprocate the flattering compliments of Mark O'Rourke Chamberlain (Letters, August 8) because his characterisation of my reference to the Maori All Blacks as "anti-Maori sentiment" is so patently absurd as to indicate serious disingenuousness.
The Maori All Blacks is an example of institutional racism because it gives favour to a group solely on the basis of their race. That's racism, whether it excludes one particular race or a whole bunch of different races.
Mr Chamberlain's agenda is exposed by his reference to mythical "moral imperatives of the Treaty of Waitangi" and "the woeful long-term fallout of colonisation".
I have no particular grudge against the Maori All Blacks; I find it a rather harmless bit of racism, and I have no interest in it. But I very much despise the institutional racism which is rife in our once blessed country, and which has served very successfully to raise racial tensions and even hatred.
LEO LEITCH Pukenui
Otago Daily Times 14/8/19
IHUMATAO
PANIA Newton’s protesters at Ihumatao are unlawfully occupying private land in a tribal protest that does not have the support of her tribe.
The police are failing to uphold the property rights of the landowner, and 480 houses are not being built at a time that Auckland is crying out for housing.
Former prime minister Helen Clark refused to give in to protesters over the seabed and foreshore issue. Jacinda Ardern has just sent the opposite message, opening the floodgates to similar protests, trashing Treaty settlements, and eroding private property rights.
These actions do not only conflict with New Zealand law but also conflict with Maori culture in the failure to demonstrate fundamental respect for the decision of their elders.
DENIS SHUKER, Cambridge
Dominion Post 14/8/19
NO WINNERS LIKELY IN LAND DISPUTE
After reading and learning about the occupation at Ihumatao, given the entrenched position and beliefs of the Save Our Unique Landscape (SOUL) protesters and their supporters, the possible outcomes in this matter seem binary.
The SOUL supporters, who we are told include ‘‘some’’ mana whenua, are unlikely to compromise, and want the land preserved in its entirety as a reserve.
Fletcher and the iwi see merit in the housing development and its social benefits, but there is obviously a financial imperative and any reduction in the number of houses to be built would likely make it unviable.
In all probability Fletcher will walk away (whether financially compensated, or otherwise). Proceeding with the already tainted project may be just too much grief, and anyone wanting to buy a house there would fear the consequences of the ongoing unrest and loss of property values.
Will this be a unifying moment for Aotearoa New Zealand if the project is scuttled and the land granted reservation status? Absolutely not. It will only serve to create more division and polarisation, particularly if it becomes the catalyst for further land disputes. Companies will be wary of entering into any future joint ventures with Maori organisations. There are no winners in that.
MIKE JARVIS, Paraparaumu Beach
MAORI OFFENDING
If, as the Waitangi Tribunal states, the loss of prisoners’ rights to vote would disproportionately affect Maori then the tribunal should endeavour to persuade Maori from disproportionately committing crimes.
BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa
The Press 14/8/19
WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
There will be many New Zealanders who believe the Waitangi Tribunal does a reasonable job of redressing some historical inequities. However, its latest foray into areas where, with extremely immoderate language, it attempts to reset the law which has been adequately legislated by Parliament, is, surely, no more that a fishing expedition.
The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 represents excellent legislation in regard to ensuring that the rights of the individual remain paramount in a civilised society.
This statute does not need to be amended to allow for serving prisoners to have the right to vote in general elections.
When a person goes to prison he or she loses many rights: the loss of exercising one’s franchise is one of those rights.
LEISTER MONK, Linwood
Northland Age 13/8/19
AIDING THE FEW
It’s a fact as well as common sense that the self-appointed Maori leaders do not want the majority of their people to succeed. If they did succeed, there would be no need for the millions and millions of dollars paid annually to Maori organisations as it is today. In fact, large amounts are doing exactly the opposite.
It is only fostering “the culture” the Maori leaders want for their own gain, so they can retain control over their people as they did in pre-European times. The Quality Inn and Sealord deals are shinning examples: $200 million of taxpayers’ money and who did this really help? Not the unemployed, uneducated and unskilled young Maori, but the same few so-called Maori leaders who can control who will benefit from it.
Tribal control is a primitive form of communism which of late has proved unworkable, but is forced on the Maori by their leaders with unlimited funding from Government.
This not only deprives the majority of this group of New Zealand citizens of their rights but also alienates them from the modern world, so they can be used over and over again by their leaders for further government funding. It is time that the government and Mr and Mrs Average Maori woke up to what is happening. They are being used to make a few of their own people rich at their expense. This must be put back into government control as stated in the Treaty of Waitangi, so that the Maori as well as all New Zealanders will benefit and not just the chosen few who have always deprived the Maori race and stopped the progress of a people.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
RACISM AND HEALTH
The perennial reportage by the media of claims of institutional racism in most aspects of our national institutions, health, law enforcement, the judiciary, prison reform, education and national and local governance are non-specific.
Colonisation is still said to affect ethnic lives after 200 years but no definitive examples are given. No individuals or institutions are named, no particular instances or examples are given. The results are that new committees will be set up or promises made to correct the problems. That the disadvantaged groups have any responsibilities is not considered.
If these conditions exist then their resolution is the responsibility of government or national institutions. The only public responsibility is to pay the bill.
A ludicrous anomaly is that not one of the complainants has any less than half-colonial blood. That is historically biologically verifiable. What is also verifiable is that the government has supported their claims indisputably.
What is also true is that the media has been complicit with the complainants by sensational reporting.
That is why this opinion piece will never be presented to the public.
When will logic, honesty, professional integrity and the acceptance of our true history return?
BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa
STICKING WITH IHUMATAO STATUS QUO THE TOUGH OPTION
The status quo is the tough option and tests whether both iwi and the Government can honour a deal.
Giving land at Ihumatao “to iwi” is no solution because a process to settle grievances is already under way and rewarding a sit-in would only encourage more sit-ins.
And, by over-ruling the rights of private owner Fletcher [Residential] the Government would change the rules, making all private land subject to a Maori claim and Government intervention.
Maori affairs reporter Michael Neilson, who wrote “Four Ihumatao solutions” (HBT, August 14), fails to mention four Treaty settlements for that area.
Te Kawerau a Maki settled in 2015 receiving financial redress of $6.5 million, [1] Ngati Tamaoho’s deal worth $10.3m is awaiting legislation, [2] and the terms of negotiation for Ngati Te Ata and Te Akitai Waiohua have been signed.
Neither does he balance the “land was stolen” assertion in the photo with the fact that land in that area was confiscated as a punishment for fighting against the government.[3][4]
Neilson’s four solutions are only two solutions, being three versions of give-land-to-iwi and one of the status quo.
He didn’t consider the likely impact on other Treaty settlements of a gift of land worth $36m on top of the four other deals.
The status quo is the tough option and tests whether both iwi and the Government can honour a deal.
If they can’t, perhaps 30 years of Treaty settlements and $3.6 billion in financial redress [5] has not settled anything.
MIKE BUTLER, Hastings
Northland Age 15/8/19
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM
I find myself unable to reciprocate the flattering compliments of Mark O'Rourke Chamberlain (Letters, August 8) because his characterisation of my reference to the Maori All Blacks as "anti-Maori sentiment" is so patently absurd as to indicate serious disingenuousness.
The Maori All Blacks is an example of institutional racism because it gives favour to a group solely on the basis of their race. That's racism, whether it excludes one particular race or a whole bunch of different races.
Mr Chamberlain's agenda is exposed by his reference to mythical "moral imperatives of the Treaty of Waitangi" and "the woeful long-term fallout of colonisation".
I have no particular grudge against the Maori All Blacks; I find it a rather harmless bit of racism, and I have no interest in it. But I very much despise the institutional racism which is rife in our once blessed country, and which has served very successfully to raise racial tensions and even hatred.
LEO LEITCH Pukenui
Otago Daily Times 14/8/19
IHUMATAO
PANIA Newton’s protesters at Ihumatao are unlawfully occupying private land in a tribal protest that does not have the support of her tribe.
The police are failing to uphold the property rights of the landowner, and 480 houses are not being built at a time that Auckland is crying out for housing.
Former prime minister Helen Clark refused to give in to protesters over the seabed and foreshore issue. Jacinda Ardern has just sent the opposite message, opening the floodgates to similar protests, trashing Treaty settlements, and eroding private property rights.
These actions do not only conflict with New Zealand law but also conflict with Maori culture in the failure to demonstrate fundamental respect for the decision of their elders.
DENIS SHUKER, Cambridge
Dominion Post 14/8/19
NO WINNERS LIKELY IN LAND DISPUTE
After reading and learning about the occupation at Ihumatao, given the entrenched position and beliefs of the Save Our Unique Landscape (SOUL) protesters and their supporters, the possible outcomes in this matter seem binary.
The SOUL supporters, who we are told include ‘‘some’’ mana whenua, are unlikely to compromise, and want the land preserved in its entirety as a reserve.
Fletcher and the iwi see merit in the housing development and its social benefits, but there is obviously a financial imperative and any reduction in the number of houses to be built would likely make it unviable.
In all probability Fletcher will walk away (whether financially compensated, or otherwise). Proceeding with the already tainted project may be just too much grief, and anyone wanting to buy a house there would fear the consequences of the ongoing unrest and loss of property values.
Will this be a unifying moment for Aotearoa New Zealand if the project is scuttled and the land granted reservation status? Absolutely not. It will only serve to create more division and polarisation, particularly if it becomes the catalyst for further land disputes. Companies will be wary of entering into any future joint ventures with Maori organisations. There are no winners in that.
MIKE JARVIS, Paraparaumu Beach
MAORI OFFENDING
If, as the Waitangi Tribunal states, the loss of prisoners’ rights to vote would disproportionately affect Maori then the tribunal should endeavour to persuade Maori from disproportionately committing crimes.
BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa
The Press 14/8/19
WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
There will be many New Zealanders who believe the Waitangi Tribunal does a reasonable job of redressing some historical inequities. However, its latest foray into areas where, with extremely immoderate language, it attempts to reset the law which has been adequately legislated by Parliament, is, surely, no more that a fishing expedition.
The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 represents excellent legislation in regard to ensuring that the rights of the individual remain paramount in a civilised society.
This statute does not need to be amended to allow for serving prisoners to have the right to vote in general elections.
When a person goes to prison he or she loses many rights: the loss of exercising one’s franchise is one of those rights.
LEISTER MONK, Linwood
Northland Age 13/8/19
AIDING THE FEW
It’s a fact as well as common sense that the self-appointed Maori leaders do not want the majority of their people to succeed. If they did succeed, there would be no need for the millions and millions of dollars paid annually to Maori organisations as it is today. In fact, large amounts are doing exactly the opposite.
It is only fostering “the culture” the Maori leaders want for their own gain, so they can retain control over their people as they did in pre-European times. The Quality Inn and Sealord deals are shinning examples: $200 million of taxpayers’ money and who did this really help? Not the unemployed, uneducated and unskilled young Maori, but the same few so-called Maori leaders who can control who will benefit from it.
Tribal control is a primitive form of communism which of late has proved unworkable, but is forced on the Maori by their leaders with unlimited funding from Government.
This not only deprives the majority of this group of New Zealand citizens of their rights but also alienates them from the modern world, so they can be used over and over again by their leaders for further government funding. It is time that the government and Mr and Mrs Average Maori woke up to what is happening. They are being used to make a few of their own people rich at their expense. This must be put back into government control as stated in the Treaty of Waitangi, so that the Maori as well as all New Zealanders will benefit and not just the chosen few who have always deprived the Maori race and stopped the progress of a people.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
RACISM AND HEALTH
The perennial reportage by the media of claims of institutional racism in most aspects of our national institutions, health, law enforcement, the judiciary, prison reform, education and national and local governance are non-specific.
Colonisation is still said to affect ethnic lives after 200 years but no definitive examples are given. No individuals or institutions are named, no particular instances or examples are given. The results are that new committees will be set up or promises made to correct the problems. That the disadvantaged groups have any responsibilities is not considered.
If these conditions exist then their resolution is the responsibility of government or national institutions. The only public responsibility is to pay the bill.
A ludicrous anomaly is that not one of the complainants has any less than half-colonial blood. That is historically biologically verifiable. What is also verifiable is that the government has supported their claims indisputably.
What is also true is that the media has been complicit with the complainants by sensational reporting.
That is why this opinion piece will never be presented to the public.
When will logic, honesty, professional integrity and the acceptance of our true history return?
BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa