Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 25, 2016 10:51:37 GMT 12
Feel free to share letters from this page, But please remember to attribute it to Kiwi Frontline. That way, our voices and concerns will grow stronger.
Wairarapa Times Age 25/2/16
TREATY A DOCUMENT OF ITS TIME
MP Marama Fox’s article ( Times-Age, February 15) is dangerously separatist and divisive. She belatedly acknowledges recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi in the TPP but then complains that it depends on the interpretation of ‘treaty rights’ by the government of the day. Many would feel that is the interpretation of so- called ‘treaty rights’ by Maori activists that is of much greater concern. After all it was the government of the day in the 1980s, courtesy of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, that introduced the completely nebulous and ill-defined concept of the ‘principles of the treaty’. These principles ( sic) were subsequently strangely defined by the court of appeal under Sir Robin (later Lord) Cooke. As for the government ignoring the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal, even the normally sympathetic Treaty negotiations minister, Mr Finlayson, has described some findings of the tribunal as ‘bizarre’ and outside its brief.
Then we have the nonsense of the ‘ mana’ of the Treaty, although at least we were spared the ‘ Treaty is a living document’ fantasy. The Treaty of Waitangi was a document of its time and, as is often the case, the most straightforward interpretation is the obvious one. Article 1: Maori ceded sovereignty to the British crown. Article 2: Maori could keep their then current processions (land, weapons, etc — not as yet unthought of things like radio waves) as much as a protection against each other as against the crown, Article 3; (remarkably, unusually and generously) Maori were given the rights of British citizens. And by no stretch of the imagination can the Treaty be described as a ‘partnership’ for the joint government/administration of New Zealand. It seems to me that many Maori activists ignore article 1, take all the benefits of article 3 and interpret article 2 as it suits them at the time. There is no way that this can be said to entitle Maori to have a separate voice in the foreign policy of New Zealand. Of course Ms Fox makes the mistake of assuming that all Maori have the same view on such matters, and arrogantly asserts that her views represent them all, talking about the 'will of Maoridom', whatever that means. Does Ms Fox know that only just over half (55 per cent) of those eligible choose the Maori electoral role, despite extensive propaganda, and a lot of those don't vote for the Maori party. The really sad thing is that none of this nonsense does anything to assist those Maori who find themselves at the bottom of the heap statistically.
D F
Masterton
Bay of Plenty Times 25/2/16
ILLITERACY FIGHT
Tommy Wilson believes every available resource should be poured into preventing Maori illiteracy preferably before the age of 9 and before they fall through the cracks into the penal system. His reason being that they would then be able to complete a benefit application, get a rent subsidy and learn to drive. That sums it up really. Peter Sharples always opined that there was no need for Maori to spend their funds on any service which the state provides (albeit not used). However, one would think that interest alone on the $600 million John Key gave Ngapuhi at last year’s Waitangi bunfight would enable some intervention in achieving a future for their families.
And with funds amounting to billions of dollars of Treaty settlements and apologies there is no excuse for any Maori to live in poverty or to lack the facility for education and employment support given the financial backup now available to them.
Also Tommy, our national holiday was never meant to be a forum of protest when tauiwi including several prime ministers, the Queen and other dignitaries are insulted, demeaned and disrespected. Kingi Taurua said that John Key would not be welcome if the TPP went ahead and by not attending Key rightly avoided yet another range of insults in what has become the norm for our national holiday. John Key did not consult any New Zealanders let alone Maori and we should express our views together as a nation not as a Maori demand of the right of consultation.
R E S
Mount Maunganui
Northland Age 25/2/16
RACE BASED FUNDING
Juliet Golightly’s claimed fiscal benefits of treaty settlements implies tax income for the government but ignores the fact that recipients trade as tax-exempt charities. This means treaty settlements bring no fiscal benefit to the taxpayer.
She counts a lack of armed resistance by dissident tribes a fiscal benefit. Does this imply that she regards treaty settlement payments as a kind of payment for peace of the sort demanded by gangs in stand-over tactics?
Golightly compares the $3.1-billion paid to date in financial redress with the South Canterbury Finance bailout of $1.7-billion. But she ignores an annual total “for Maori” payment of around $1.2-billion that includes funding for the Maori language, Te Puni Kokiri, Whanau Ora, and administration of Vote Treaty Negotiations, among other spending.
On top of that is funding for the parallel system of social service provision administered by around 180 tribal authorities that totals a further $1.7-billion each year.
A more accurate comparison of for-Maori spending is with core crown expenditure of around $80-billion, not total GDP of $230-billion.
GEOFF PARKER
Kamo
The New Zealand Herald 25/2/16 (Short and Sweet section)
ON WELCOME
It is time to ditch the fearsome and threatening powhiri war-dance used to “welcome” visitors and give the poi-dancing girls a chance. Think Hawaii and the hula.
R B
Tauranga.
Wairarapa Times Age 25/2/16
TREATY A DOCUMENT OF ITS TIME
MP Marama Fox’s article ( Times-Age, February 15) is dangerously separatist and divisive. She belatedly acknowledges recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi in the TPP but then complains that it depends on the interpretation of ‘treaty rights’ by the government of the day. Many would feel that is the interpretation of so- called ‘treaty rights’ by Maori activists that is of much greater concern. After all it was the government of the day in the 1980s, courtesy of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, that introduced the completely nebulous and ill-defined concept of the ‘principles of the treaty’. These principles ( sic) were subsequently strangely defined by the court of appeal under Sir Robin (later Lord) Cooke. As for the government ignoring the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal, even the normally sympathetic Treaty negotiations minister, Mr Finlayson, has described some findings of the tribunal as ‘bizarre’ and outside its brief.
Then we have the nonsense of the ‘ mana’ of the Treaty, although at least we were spared the ‘ Treaty is a living document’ fantasy. The Treaty of Waitangi was a document of its time and, as is often the case, the most straightforward interpretation is the obvious one. Article 1: Maori ceded sovereignty to the British crown. Article 2: Maori could keep their then current processions (land, weapons, etc — not as yet unthought of things like radio waves) as much as a protection against each other as against the crown, Article 3; (remarkably, unusually and generously) Maori were given the rights of British citizens. And by no stretch of the imagination can the Treaty be described as a ‘partnership’ for the joint government/administration of New Zealand. It seems to me that many Maori activists ignore article 1, take all the benefits of article 3 and interpret article 2 as it suits them at the time. There is no way that this can be said to entitle Maori to have a separate voice in the foreign policy of New Zealand. Of course Ms Fox makes the mistake of assuming that all Maori have the same view on such matters, and arrogantly asserts that her views represent them all, talking about the 'will of Maoridom', whatever that means. Does Ms Fox know that only just over half (55 per cent) of those eligible choose the Maori electoral role, despite extensive propaganda, and a lot of those don't vote for the Maori party. The really sad thing is that none of this nonsense does anything to assist those Maori who find themselves at the bottom of the heap statistically.
D F
Masterton
Bay of Plenty Times 25/2/16
ILLITERACY FIGHT
Tommy Wilson believes every available resource should be poured into preventing Maori illiteracy preferably before the age of 9 and before they fall through the cracks into the penal system. His reason being that they would then be able to complete a benefit application, get a rent subsidy and learn to drive. That sums it up really. Peter Sharples always opined that there was no need for Maori to spend their funds on any service which the state provides (albeit not used). However, one would think that interest alone on the $600 million John Key gave Ngapuhi at last year’s Waitangi bunfight would enable some intervention in achieving a future for their families.
And with funds amounting to billions of dollars of Treaty settlements and apologies there is no excuse for any Maori to live in poverty or to lack the facility for education and employment support given the financial backup now available to them.
Also Tommy, our national holiday was never meant to be a forum of protest when tauiwi including several prime ministers, the Queen and other dignitaries are insulted, demeaned and disrespected. Kingi Taurua said that John Key would not be welcome if the TPP went ahead and by not attending Key rightly avoided yet another range of insults in what has become the norm for our national holiday. John Key did not consult any New Zealanders let alone Maori and we should express our views together as a nation not as a Maori demand of the right of consultation.
R E S
Mount Maunganui
Northland Age 25/2/16
RACE BASED FUNDING
Juliet Golightly’s claimed fiscal benefits of treaty settlements implies tax income for the government but ignores the fact that recipients trade as tax-exempt charities. This means treaty settlements bring no fiscal benefit to the taxpayer.
She counts a lack of armed resistance by dissident tribes a fiscal benefit. Does this imply that she regards treaty settlement payments as a kind of payment for peace of the sort demanded by gangs in stand-over tactics?
Golightly compares the $3.1-billion paid to date in financial redress with the South Canterbury Finance bailout of $1.7-billion. But she ignores an annual total “for Maori” payment of around $1.2-billion that includes funding for the Maori language, Te Puni Kokiri, Whanau Ora, and administration of Vote Treaty Negotiations, among other spending.
On top of that is funding for the parallel system of social service provision administered by around 180 tribal authorities that totals a further $1.7-billion each year.
A more accurate comparison of for-Maori spending is with core crown expenditure of around $80-billion, not total GDP of $230-billion.
GEOFF PARKER
Kamo
The New Zealand Herald 25/2/16 (Short and Sweet section)
ON WELCOME
It is time to ditch the fearsome and threatening powhiri war-dance used to “welcome” visitors and give the poi-dancing girls a chance. Think Hawaii and the hula.
R B
Tauranga.