Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 19, 2016 9:30:10 GMT 12
The New Zealand Herald 19/4/16
FRESHWATER HUI
Your columnist Lizzie Marvelly writes a hard-hitting piece about ownership of freshwater which strongly implies that anyone other than Maori wanting a say about this very important matter, is racist.
Maori are a race and their participation in discussions about water is in that capacity.
The Government is holding hui throughout New Zealand to have open discussion with Maori to gauge their interest in water ownership. The same happened with the foreshore and seabed. No public meetings were held throughout the country for anyone else.
There is no doubt that water take is confused and needs to be sorted out but not on a basis of race ownership or influence. A sustainable way which fulfils the needs of our population now and in the future with free access to households the priority, is the way forward.
R L
Whangarei
DISTURBING PROPOSALS
Lizzie Marvelly made it clear she does not agree with the sentiments expressed in the Keep Water Kiwi advertisements, recently published in the Herald. Having read the Government’s Next Steps for Fresh Water consultation document, I believe there are very good reasons for the concerns raised in these advertisements.
The document contains a number of controversial proposals and yet there has been a very feeble attempt by the Government to communicate their intentions to the public. There has been no full page advertisements, no TV commercials, no direct mail to citizens, and only nine public meetings held throughout the country, including just one in Auckland.
Whether you agree with the advertisements Ms Marvelly objects to or not, at least more citizens are now aware that public consultation is under way. All New Zealanders are stakeholders with rights and interests in fresh water, and all our voices deserve to be heard.
However, time is running out, as submissions close on April 22.
S S
Meadowbank.
Dominion Post 19/4/16 (To the point section)
* No matter how much money is thrown at expanding and enhancing the use of to reo. until there is a crucial groundswell of Maori prepared to put the effort into learning the language and then passing it on to their children. nothing will succeed in the long run. Calls to make the learning of the language compulsory for all New Zealanders risk alienating some of us who endorse its health and promotion.
C B
Te Aro
Northland Age 19/4/16
COMPLETE BIAS
Compare the fuss made over the insignificant flag issue with the absolute silence on water—the essence of life. The government showed complete bias in the appalling scheduling of 'water consultation,' that's been and gone without anyone noticing.
There were nine public meetings versus 11 hui through the whole of New Zealand. Poor attendance was guaranteed by the lack of advertising or media promotion, devious timing, or venues which were difficult to get to or park at.
The 1.6 million people from Auckland's massive region obviously don't count for much. To provide for them there was one, single meeting at 5.30pm — so right in the midst of the horrendous rush hour traffic and it wasn't even at a central location. Consequently there were fewer than 100 people there, and the media failed to report a single thing about it.
Iwi corporations have their sights firmly on water and the money, and it appears that the government will do everything it can to ensure they achieve their objectives.
F M
Whangaparaoa
WEASEL WORDS
Refer government document on 'Next Steps for Freshwater'. How cleverly MP Nick Smith's weasel words bamboozle the public. Question 1.1 on page 40 says, 'Amend Objective A2 ... etc... to within a 'freshwater management unit' rather than within a 'region'.
For the public's information, freshwater is managed within a 'region', and the region is based on water catchment areas under the Local Government Act reorganisation in 1989. The regional counciIs set policy and management of freshwater, and that must comply with the National Policy Statement.
The public need to know that the proposed 'freshwater management unit' will be defined by tribal interests rather than the existing regional catchment boundaries.
Should this change succeed, it will add another layer of consultation, many new jobs and a lot of money which will ultimately be funded by the ratepayer.
M J A
Tauranga
SO WHY SELL?
"The importance of land, or whenua, to Maori cannot be overstated." So says Meka Whaitiri (letters April 14).
What she needs to explain is why, before I840,the chiefs practically fell over themselves in their eagerness to sell land in exchange for European material goods, the quite modest value of those goods showing how little they valued their land. Thus two-thirds of New Zealand was sold by them, including the whole of the South Island. That some, in their eagerness, even travelled to Sydney to sell is clear evidence that they were under no pressure to do so.
She goes on that their "whenua has a cultural and spiritual significance, etc., etc." which hardly accords with their reckless eagerness to sell. This "significance" will be like the Ngai Tahu claim that Mount Cook is a most sacred ancestor which most of them, living in a few squalid coastal villages, never saw once in their lives.
The communal holding of Maori land suited their hunter gatherer society in which it is better to hunt in bands and the prey is where one finds it, but today this practice is archaic. Individual farming of agricultural and pastoral land evolved in the rest of the world, albeit some being rented, because it is much more productive. This remains so today, where much under collective Maori title is little more than waste land.
By contrast, Maori farmers holding land under individual title may do just as well as any other as shown by the Hadfields of Mangaroa on "Country Calendar" last Saturday.
In an endeavour to rescue Maori from ill-considered disposal of their land, Hobson proclaimed immediately on his arrival that all pre treaty sales would be subject to review, and scaled down if appropriate, while all subsequent sales would be to the Crown only. Of course this provision for their protection brought squeals from some who claimed that they could get a better price by selling to private interests. Well, if so, they did not have to sell, or could have negotiated for a better price with Crown agents.
Whaitiri goes on: "over a century of struggling with the effects of bad legislation that disadvantaged Maori ... led to massive land loss". This emotive talk of" land loss" has been very popular amongst Maori extremists ever since Whina Cooper's so-called hikio or land march and is today actively being foisted on our children in NCEA propaganda, but there is no such thing, albeit some land is taken for public works under the same conditions for all owners.
Successive governments in colonial days endeavoured to construct legislation to reconcile two very different landholding practices, and the Maori Land Court, set up for this purpose, has done so reasonably well. The cry has gone up of Maori being under pressure to sell, but this is not something confined to them. Desirable land under any ownership is always subject to pressure from eager buyers.
Again, Maori land-owners have over many decades had favourable concessions with respect to payment of rates, and the difficulty of identitying the individuals to bill has led to no rates being levied at all. The owners no doubt use Scotfree the roads, bridges and amenities paid for from other people's rates. In fact, a recent Maori buyer of freehold land announced that he intended to convert it to Maori title and thereby escape paying any rates.
Whaitiri would no doubt explain this as a desire for a "connection to ...personal and tribal identity". It looks to me more like a straight tax dodge, about which so much outrage is being expressed in this country at the moment.
The Waitangi Tribunal, she says, has released a highly critical report on the current draft TeTure Whenua Bill saying "it remains to be seen whether the Minister will do the right thing and take the tribunals' recommendations on board." We may recall that the tribunal invariably accepts tribal claims, no matter how blatantly false, such as the Ngapuhi claim that they never ceded sovereignty, and the Ngai Tahu which close analysis has revealed is "a swindle".
It is to be hoped that the Minister will, for once, ignore the 'recommendations' of this racist and corrupt body and the wrath of Maori land-owners predicted by Whaitiri, who is doing nothing but seeking political capital. The Whaitiris I knew in my schooldays in Bluff would be ashamed of her nonsense.
And finally —to those to whom the Treaty of Waitangi is near-gospel — the word in it for land is "wenua" and the Williams, father and son, who wrote it, will not have got this wrong.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
FRESHWATER HUI
Your columnist Lizzie Marvelly writes a hard-hitting piece about ownership of freshwater which strongly implies that anyone other than Maori wanting a say about this very important matter, is racist.
Maori are a race and their participation in discussions about water is in that capacity.
The Government is holding hui throughout New Zealand to have open discussion with Maori to gauge their interest in water ownership. The same happened with the foreshore and seabed. No public meetings were held throughout the country for anyone else.
There is no doubt that water take is confused and needs to be sorted out but not on a basis of race ownership or influence. A sustainable way which fulfils the needs of our population now and in the future with free access to households the priority, is the way forward.
R L
Whangarei
DISTURBING PROPOSALS
Lizzie Marvelly made it clear she does not agree with the sentiments expressed in the Keep Water Kiwi advertisements, recently published in the Herald. Having read the Government’s Next Steps for Fresh Water consultation document, I believe there are very good reasons for the concerns raised in these advertisements.
The document contains a number of controversial proposals and yet there has been a very feeble attempt by the Government to communicate their intentions to the public. There has been no full page advertisements, no TV commercials, no direct mail to citizens, and only nine public meetings held throughout the country, including just one in Auckland.
Whether you agree with the advertisements Ms Marvelly objects to or not, at least more citizens are now aware that public consultation is under way. All New Zealanders are stakeholders with rights and interests in fresh water, and all our voices deserve to be heard.
However, time is running out, as submissions close on April 22.
S S
Meadowbank.
Dominion Post 19/4/16 (To the point section)
* No matter how much money is thrown at expanding and enhancing the use of to reo. until there is a crucial groundswell of Maori prepared to put the effort into learning the language and then passing it on to their children. nothing will succeed in the long run. Calls to make the learning of the language compulsory for all New Zealanders risk alienating some of us who endorse its health and promotion.
C B
Te Aro
Northland Age 19/4/16
COMPLETE BIAS
Compare the fuss made over the insignificant flag issue with the absolute silence on water—the essence of life. The government showed complete bias in the appalling scheduling of 'water consultation,' that's been and gone without anyone noticing.
There were nine public meetings versus 11 hui through the whole of New Zealand. Poor attendance was guaranteed by the lack of advertising or media promotion, devious timing, or venues which were difficult to get to or park at.
The 1.6 million people from Auckland's massive region obviously don't count for much. To provide for them there was one, single meeting at 5.30pm — so right in the midst of the horrendous rush hour traffic and it wasn't even at a central location. Consequently there were fewer than 100 people there, and the media failed to report a single thing about it.
Iwi corporations have their sights firmly on water and the money, and it appears that the government will do everything it can to ensure they achieve their objectives.
F M
Whangaparaoa
WEASEL WORDS
Refer government document on 'Next Steps for Freshwater'. How cleverly MP Nick Smith's weasel words bamboozle the public. Question 1.1 on page 40 says, 'Amend Objective A2 ... etc... to within a 'freshwater management unit' rather than within a 'region'.
For the public's information, freshwater is managed within a 'region', and the region is based on water catchment areas under the Local Government Act reorganisation in 1989. The regional counciIs set policy and management of freshwater, and that must comply with the National Policy Statement.
The public need to know that the proposed 'freshwater management unit' will be defined by tribal interests rather than the existing regional catchment boundaries.
Should this change succeed, it will add another layer of consultation, many new jobs and a lot of money which will ultimately be funded by the ratepayer.
M J A
Tauranga
SO WHY SELL?
"The importance of land, or whenua, to Maori cannot be overstated." So says Meka Whaitiri (letters April 14).
What she needs to explain is why, before I840,the chiefs practically fell over themselves in their eagerness to sell land in exchange for European material goods, the quite modest value of those goods showing how little they valued their land. Thus two-thirds of New Zealand was sold by them, including the whole of the South Island. That some, in their eagerness, even travelled to Sydney to sell is clear evidence that they were under no pressure to do so.
She goes on that their "whenua has a cultural and spiritual significance, etc., etc." which hardly accords with their reckless eagerness to sell. This "significance" will be like the Ngai Tahu claim that Mount Cook is a most sacred ancestor which most of them, living in a few squalid coastal villages, never saw once in their lives.
The communal holding of Maori land suited their hunter gatherer society in which it is better to hunt in bands and the prey is where one finds it, but today this practice is archaic. Individual farming of agricultural and pastoral land evolved in the rest of the world, albeit some being rented, because it is much more productive. This remains so today, where much under collective Maori title is little more than waste land.
By contrast, Maori farmers holding land under individual title may do just as well as any other as shown by the Hadfields of Mangaroa on "Country Calendar" last Saturday.
In an endeavour to rescue Maori from ill-considered disposal of their land, Hobson proclaimed immediately on his arrival that all pre treaty sales would be subject to review, and scaled down if appropriate, while all subsequent sales would be to the Crown only. Of course this provision for their protection brought squeals from some who claimed that they could get a better price by selling to private interests. Well, if so, they did not have to sell, or could have negotiated for a better price with Crown agents.
Whaitiri goes on: "over a century of struggling with the effects of bad legislation that disadvantaged Maori ... led to massive land loss". This emotive talk of" land loss" has been very popular amongst Maori extremists ever since Whina Cooper's so-called hikio or land march and is today actively being foisted on our children in NCEA propaganda, but there is no such thing, albeit some land is taken for public works under the same conditions for all owners.
Successive governments in colonial days endeavoured to construct legislation to reconcile two very different landholding practices, and the Maori Land Court, set up for this purpose, has done so reasonably well. The cry has gone up of Maori being under pressure to sell, but this is not something confined to them. Desirable land under any ownership is always subject to pressure from eager buyers.
Again, Maori land-owners have over many decades had favourable concessions with respect to payment of rates, and the difficulty of identitying the individuals to bill has led to no rates being levied at all. The owners no doubt use Scotfree the roads, bridges and amenities paid for from other people's rates. In fact, a recent Maori buyer of freehold land announced that he intended to convert it to Maori title and thereby escape paying any rates.
Whaitiri would no doubt explain this as a desire for a "connection to ...personal and tribal identity". It looks to me more like a straight tax dodge, about which so much outrage is being expressed in this country at the moment.
The Waitangi Tribunal, she says, has released a highly critical report on the current draft TeTure Whenua Bill saying "it remains to be seen whether the Minister will do the right thing and take the tribunals' recommendations on board." We may recall that the tribunal invariably accepts tribal claims, no matter how blatantly false, such as the Ngapuhi claim that they never ceded sovereignty, and the Ngai Tahu which close analysis has revealed is "a swindle".
It is to be hoped that the Minister will, for once, ignore the 'recommendations' of this racist and corrupt body and the wrath of Maori land-owners predicted by Whaitiri, who is doing nothing but seeking political capital. The Whaitiris I knew in my schooldays in Bluff would be ashamed of her nonsense.
And finally —to those to whom the Treaty of Waitangi is near-gospel — the word in it for land is "wenua" and the Williams, father and son, who wrote it, will not have got this wrong.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson