Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 23, 2016 8:26:08 GMT 12
Wanganui Chronicle 23/4/16
TREATY PRINCIPLES
Reply to Potonga Neilson letter (April 14): Thank you, Potonga, for admitting there were never any Treaty of Waitangi principles or partnership. It's a pity a few more people don't accept this. Attorney-General Geoffrey Palmer introduced the five principles for Crown action on the Treaty in 1986 to make it easier for the Waitangi Tribunal to settle claims.
While it appeared in our law, they were not made public until three years later. The principles were based on Freeman's compiled English version. The Tiriti o Waitangi had only one principle — "He iwi tahi tatou": "We are now one people". The five principles were to help settle claims between the Crown and Maori without any consideration to non-Maori. The principles are now part of our law and must be considered by all government departments in their legislation.
I B
Wanganui
Bay of Plenty Times 23/4/16
WHY CHANGE PARK’S NAME?
As a resident living close to Cambridge Rd, two days ago I received a letter from the council just addressed “to the resident”, advising that there is a proposed name change for Cambridge Park which was formerly the Cambridge Rd rubbish dump site.
The letter further stated that the council intends to commence the process to change the name of the reserve, at the end of May 2016 and that the proposed new name is Te Waha O Te Marangai which they advised literally translates as “the mouth of the storm”.
From the response that I have received from the council, to a query that I submitted, it appears that the opportunity for the community to either object or support the proposal does not exist and it appears to be a fait accompli with a report just going to councillors to decide the fate of the park’s name.
In my view this is just unacceptable as the proposed new name is difficult to pronounce and the translation of the mouth of the storm means nothing whatsoever to the area and also why change something that is not broken and at what cost to ratepayers?
M B
Bethlehem
REAL MOUTHFUL
I agree with Robin Bishop (Letter; April 18 ) the title Toi Oho Mai Institute of Technology is a non-sense and the Bay Institute of Technology would have been just fine. As for being a gift from iwi across the region, that's a bit rich. It is simply an imposition foisted on Bay of Plenty citizens who didn't ask for it, by indeterminate iwi and the polytech with no prior public consultation, coupled with an "our way or the highway" attitude.
To those that have opposed it, the name is not a treasure, it is unpronounceable mouthful to many of us. Bay Institute of Technology is the appropriate name and we should all fight back, ignore and show our opposition to the "new name" and just run with Bay Institute of Technology until common usage wins the day. Public pressure and ridiculing this new aberration should do the trick. While on the subject the Toi Moana handle for Bay Regional Council should be treated in exactly the same way and with the same derision. (Abridged)
R P
Tauranga
Weekend Sun / Sunlive 22/4/16
INSISTING ON ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’
Thanks to The Weekend Sun for highlighting on page 3 of last week's newspaper – with Andrew von Dadelszen's column on April 15 the intolerable pandering to political correctness regarding the above mentioned law breaker.
Let's get the wheels turning and bring it to an end. Andrew's polite description of this diabolical abuse of the law of the land discloses - if further disclosure was necessary - the strife society shall incur unless lawbreakers are confronted and dealt to effectively.
Pandering to such a person is as impossible as it is unacceptable. Your report shows this part-Maori has applied force to the person of another; used aggresive and abusive language to people pursuing their lawful rights of access; trespassed by camping without authority; and committed that wilfully by refusing to depart when required to do so by the Police as agents of the owner. When will he be confronted by the law? God help us.
Cannot the Mayor and his team demonstrate some intestinal fortitude and insist that action is taken? Failure to do so is a further disgraceful exhibition of the effects of 40 years of bowing down to the Treaty of Waitangi, bent out of shape by Palmer and crew in 1975.
Plenty of examples of failing to stand firm and say ‘enough' exist without allowing this performance to continue unabated. It would be difficult to view one law for all citizens as unreasonable. Let's insist that in Tauranga it applies.
B A
Pyes Pa
TREATY PRINCIPLES
Reply to Potonga Neilson letter (April 14): Thank you, Potonga, for admitting there were never any Treaty of Waitangi principles or partnership. It's a pity a few more people don't accept this. Attorney-General Geoffrey Palmer introduced the five principles for Crown action on the Treaty in 1986 to make it easier for the Waitangi Tribunal to settle claims.
While it appeared in our law, they were not made public until three years later. The principles were based on Freeman's compiled English version. The Tiriti o Waitangi had only one principle — "He iwi tahi tatou": "We are now one people". The five principles were to help settle claims between the Crown and Maori without any consideration to non-Maori. The principles are now part of our law and must be considered by all government departments in their legislation.
I B
Wanganui
Bay of Plenty Times 23/4/16
WHY CHANGE PARK’S NAME?
As a resident living close to Cambridge Rd, two days ago I received a letter from the council just addressed “to the resident”, advising that there is a proposed name change for Cambridge Park which was formerly the Cambridge Rd rubbish dump site.
The letter further stated that the council intends to commence the process to change the name of the reserve, at the end of May 2016 and that the proposed new name is Te Waha O Te Marangai which they advised literally translates as “the mouth of the storm”.
From the response that I have received from the council, to a query that I submitted, it appears that the opportunity for the community to either object or support the proposal does not exist and it appears to be a fait accompli with a report just going to councillors to decide the fate of the park’s name.
In my view this is just unacceptable as the proposed new name is difficult to pronounce and the translation of the mouth of the storm means nothing whatsoever to the area and also why change something that is not broken and at what cost to ratepayers?
M B
Bethlehem
REAL MOUTHFUL
I agree with Robin Bishop (Letter; April 18 ) the title Toi Oho Mai Institute of Technology is a non-sense and the Bay Institute of Technology would have been just fine. As for being a gift from iwi across the region, that's a bit rich. It is simply an imposition foisted on Bay of Plenty citizens who didn't ask for it, by indeterminate iwi and the polytech with no prior public consultation, coupled with an "our way or the highway" attitude.
To those that have opposed it, the name is not a treasure, it is unpronounceable mouthful to many of us. Bay Institute of Technology is the appropriate name and we should all fight back, ignore and show our opposition to the "new name" and just run with Bay Institute of Technology until common usage wins the day. Public pressure and ridiculing this new aberration should do the trick. While on the subject the Toi Moana handle for Bay Regional Council should be treated in exactly the same way and with the same derision. (Abridged)
R P
Tauranga
Weekend Sun / Sunlive 22/4/16
INSISTING ON ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’
Thanks to The Weekend Sun for highlighting on page 3 of last week's newspaper – with Andrew von Dadelszen's column on April 15 the intolerable pandering to political correctness regarding the above mentioned law breaker.
Let's get the wheels turning and bring it to an end. Andrew's polite description of this diabolical abuse of the law of the land discloses - if further disclosure was necessary - the strife society shall incur unless lawbreakers are confronted and dealt to effectively.
Pandering to such a person is as impossible as it is unacceptable. Your report shows this part-Maori has applied force to the person of another; used aggresive and abusive language to people pursuing their lawful rights of access; trespassed by camping without authority; and committed that wilfully by refusing to depart when required to do so by the Police as agents of the owner. When will he be confronted by the law? God help us.
Cannot the Mayor and his team demonstrate some intestinal fortitude and insist that action is taken? Failure to do so is a further disgraceful exhibition of the effects of 40 years of bowing down to the Treaty of Waitangi, bent out of shape by Palmer and crew in 1975.
Plenty of examples of failing to stand firm and say ‘enough' exist without allowing this performance to continue unabated. It would be difficult to view one law for all citizens as unreasonable. Let's insist that in Tauranga it applies.
B A
Pyes Pa