Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 26, 2016 11:55:57 GMT 12
Northland Age 26/4/16
ALARM BELLS
Ms Herbert-Graves— Anahera, but really Angela? —has served notice (April 19) that she will use these columns to advance the claims of a racist pressure group in this country for a so-called 'constitutional transformation.' She cites a `working group' of the Iwi Chairs Forum, whose representative, Margaret Mutu, chairs the group.
The mere mention of this part-Scottish, part-Maori woman should ring alarm bells amongst alert New Zealanders. For instance, in one 2007 interview with a reporter from the English Guardian Weekly, she made no fewer than 18 statements which were perversions of the truth.
Herbert-Graves would have us discard the Westminster constitutional system, which has evolved successfully over centuries, for her "inclusive Constitution for Aotearoa," based on pre-Treaty Maori lore, Busby's futile 1835 Declaration of Independence,"indigenous rights instruments," and of course the Treaty of Waitangi.
Perhaps she should be reminded for a start that by theTreaty, Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and for ever to the Queen, and all Maori, including the many slaves of other Maori, became fully-entitled British subjects— a magnificent gift never before granted a native people. And that was that — a done deal in 1840, which it is nonsense for those like Michael Cullen to call a "living" document today.
She should be reminded too that a substantial majority of the chiefs who signed Busby's piece of paper duly signed the Treaty, and thus ceded rights they might have asserted previously. Her Whakaputanga, or declaration of independence, died 176 years ago, or earlier.
She should also be reminded that the decades prior to 1840 were a period of utmost savagery amongst Maori tribes, with rampant slaughter, cannibalism, infanticide, slavery and land loss, to which, apparently, her tikanga applied.
Again, Herbert-Graves claims that the preceding dialogue has been going on for more than 170 years! That would take us back to about 1844, the year of Hone Heke's rebellion. We remember that it was he who, disgruntled with loss of lucrative trade to Auckland, cut down the flagpole at Russell three times—some "dialogue".
It would he wise to recall that not long ago, her forum put pressure on the government which duly appointed a Constitutional Advisory Panel, in which Maori extremists were heavily included. It proceeded to distribute widely its propaganda with statements referring to spurious "treaty principles,' one being "Partnership is the most commonly referred to principle," with similar distortions of the truth. It expressed favour for the Bolivian constitution, in preference to our tried and true British one. Really!
Fortunately, at the time, we had the good sense to reject their nonsense. It is this sort of extremism that Herbert-Graves would have us accept, and which will be foisted upon us if we let down our guard. They will not desist. The price of liberty, we know, is eternal vigilance. If New Zealanders cease to be vigilant their democracy will be in dire peril BRUCE MOON
Nelson
A CHARADE
The announcement that influential Maori leaders including Dame Tariana Turia, Sir Mark Solomon and Sir Tipene O'Regan have joined the fight against the creation of the Kermadec Islands Ocean Sanctuary must have come as a blow to a government that over the years has bent over backwards to give iwi leaders whatever they want. Perhaps National will now begin to recognise them as fair weather friends.
Their legal action exposes their claims of being dedicated conservationists—and the only legitimate guardians of the country's natural resources —for the charade that it really is.
Real conservationists, including the US-based Pew Charitable Trust, have been pressuring the government for years to extend the Kermadec Island marine reserve. The current reserve, originally put in place in 1990, covers only the 12-nautical mile territorial sea. The proposed new sanctuary would extend that reserve to the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone limit, covering an area twice the size of New Zealand.
The Kermadec region lies midway between the Bay of Plenty and Tonga, and is one of the most geographically and geologically diverse areas in the world. The sanctuary would create a no-take, fully-protected zone, preventing all fishing and mining in the area adding to the protections that are already in place. Creating the sanctuary would also help New Zealand meet its international marine protection obligations.
Primarily found in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Aichi Target 11 requires that by 2020 New Zealand must ensure that 10 percent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity, are conserved. At the present time, although we have 44 marine reserves covering around 9.8 per cent of our territorial sea, this equates to less than one per cent of New Zealand's total marine area. And while there is some protection in almost a third of our Exclusive Economic Zone, through a ban on bottom trawling in Benthic Protected Areas, these are not recognised as full marine reserves.
The United States and Australia lead the world in marine protection, with the US having upwards of 30 percent of their marine estate classified as protected. The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, which would encompass 15 per cent of the Exclusive Economic Zone, would not only enable New Zealand to meet its Aichi Target, but it would also make an important contribution to a growing network of marine protected areas across the Pacific.
John Key announced the planned Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last September: "New Zealand welcomes the focus on the sustainability of the world's oceans and marine resources— a goal which resonates strongly with our region where so many draw their food and livelihoods from the sea. New Zealanders value our coasts and oceans, which are an important part of our culture, economy and environment, and we are committed to managing them sustainably."
The Maori elite, however, are uniting behind Te Ohu Kai Moana, the Maori Fisheries Trust, in its legal action against the Crown. They claim the new sanctuary would cut across their fishing rights. The Minister for the Environment disagrees: "The claim that this new sanctuary undermines the 1992 Treaty of Waitangi fishery settlement is incorrect The government always retained the tight to create protected areas where fishing would be disallowed, and has done so in over 20 new marine reserves." In justifying his decision to create the sanctuary, the minister explained that no fish has been taken from the area by Maori since the 1992 settlement, despite over three million tonnes being caught elsewhere.
Five non-Maori fishing companies are also affected, but since they have onlymcaught an average of 20 tonnes of migratory species (which can be caught elsewhere) out of a national annual catch of 650,000 tonnes, the government has proposed that no compensation should be paid.
The minister also refutes the allegations being made by iwi leaders that they were not consulted over the proposal, saying that that he met with them before the announcement was made. While Maori leaders are claiming they have been wronged by the deal, and will try to gain compensation through the courts, their actions are exposing their rent-seeking agenda.
By positioning themselves as guardians of the country's natural resources they have been effective in gaining sweeping new rights under the Resource Management Act—and potentially, over the management and control of fresh water. Publicly demonstrating that their driving ambition is really money and power could change all that.
DR MURIEL NEWMAN
NZ Centre for Political Research
ALARM BELLS
Ms Herbert-Graves— Anahera, but really Angela? —has served notice (April 19) that she will use these columns to advance the claims of a racist pressure group in this country for a so-called 'constitutional transformation.' She cites a `working group' of the Iwi Chairs Forum, whose representative, Margaret Mutu, chairs the group.
The mere mention of this part-Scottish, part-Maori woman should ring alarm bells amongst alert New Zealanders. For instance, in one 2007 interview with a reporter from the English Guardian Weekly, she made no fewer than 18 statements which were perversions of the truth.
Herbert-Graves would have us discard the Westminster constitutional system, which has evolved successfully over centuries, for her "inclusive Constitution for Aotearoa," based on pre-Treaty Maori lore, Busby's futile 1835 Declaration of Independence,"indigenous rights instruments," and of course the Treaty of Waitangi.
Perhaps she should be reminded for a start that by theTreaty, Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and for ever to the Queen, and all Maori, including the many slaves of other Maori, became fully-entitled British subjects— a magnificent gift never before granted a native people. And that was that — a done deal in 1840, which it is nonsense for those like Michael Cullen to call a "living" document today.
She should be reminded too that a substantial majority of the chiefs who signed Busby's piece of paper duly signed the Treaty, and thus ceded rights they might have asserted previously. Her Whakaputanga, or declaration of independence, died 176 years ago, or earlier.
She should also be reminded that the decades prior to 1840 were a period of utmost savagery amongst Maori tribes, with rampant slaughter, cannibalism, infanticide, slavery and land loss, to which, apparently, her tikanga applied.
Again, Herbert-Graves claims that the preceding dialogue has been going on for more than 170 years! That would take us back to about 1844, the year of Hone Heke's rebellion. We remember that it was he who, disgruntled with loss of lucrative trade to Auckland, cut down the flagpole at Russell three times—some "dialogue".
It would he wise to recall that not long ago, her forum put pressure on the government which duly appointed a Constitutional Advisory Panel, in which Maori extremists were heavily included. It proceeded to distribute widely its propaganda with statements referring to spurious "treaty principles,' one being "Partnership is the most commonly referred to principle," with similar distortions of the truth. It expressed favour for the Bolivian constitution, in preference to our tried and true British one. Really!
Fortunately, at the time, we had the good sense to reject their nonsense. It is this sort of extremism that Herbert-Graves would have us accept, and which will be foisted upon us if we let down our guard. They will not desist. The price of liberty, we know, is eternal vigilance. If New Zealanders cease to be vigilant their democracy will be in dire peril BRUCE MOON
Nelson
A CHARADE
The announcement that influential Maori leaders including Dame Tariana Turia, Sir Mark Solomon and Sir Tipene O'Regan have joined the fight against the creation of the Kermadec Islands Ocean Sanctuary must have come as a blow to a government that over the years has bent over backwards to give iwi leaders whatever they want. Perhaps National will now begin to recognise them as fair weather friends.
Their legal action exposes their claims of being dedicated conservationists—and the only legitimate guardians of the country's natural resources —for the charade that it really is.
Real conservationists, including the US-based Pew Charitable Trust, have been pressuring the government for years to extend the Kermadec Island marine reserve. The current reserve, originally put in place in 1990, covers only the 12-nautical mile territorial sea. The proposed new sanctuary would extend that reserve to the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone limit, covering an area twice the size of New Zealand.
The Kermadec region lies midway between the Bay of Plenty and Tonga, and is one of the most geographically and geologically diverse areas in the world. The sanctuary would create a no-take, fully-protected zone, preventing all fishing and mining in the area adding to the protections that are already in place. Creating the sanctuary would also help New Zealand meet its international marine protection obligations.
Primarily found in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Aichi Target 11 requires that by 2020 New Zealand must ensure that 10 percent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity, are conserved. At the present time, although we have 44 marine reserves covering around 9.8 per cent of our territorial sea, this equates to less than one per cent of New Zealand's total marine area. And while there is some protection in almost a third of our Exclusive Economic Zone, through a ban on bottom trawling in Benthic Protected Areas, these are not recognised as full marine reserves.
The United States and Australia lead the world in marine protection, with the US having upwards of 30 percent of their marine estate classified as protected. The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, which would encompass 15 per cent of the Exclusive Economic Zone, would not only enable New Zealand to meet its Aichi Target, but it would also make an important contribution to a growing network of marine protected areas across the Pacific.
John Key announced the planned Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last September: "New Zealand welcomes the focus on the sustainability of the world's oceans and marine resources— a goal which resonates strongly with our region where so many draw their food and livelihoods from the sea. New Zealanders value our coasts and oceans, which are an important part of our culture, economy and environment, and we are committed to managing them sustainably."
The Maori elite, however, are uniting behind Te Ohu Kai Moana, the Maori Fisheries Trust, in its legal action against the Crown. They claim the new sanctuary would cut across their fishing rights. The Minister for the Environment disagrees: "The claim that this new sanctuary undermines the 1992 Treaty of Waitangi fishery settlement is incorrect The government always retained the tight to create protected areas where fishing would be disallowed, and has done so in over 20 new marine reserves." In justifying his decision to create the sanctuary, the minister explained that no fish has been taken from the area by Maori since the 1992 settlement, despite over three million tonnes being caught elsewhere.
Five non-Maori fishing companies are also affected, but since they have onlymcaught an average of 20 tonnes of migratory species (which can be caught elsewhere) out of a national annual catch of 650,000 tonnes, the government has proposed that no compensation should be paid.
The minister also refutes the allegations being made by iwi leaders that they were not consulted over the proposal, saying that that he met with them before the announcement was made. While Maori leaders are claiming they have been wronged by the deal, and will try to gain compensation through the courts, their actions are exposing their rent-seeking agenda.
By positioning themselves as guardians of the country's natural resources they have been effective in gaining sweeping new rights under the Resource Management Act—and potentially, over the management and control of fresh water. Publicly demonstrating that their driving ambition is really money and power could change all that.
DR MURIEL NEWMAN
NZ Centre for Political Research