Post by Kiwi Frontline on May 12, 2016 11:52:48 GMT 12
The New Zealand Herald 12/5/16
TREATY COMMISSIONER
Gareth Morgan, the infamous Wellington cat-hater, now wants to neuter Mike Hosking. Why? He doesn't agree with The Hosk's opinion. In Morgan's view, "The time is overdue for a Treaty of Waitangi Commissioner to augment the role of the Race Relations and Human Rights Commissioners and specifically censure deliberate denigration of the Treaty." The liberal elite is alive and well in the people's republic of Wellington, but not freedom of expression.
D G
Beach Haven
Taranaki Daily News 12/5/16
JUDD’S DECEIT INAPPROPRIATE
Reading you paper recently, I was stunned by the reporting of the Andrew Judd "I’m not standing again" spat. All of the stories which I read on the subject cast Judd as some kind of Maori rights hero, and the New Plymouth populace as a bunch of bigoted racists for exercising their democratic right to vote.
Unless my memory fails me, Judd did not push his views on Maori wards during the mayoral campaign (when people could have chosen not to vote for him), and once elected, sought to impose his preference on the town. In my opinion, that kind of deceit is inappropriate, in even a politician, but to then go ahead and garner media sympathy for his fall from public favour (by drawing attention to that tiny minority of people who vented their anger in an entirely inappropriate way) is disgraceful behaviour for an elected official.
The media reporting of this incident has been equally shocking, with the usual band of screaming band wagon jumpers like Rachel Stewart allowed to mouth off their own personal bigotries, with no editorial checks or balances. Who are the real bigots here? The ones who brand an entire town as rednecks and racists, or the ones who exercise their democratic rights to prevent an unpopular decision from being forced upon them?
Is this not an appropriate time for the press to confront Judd, and ascertain why he was not more forthcoming on his views on Maori wards before he was elected? It seems apparent that this was the cause of the chain of events which has led to us being described as ‘‘the most racist province in New Zealand’’.
Judd needs to front up, and put the record straight.
M H
New Plymouth
A SMOKESCREEN?
I do not condone spitting and threats, however people in the public eye must be prepared for criticism and unwelcome publicity. Mr Judd is not the only public figure that bears this cross – just ask any other mayor in the country. The NPDC has been a dysfunctional organisation for quite some time, and Mr Judd’s ascendance to the mayoral chair has only exacerbated the seemingly inherent problems. Throughout his tenure Mr Judd’s performance and judgement have been questionable on many issues – the Maori ward debacle being only one example.
However, Mr Judd is using this particular issue as a smokescreen to divert attention from his many other failures and, in the process, transforming himself – with the help of people like Dame Susan Devoy and Willie Jackson – into some sort of folk hero. These people need to wake up and look at the bigger picture.
I do not believe that the people of New Plymouth are racist just because they disagree with Mr Judd’s ideas in relation to a Maori ward, but I must say I am very happy to be living in South Taranaki where our mayor (and council) just gets on with the business of looking after the community.
C C
Patea
YELLOW JOURNALISM
Before I get to the main issue I want to raise I must protest the unfortunate example of yellow journalism on the front page of Wednesday morning’s edition. The banner ‘The Rise of the Redneck Reputation’ above the front page story is scurrilous journalism, which doesn’t address the articles that follow, does a disservice to your readers and the citizens of New Plymouth, and is at odds with Matt Rilkoff’s balanced editorial on A7 which addresses the the issue that ‘Racism is an Ugly Accusation’. Shame on the headline writer who penned those words.
The whole issue around the subject of a Maori ward has been lost in the careless labelling of racism, and it’s interesting to note that neither Chris Manukonga nor Bill Simpson, candidates in the upcoming election, are in favour of a single Maori ward. Mr Simpson echoes a position I advocated when the idea of a ward was first put forward. I voted against the ward concept on the grounds that it didn’t go far enough. With five iwi having rohe within the district boundaries one representative wouldn’t, in my opinion, be sufficient. For me it smacked of tokenism. So racism wasn’t the reason for my ’no’ vote.
The financial power and the significant asset base of the North Taranaki iwi could be the foundation of a Maori Council (and it could be a statutory body) with significant political clout to regularly sit down with the NPDC and discuss issues of mutual concern. That would be meaningful involvement in the local political process.
Finally, mayor Judd’s handling of the issue, both at the time and subsequently, hasn’t helped the situation. His naive assertion that he was ‘recovering racist’ was, for me, pathetic. He may have only recently acquired all this knowledge, but he was on council for a long time during which Puke Ariki mounted several significant exhibitions addressing a range of issues relating to Maoridom (including the very major Land Wars display). Did you not take the time to attend those Andrew? There was lots to learn there. I supported and voted for Andrew when he was on council, talked with him a number of times about local issues at his optical business practice, and volunteered in his mayoralty campaign. Donning the mayoral chains sadly seemed to change him.
C M
New Plymouth
BRING ON ELECTION
The October local body elections can’t come quickly enough now. Then we can elect a mayor who wants to promote our district, as opposed to one who seems to take satisfaction in making us infamous for being racist. He did not get his day of glory by being mayor of the first district to introduce a Maori ward and is now misreading the whole process, and misleading the media.
New Plymouth voted ’NO’ to the introduction of a Maori Ward.
The majority of us did not vote against Maori representation on the council. It was just not the right way of going about it.
Surely the whole process is to remove all racialism so why introduce something that is separatism in nature.
It’s all about equality so we should all be playing on a level field. Anyone can put themselves forward for election, but first they have to get themselves noticed and build up a reputation that makes the electorate have confidence in putting them on the council benches.
With Howie Tamati not seeking re-election after 15 years serving the community, let’s hope that there will still be Maori representation on the next council. We don’t need councillors who represent Maori; we need councillors who represent the whole district, albeit from a Maori perspective. We should all be working together in harmony to benefit our little bit of New Zealand no matter what our ethnic background is. Perhaps when the dust has settled we can regain our reputation for being a great place to live and work’ - but it will take time.
R J
Inglewood
MAORI IN BUSINESS NOT POLITICS
I have read the front page article and letters to the editor plus watched Mike Hosking on Seven Sharp, listened to his comments which I agree with, after Andrew was interviewed for the programme. I am left wondering why Judd has never acknowledged that he has Howie Tamati as an elected member of council and sits at the council table.
Maybe he has never noticed him there, plus also wonder why if he felt so strongly about a Maori voice that Howie was not selected for deputy mayor? If your readers read the article on PKW farms you will see that Maori are progressing very well and in fact leading the way in our province and maybe the smart ones find it more rewarding to grow their business than stand for election on the NPDC.
M V
Midhirst
Wairarapa Times-Age 12/5/16
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM FOR ALL
There is a simple way in which Maori can get speaking and voting rights on the Masterton District Council.
That is to put up candidates and have them voted on to the council in the accepted fashion.
This is the process with which the rest of the citizens accept, and work, so why should the Maori not have to do the same?
The system that our government (national and local body) is democratic, one vote per citizen. There should be no variation, for political correctness, for Maori or for any other reason, from that practice.
T L
Masterton
VOTING RIGHTS
I consider Masterton District Council is most undemocratic in giving two iwi representatives speaking and voting rights, plus payment of our rate money, on a council that is democratically voted in by the ratepayers of Masterton.
These iwi should be treated exactly like we who can vote for our council. Maori are New Zealanders so let them stand for council like all the elected members have done.
The mayor and some of her fellow members are showing a crass ignorance of democracy. So much is being done and decided by people just being added without any consultation of, as in this case, the rightful public, the voting ratepayers.
Let this be a non-event in this year of council elections by urban and country electors. Who are these present members of the council who think this is fair? And who of us, the voting public, think this should be automatically decided by a council that may be ousted this year?
M T
Masterton
Wanganui Chronicle 12/5/16
MAORI ROLES
The Chronicle article of May 6 by John Maslin, re. "Maori roles still undecided", is of some interest in Whanganui. This has only arisen as part of the New Plymouth mayor's sudden resignation.
Councils are increasingly (and legally) required to consult with iwi. That seems to irritate some writers. The format can be as observer status or full voting rights on some standing committees, or a designated Maori ward representative. I would bet that most residents (no criticism intended) have no idea of how we consult with iwi. It's actually at the lower end of what's available to council.
The mayor stated that council has not debated the issue of appointing iwi representation at committees. Fair enough. It will come up in due time as part of any overall good governance review and forward planning.
Just economically speaking, we stand to significantly benefit by working within iwi settlement and the future business opportunities that will arise. In light of the resignation of the New Plymouth mayor, who secured a one-vote majority for a dedicated Maori ward representative (subsequently over-turned by an overwhelming referendum), the matter will need some steerage — one day.
As an aside, in Whanganui we have a problem with various past and present councils (in my respectful opinion) confusing and alienating sections of the public as to why two clear referendums on the "H" were ignored; oops a factor, but not binding? Done and dusted out-come. However, the issue of referendums is not. New Plymouth's referendum was binding and overturned the Maori seat at council vote. We must get Whanganui's future referendum guidelines sorted through community discussion.
I do not support a dedicated Maori seat at council simply because there has been zero recent community — or council — generated discussion. Where would that push come from? It hasn't. If and when it comes, the important aspect is we go to community as the first step, and that includes iwi. The current format is council working with the Tamaupoko Link.
R F
Aramoho
JUDD'S STAND
Re. Anna Wallis' editorial (May 10) "Mayor's stand for iwi right side of history": On May 6, New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd announced he would not seek re-election. What Anna hasn't mentioned was that [in 2015] Grey Power petitioned and forced a binding referendum where 83 per cent of those who voted were against the proposal of race-based [New Plymouth District] council representation.
Mr Judd wouldn't accept the result of the binding referendum. He considered the binding referendum was unfair. The feeling of the voters was that people should only be elected to council on their own merit.
Nothing in the Treaty says anything about Maori having special rights. What makes matters worse for the mayor is he did not express his view about Maori representation to the electorate before being elected, and didn't claim any mandate to advocate the separatist democracy he is now promoting. ( Abridged.)
I B
Springvale
Chch Press 12/5/16
NGAI TAHU DOES PAY TAX
I correct a comment by John Burn in his letter (May 7) that Ngai Tahu pays no tax? Ngai Tahu pays no income tax, but it does pay Maori Authority tax.
Ngai Tahu produces two sets of financial statements. One is for the Ngai Tahu Charitable Trust and the other is a consolidation of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (Front) and the Ngai Tahu Charitable Trust.
It is in the Tront accounts for 2015 that the iwi reported non-taxable income of $139,404 ($172,254 for 2014) which will be income from its many commercial trading enterprises that the iwi claims have charitable status.
In 2015 the iwi paid tax of only $13,000 and reported a tax liability of $452,000 which, when grossed up at the Maori Authority rate of 17.5 per cent, suggests taxable income of $2.6 million.
Ngai Tahu was able to add at least $39m to its coffers through the exemption from income tax on its 2015 income, a subsidy from the taxpayers of New Zealand.
The iwi also reported details of remuneration in its Tront report with one unnamed person being paid between $800,000 and $809,000 and five other people paid over $500,000. Eight people were paid between $299,999 and $500,000 and 88 people earned between $100,000 and $300,000.
MICHAEL GOUSMETT
Rangiora
Dominion Post 12/5/16 (To the Point section)
Dame Anne Salmond's call for a waterways commission to urgently take charge of the country's water is timely. Any Waitangi Tribunal decision is likely to be in favour of Maori ownership. Our Government recently declared that water and air are owned by all of us (as the foreshore and seabeds were supposed to be). Now is the time for -all of us" to affirm this by appointment of an independent waterways commission.
M B
Auckland
The New Zealand Herald 12/5/16 (Short & Sweet section)
ON RACISM
New Zealand has lost its way. Mike Hosking merely stated that democracy is for all to have the same equal rights to be voted on to council. It is Maori who are racist wanting preferential treatment!
C. H
Katikati
TREATY COMMISSIONER
Gareth Morgan, the infamous Wellington cat-hater, now wants to neuter Mike Hosking. Why? He doesn't agree with The Hosk's opinion. In Morgan's view, "The time is overdue for a Treaty of Waitangi Commissioner to augment the role of the Race Relations and Human Rights Commissioners and specifically censure deliberate denigration of the Treaty." The liberal elite is alive and well in the people's republic of Wellington, but not freedom of expression.
D G
Beach Haven
Taranaki Daily News 12/5/16
JUDD’S DECEIT INAPPROPRIATE
Reading you paper recently, I was stunned by the reporting of the Andrew Judd "I’m not standing again" spat. All of the stories which I read on the subject cast Judd as some kind of Maori rights hero, and the New Plymouth populace as a bunch of bigoted racists for exercising their democratic right to vote.
Unless my memory fails me, Judd did not push his views on Maori wards during the mayoral campaign (when people could have chosen not to vote for him), and once elected, sought to impose his preference on the town. In my opinion, that kind of deceit is inappropriate, in even a politician, but to then go ahead and garner media sympathy for his fall from public favour (by drawing attention to that tiny minority of people who vented their anger in an entirely inappropriate way) is disgraceful behaviour for an elected official.
The media reporting of this incident has been equally shocking, with the usual band of screaming band wagon jumpers like Rachel Stewart allowed to mouth off their own personal bigotries, with no editorial checks or balances. Who are the real bigots here? The ones who brand an entire town as rednecks and racists, or the ones who exercise their democratic rights to prevent an unpopular decision from being forced upon them?
Is this not an appropriate time for the press to confront Judd, and ascertain why he was not more forthcoming on his views on Maori wards before he was elected? It seems apparent that this was the cause of the chain of events which has led to us being described as ‘‘the most racist province in New Zealand’’.
Judd needs to front up, and put the record straight.
M H
New Plymouth
A SMOKESCREEN?
I do not condone spitting and threats, however people in the public eye must be prepared for criticism and unwelcome publicity. Mr Judd is not the only public figure that bears this cross – just ask any other mayor in the country. The NPDC has been a dysfunctional organisation for quite some time, and Mr Judd’s ascendance to the mayoral chair has only exacerbated the seemingly inherent problems. Throughout his tenure Mr Judd’s performance and judgement have been questionable on many issues – the Maori ward debacle being only one example.
However, Mr Judd is using this particular issue as a smokescreen to divert attention from his many other failures and, in the process, transforming himself – with the help of people like Dame Susan Devoy and Willie Jackson – into some sort of folk hero. These people need to wake up and look at the bigger picture.
I do not believe that the people of New Plymouth are racist just because they disagree with Mr Judd’s ideas in relation to a Maori ward, but I must say I am very happy to be living in South Taranaki where our mayor (and council) just gets on with the business of looking after the community.
C C
Patea
YELLOW JOURNALISM
Before I get to the main issue I want to raise I must protest the unfortunate example of yellow journalism on the front page of Wednesday morning’s edition. The banner ‘The Rise of the Redneck Reputation’ above the front page story is scurrilous journalism, which doesn’t address the articles that follow, does a disservice to your readers and the citizens of New Plymouth, and is at odds with Matt Rilkoff’s balanced editorial on A7 which addresses the the issue that ‘Racism is an Ugly Accusation’. Shame on the headline writer who penned those words.
The whole issue around the subject of a Maori ward has been lost in the careless labelling of racism, and it’s interesting to note that neither Chris Manukonga nor Bill Simpson, candidates in the upcoming election, are in favour of a single Maori ward. Mr Simpson echoes a position I advocated when the idea of a ward was first put forward. I voted against the ward concept on the grounds that it didn’t go far enough. With five iwi having rohe within the district boundaries one representative wouldn’t, in my opinion, be sufficient. For me it smacked of tokenism. So racism wasn’t the reason for my ’no’ vote.
The financial power and the significant asset base of the North Taranaki iwi could be the foundation of a Maori Council (and it could be a statutory body) with significant political clout to regularly sit down with the NPDC and discuss issues of mutual concern. That would be meaningful involvement in the local political process.
Finally, mayor Judd’s handling of the issue, both at the time and subsequently, hasn’t helped the situation. His naive assertion that he was ‘recovering racist’ was, for me, pathetic. He may have only recently acquired all this knowledge, but he was on council for a long time during which Puke Ariki mounted several significant exhibitions addressing a range of issues relating to Maoridom (including the very major Land Wars display). Did you not take the time to attend those Andrew? There was lots to learn there. I supported and voted for Andrew when he was on council, talked with him a number of times about local issues at his optical business practice, and volunteered in his mayoralty campaign. Donning the mayoral chains sadly seemed to change him.
C M
New Plymouth
BRING ON ELECTION
The October local body elections can’t come quickly enough now. Then we can elect a mayor who wants to promote our district, as opposed to one who seems to take satisfaction in making us infamous for being racist. He did not get his day of glory by being mayor of the first district to introduce a Maori ward and is now misreading the whole process, and misleading the media.
New Plymouth voted ’NO’ to the introduction of a Maori Ward.
The majority of us did not vote against Maori representation on the council. It was just not the right way of going about it.
Surely the whole process is to remove all racialism so why introduce something that is separatism in nature.
It’s all about equality so we should all be playing on a level field. Anyone can put themselves forward for election, but first they have to get themselves noticed and build up a reputation that makes the electorate have confidence in putting them on the council benches.
With Howie Tamati not seeking re-election after 15 years serving the community, let’s hope that there will still be Maori representation on the next council. We don’t need councillors who represent Maori; we need councillors who represent the whole district, albeit from a Maori perspective. We should all be working together in harmony to benefit our little bit of New Zealand no matter what our ethnic background is. Perhaps when the dust has settled we can regain our reputation for being a great place to live and work’ - but it will take time.
R J
Inglewood
MAORI IN BUSINESS NOT POLITICS
I have read the front page article and letters to the editor plus watched Mike Hosking on Seven Sharp, listened to his comments which I agree with, after Andrew was interviewed for the programme. I am left wondering why Judd has never acknowledged that he has Howie Tamati as an elected member of council and sits at the council table.
Maybe he has never noticed him there, plus also wonder why if he felt so strongly about a Maori voice that Howie was not selected for deputy mayor? If your readers read the article on PKW farms you will see that Maori are progressing very well and in fact leading the way in our province and maybe the smart ones find it more rewarding to grow their business than stand for election on the NPDC.
M V
Midhirst
Wairarapa Times-Age 12/5/16
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM FOR ALL
There is a simple way in which Maori can get speaking and voting rights on the Masterton District Council.
That is to put up candidates and have them voted on to the council in the accepted fashion.
This is the process with which the rest of the citizens accept, and work, so why should the Maori not have to do the same?
The system that our government (national and local body) is democratic, one vote per citizen. There should be no variation, for political correctness, for Maori or for any other reason, from that practice.
T L
Masterton
VOTING RIGHTS
I consider Masterton District Council is most undemocratic in giving two iwi representatives speaking and voting rights, plus payment of our rate money, on a council that is democratically voted in by the ratepayers of Masterton.
These iwi should be treated exactly like we who can vote for our council. Maori are New Zealanders so let them stand for council like all the elected members have done.
The mayor and some of her fellow members are showing a crass ignorance of democracy. So much is being done and decided by people just being added without any consultation of, as in this case, the rightful public, the voting ratepayers.
Let this be a non-event in this year of council elections by urban and country electors. Who are these present members of the council who think this is fair? And who of us, the voting public, think this should be automatically decided by a council that may be ousted this year?
M T
Masterton
Wanganui Chronicle 12/5/16
MAORI ROLES
The Chronicle article of May 6 by John Maslin, re. "Maori roles still undecided", is of some interest in Whanganui. This has only arisen as part of the New Plymouth mayor's sudden resignation.
Councils are increasingly (and legally) required to consult with iwi. That seems to irritate some writers. The format can be as observer status or full voting rights on some standing committees, or a designated Maori ward representative. I would bet that most residents (no criticism intended) have no idea of how we consult with iwi. It's actually at the lower end of what's available to council.
The mayor stated that council has not debated the issue of appointing iwi representation at committees. Fair enough. It will come up in due time as part of any overall good governance review and forward planning.
Just economically speaking, we stand to significantly benefit by working within iwi settlement and the future business opportunities that will arise. In light of the resignation of the New Plymouth mayor, who secured a one-vote majority for a dedicated Maori ward representative (subsequently over-turned by an overwhelming referendum), the matter will need some steerage — one day.
As an aside, in Whanganui we have a problem with various past and present councils (in my respectful opinion) confusing and alienating sections of the public as to why two clear referendums on the "H" were ignored; oops a factor, but not binding? Done and dusted out-come. However, the issue of referendums is not. New Plymouth's referendum was binding and overturned the Maori seat at council vote. We must get Whanganui's future referendum guidelines sorted through community discussion.
I do not support a dedicated Maori seat at council simply because there has been zero recent community — or council — generated discussion. Where would that push come from? It hasn't. If and when it comes, the important aspect is we go to community as the first step, and that includes iwi. The current format is council working with the Tamaupoko Link.
R F
Aramoho
JUDD'S STAND
Re. Anna Wallis' editorial (May 10) "Mayor's stand for iwi right side of history": On May 6, New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd announced he would not seek re-election. What Anna hasn't mentioned was that [in 2015] Grey Power petitioned and forced a binding referendum where 83 per cent of those who voted were against the proposal of race-based [New Plymouth District] council representation.
Mr Judd wouldn't accept the result of the binding referendum. He considered the binding referendum was unfair. The feeling of the voters was that people should only be elected to council on their own merit.
Nothing in the Treaty says anything about Maori having special rights. What makes matters worse for the mayor is he did not express his view about Maori representation to the electorate before being elected, and didn't claim any mandate to advocate the separatist democracy he is now promoting. ( Abridged.)
I B
Springvale
Chch Press 12/5/16
NGAI TAHU DOES PAY TAX
I correct a comment by John Burn in his letter (May 7) that Ngai Tahu pays no tax? Ngai Tahu pays no income tax, but it does pay Maori Authority tax.
Ngai Tahu produces two sets of financial statements. One is for the Ngai Tahu Charitable Trust and the other is a consolidation of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (Front) and the Ngai Tahu Charitable Trust.
It is in the Tront accounts for 2015 that the iwi reported non-taxable income of $139,404 ($172,254 for 2014) which will be income from its many commercial trading enterprises that the iwi claims have charitable status.
In 2015 the iwi paid tax of only $13,000 and reported a tax liability of $452,000 which, when grossed up at the Maori Authority rate of 17.5 per cent, suggests taxable income of $2.6 million.
Ngai Tahu was able to add at least $39m to its coffers through the exemption from income tax on its 2015 income, a subsidy from the taxpayers of New Zealand.
The iwi also reported details of remuneration in its Tront report with one unnamed person being paid between $800,000 and $809,000 and five other people paid over $500,000. Eight people were paid between $299,999 and $500,000 and 88 people earned between $100,000 and $300,000.
MICHAEL GOUSMETT
Rangiora
Dominion Post 12/5/16 (To the Point section)
Dame Anne Salmond's call for a waterways commission to urgently take charge of the country's water is timely. Any Waitangi Tribunal decision is likely to be in favour of Maori ownership. Our Government recently declared that water and air are owned by all of us (as the foreshore and seabeds were supposed to be). Now is the time for -all of us" to affirm this by appointment of an independent waterways commission.
M B
Auckland
The New Zealand Herald 12/5/16 (Short & Sweet section)
ON RACISM
New Zealand has lost its way. Mike Hosking merely stated that democracy is for all to have the same equal rights to be voted on to council. It is Maori who are racist wanting preferential treatment!
C. H
Katikati