Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jun 27, 2019 6:08:49 GMT 12
Northland Age 27/6/19
WHERE BLAME BELONGS
The uproar regarding the attempted uplifting of an infant from its mother recently, and the associated naval-gazing, knee-jerking, defies belief. The paramount and only consideration and concern here is the welfare and safebeing of the child - the wider family and parents are of secondary importance, as they are usually the cause of the problem, not the solution.
To enable a child to be uplifted, a court order is required, and I doubt that the Ministry for Children ever acts precipitously because of the flak involved.
The first step would be to see if the child can be placed with other family members, and if this cannot be safely negotiated that’s an indictment of whanau. Indiscriminate breeding, physical abuse, alcohol, drug-taking, violent temperaments, history of violence etc. are all major contributors in the upsurge of child-related violence.
If the ministry properly uplifts at-risk children there is outrage, while if a child is not taken and then suffers physical harm or death, all hell breaks loose – it is a no-win situation for the ministry.
Families need to step up and be counted, addressing issues before they reach the bottom of the cliff stage, because lack of family support and care are often telling features in the tragedies. From the use of the inappropriate name Oranga Tamariki it seems fair to conclude that these children in at-risk situations are more often than not part-Maori. Unbelievably, three separate individual current investigations are under way, and the cost involved will be horrendous.
Children’s Commissioner Becroft looks ineffectual, Chief Ombudsman Boshier rolls out the usual platitudes, and Minister for Children Tracy Martin is just her normal disagreeable self.
None of them seem to be prepared to face the reality of the situation and place the blame where it lies.
ROB PATERSON Mount Maunganui
THE WICKED COLONISER
Dr Nichola Shackleton (NZ Herald, June 17) appears to blame colonialism, around 200 years after the event, for today’s obesity of Polynesian children and part-Maori in particular.
It may surprise Ms Shackleton, if she is interested in facts, to learn that only 2.31 per cent of New Zealand’s total land mass remained confiscated, for tribal rebellions, after 1928, very minimal in the scheme of things, and hardly the cause of today’s obesity problems.
Maori, unlike some other peoples that were colonised by the British, were never repressed or oppressed. In fact Article 3 of the Treaty granted the people of New Zealand, which included Maori, the same rights and privileges of British subjects.
Since 1867 the Maori Representation Act has provided separatist political power for Maori, and currently we have seven designated Maori seats in Parliament, and my research shows that MPs of Maori descent total 29 out of 120 (24 per cent, which far exceeds their population percentage).
Of course the so-called ‘wicked white coloniser’ introduced wheat, along with alcohol, tobacco and sugar, but they also brought self-reliance, work ethic and willpower, which strangely appears not to have rubbed off on many of the locals.
The colonisers rightfully outlawed cannibalism. I wonder if Ms Shackleton has done research as to whether the ban on this source of protein has any bearing on part-Maori obesity?
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
INDEPENDENCE DAY
Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is more important than the Treaty of Waitangi, as it is our true founding document, our first constitution and our Independence Day. This extremely important document has been ignored for over 173 years. The day we should all celebrate as our Independence Day is May 3.
The Treaty of Waitangi is not our founding document. Over 500 tangata Maori chiefs decided to give up their territories and governments to Queen Victoria of their own free will, in return for the same rights as the people of England.
It was their chiefs’ decision when they were strong. The people of England living in New Zealand at the time had nothing to do with the Tiriti o Waitangi. It was an agreement solely between Queen Victoria and tangata Maori chiefs.
Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, stated in his book The Treaty of Waitangi in 1922: ‘The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled.’
The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the treaty.
It is also interesting to note that the tribes that caused most of the trouble, such as Waikato, Ngai Tahu, Taranaki and Tuhoe, were the tribes that in most cases did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi but have used it to gain most in compensation and assets.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
WHERE BLAME BELONGS
The uproar regarding the attempted uplifting of an infant from its mother recently, and the associated naval-gazing, knee-jerking, defies belief. The paramount and only consideration and concern here is the welfare and safebeing of the child - the wider family and parents are of secondary importance, as they are usually the cause of the problem, not the solution.
To enable a child to be uplifted, a court order is required, and I doubt that the Ministry for Children ever acts precipitously because of the flak involved.
The first step would be to see if the child can be placed with other family members, and if this cannot be safely negotiated that’s an indictment of whanau. Indiscriminate breeding, physical abuse, alcohol, drug-taking, violent temperaments, history of violence etc. are all major contributors in the upsurge of child-related violence.
If the ministry properly uplifts at-risk children there is outrage, while if a child is not taken and then suffers physical harm or death, all hell breaks loose – it is a no-win situation for the ministry.
Families need to step up and be counted, addressing issues before they reach the bottom of the cliff stage, because lack of family support and care are often telling features in the tragedies. From the use of the inappropriate name Oranga Tamariki it seems fair to conclude that these children in at-risk situations are more often than not part-Maori. Unbelievably, three separate individual current investigations are under way, and the cost involved will be horrendous.
Children’s Commissioner Becroft looks ineffectual, Chief Ombudsman Boshier rolls out the usual platitudes, and Minister for Children Tracy Martin is just her normal disagreeable self.
None of them seem to be prepared to face the reality of the situation and place the blame where it lies.
ROB PATERSON Mount Maunganui
THE WICKED COLONISER
Dr Nichola Shackleton (NZ Herald, June 17) appears to blame colonialism, around 200 years after the event, for today’s obesity of Polynesian children and part-Maori in particular.
It may surprise Ms Shackleton, if she is interested in facts, to learn that only 2.31 per cent of New Zealand’s total land mass remained confiscated, for tribal rebellions, after 1928, very minimal in the scheme of things, and hardly the cause of today’s obesity problems.
Maori, unlike some other peoples that were colonised by the British, were never repressed or oppressed. In fact Article 3 of the Treaty granted the people of New Zealand, which included Maori, the same rights and privileges of British subjects.
Since 1867 the Maori Representation Act has provided separatist political power for Maori, and currently we have seven designated Maori seats in Parliament, and my research shows that MPs of Maori descent total 29 out of 120 (24 per cent, which far exceeds their population percentage).
Of course the so-called ‘wicked white coloniser’ introduced wheat, along with alcohol, tobacco and sugar, but they also brought self-reliance, work ethic and willpower, which strangely appears not to have rubbed off on many of the locals.
The colonisers rightfully outlawed cannibalism. I wonder if Ms Shackleton has done research as to whether the ban on this source of protein has any bearing on part-Maori obesity?
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
INDEPENDENCE DAY
Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is more important than the Treaty of Waitangi, as it is our true founding document, our first constitution and our Independence Day. This extremely important document has been ignored for over 173 years. The day we should all celebrate as our Independence Day is May 3.
The Treaty of Waitangi is not our founding document. Over 500 tangata Maori chiefs decided to give up their territories and governments to Queen Victoria of their own free will, in return for the same rights as the people of England.
It was their chiefs’ decision when they were strong. The people of England living in New Zealand at the time had nothing to do with the Tiriti o Waitangi. It was an agreement solely between Queen Victoria and tangata Maori chiefs.
Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, stated in his book The Treaty of Waitangi in 1922: ‘The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled.’
The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the treaty.
It is also interesting to note that the tribes that caused most of the trouble, such as Waikato, Ngai Tahu, Taranaki and Tuhoe, were the tribes that in most cases did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi but have used it to gain most in compensation and assets.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers