Open, mature debate needed on Treaty
Civis (Passing Notes, 24.1.24) argues that the British Crown intended te Tiriti to affirm Māori sovereign authority over all things in this country. It was not the Crown’s intention, Civis says, that the Treaty should provide for the rights and interests of the new settlers, most of them its own subjects.
If Civis is correct, then why didn’t the British Colonial Office say so explicitly in the wording of the Treaty placed before 1840's rangatira? In negotiating such a poor deal for itself and subjects, the Crown could have dispensed with Article One altogether ([I paraphrase] Māori cede sovereignty to the Crown absolutely and forever).
The ODT has privileged Civis with column space to advance his or her propositions.
In the interests of open, mature debate, will the ODT soon host alternative explanations of Te Tiriti’s original intent and meaning?
Euan Kennedy
Christchurch
Unity and disunity
When King Tuheitia participates in a unity hui, he seems intent on unifying tribal elitists, and discrediting Sir Apirana Ngata, a lawyer and MP, who in 1922 translated the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi, clearly stating there was no Treaty partnership, long before activists began reinterpretation for political gain.
It’s the recently invented treaty principles the coalition government is openly redefining, not the Treaty itself, an easy mistake to make.
The Treaty should be valued as it defines everyone as worth the same and to be treated the same. To restore democracy National needs to correct their error of 1993 and introduce a common electoral roll and for MPs to be voted in through electoral seats: no disadvantage to Maori already elected this way, but possibly to the radical activists, who disrespect Parliament anyway.
For a co-leader of a political party to incite others “Let this be fuel to our fire. We do not surrender, we do not cede”, sounds like something Trump is accused of.
Gaye Gardner
Alexandra
Learn the basics
I think that in Aotearoa, before we start to speak te reo, we need to learn the basics first and that is the Maori alphabet where it has no letter S, therefore when we refer to the Maori people whether in the singular form or as a collective we need to say the Maori people or just Maori. It is like adding the letter S to the word sheep when we add the letter S to the word Maori. It is good for us to learn other languages
C. Aitken
St Kilda
What does that mean?
Protest organiser Richie Ratahi (ODT 22.01.24) calls for a “truly bicultural New Zealand”. What does he mean by that? I hope it’s not “Maori and then the rest”.
Does it really need to be pointed out that, in the time since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, New Zealand has undergone tremendous socio-political change? Today’s New Zealand would be unrecognisable to the population of 1840.
The make-up of our society has also changed dramatically as a result of ongoing immigration. The 2018 census results show New Zealand to now be a truly multi-ethnic society: European - 70.2%, Māori - 16.5%, Pacific peoples - 8.1%, Asian - 15.1%, MELAA (Middle Eastern / Latin American / African) - 1.5%, and ‘Other ethnicity’ - 1.2%.
Every ethnic group that has arrived has enriched our country in many ways. Isn’t it time we started thinking about New Zealand as an evolving, modern multi-ethnic society rather than as a “truly bi-cultural nation”, whatever that is? There is no unity in division.
L. Wakefield
Dunedin
[Abridged - length]
Were councillors, mayor, heeding ratepayers?
I wish to comment on the article in the ODT (27.1.24), ‘‘Councillors aghast at rates rise’’.
The fact the Clutha District Council is talking about a 25% rates rise per year, for three years, is effectively a 95% rates rise on what ratepayers are paying now, because of the accumulating effect this sort of rates rise has.
How can the councillors feign surprise? Have not their constituents been saying that we could not afford the excessive, unnecessary ‘‘grand’’ projects all along?
Were they not listening?
Were they mislead by their mayor, staff and CEO?
Was the council gambling, with the people of Clutha's hard-won money, on a Labour government to save them from their debt and excessive spending?
I, for one was not surprised, just saddened that it has come to this, a huge burden on the people of Clutha to pay.
Rachel Wightman
Milton
Slash and burn
The Clutha district mayor has announced to ratepayers that rates will rise by 25% a year for next three years.
This was much to the shock of many councillors, and will leave many ratepayers struggling financially on top of the already increased cost in living.
Perhaps if Mr Cadogan took a pay cut and the Clutha District Council slashed the council chief executive’s massive salary in half, then rates would not have to increase so much, if at all.
S. Mckay
Mosgiel
For balance, others need morality check
David Jenkins (ODT 22.1.24) formulates a novel idea for solving the catastrophe that is Gaza. He advocates for a moral revolution amongst Israelis: presumably that is code for Jews, while claiming they are probably incapable of reforming themselves.
In the interests of balance, we ask who else needs a moral makeover?
Hamas is committed to establishing an Isis-style caliphate between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Some of their fighters were embedded with Isis during the Yazidi genocide.
Hamas takes aid money and builds terror infrastructure instead of investing in the future of its people. Hamas indoctrinates and trains its own children towards martyrdom. Hamas categorically rejects the two-state solution.
It is arrogant to cast Hamas barbarity as simply a by-product of Jewish moral retardation. If Hamas had wanted Israel to remove security fences and disband checkpoints they could have channelled their inner Gandhi and led the 2 million inhabitants to the fence with placards and banners saying, ‘‘Tear down this wall’’. Instead, 1200 human beings were raped, brutalised, dismembered, and burned alive.
Arthur and Sue Comery
Orewa
[Abridged - length]
Vital opinion
Thank God for the Opinion page today (ODT 30.1.24), and its three excellent contributions.
First Jim Sullivan: humorously clever, witty, dry as usual describing the absolute stupidity and pomposity of bureaucrat talk.
Then an insightful intelligent and well-informed piece from Warwick Brunton re mental health and the challenges Minister Matt Doocey faces.
Last, but not least, the Rev Dr Peter Matheson analysing the problems of on-line hate and the ‘‘clash of values’’ evident in today's world.
‘‘Let’s get it off the headlines’’ he says. But let’s also take heed. A must-read article for any clear-thinking reader.
Pamela Ritchie
Caversham
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
