Going by the numbers, why is this a debate?
Instead of Parliament focusing on what us voters want — reducing the cost of living, more beds and medical staff in hospitals, more GPs, better schools and improved education, improved elderly care, fixing up our damaged roading, improving our rail network and investing to improve and future-proof New Zealand’s infrastructure including Cook Strait ferries — it is wasting its time and our money on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.
"If it ain’t broke don’t fix it" was a lesson I learned years ago. So why is Parliament messing with the Treaty? Blame Act New Zealand.
At the last election out of the 2.9 million of us who cast votes, Act attracted less than a quarter of a million people to cast votes its favour, just over 8% of the vote. Out of 122 seats available in Parliament, Act won two electorates and nine list seats. This Act minority is the latest example of the tail wagging the dog by forcing its nugatory nonsensical Bill on our Parliament.
I support the Treaty and the vast peaceful hīkoi. Come on MPs, time to throw out this baseless Bill and concentrate on what us voters want.
There are other numbers
Now that all the shouting, posturing, waiata and tumult on the steps of Parliament have died down and those who deal only in the politics of confrontation have returned in their self-righteous indignation to their respective marae, I feel it is time to make known a recent reliable statistic. Namely, that a poll, conducted only a week ago, rated overall Te Pāti Māori support at 2.5%, down 0.5% from the previous poll. So much for the waves of media positivity.
The Bill remains simply a re-examination of the Treaty to see if, in the light of the 21st century, it still remains relevant and deals fairly with all sectors of the community, not just the favoured few.
Is this made-for-media circus the way we would prefer to see our now decidedly multiracial country portrayed to the rest of the world and promoted as fit to be taken seriously?
Article praised
Many thanks to Prof Murray Rae for his fine article in Faith and Reason (ODT 15.11.24) on the Treaty of Waitangi. I think it will clarify for many people what the Māori terms in the Treaty meant as understood by the Māori chiefs when they signed up to it. I suggest Murray ought to send a copy of it to David Seymour so it might clarify for him what the Treaty was all about.
Dreams are free
So the Otago Regional Council has to divide the ex-councillor’s pay between them. Why is this even an option?
In view of their reputation, they have a heaven-sent opportunity to put their money towards their debt and redeem themselves. I’m dreaming aren’t I?
Comment commentary
After reading the ODT article (19.11.24) about the foul-mouth bully conduct of our DCC CEO, she should have done the dignified thing and resigned. There are plenty of other worthy candidates out there, without the attitude the incumbent has displayed, who can assume this vital position.
Re the article regarding Sandy Graham’s commentary of DCC councillors; her comments seem fairly accurate to me.
Choke points need addressing in flood works
Re the Lindsay Creek flood risk (ODT 5.11.24). From my observation this creek rises very fast when there is excessive rainfall in the North East Valley catchment area and drops very quickly once the rainfall ceases. The big choke points holding back the free flow of torrential water is at some of the bridges crossing this creek e.g. Beechworth St, Watts Rd, etc. These bridge abutments have been positioned making a huge restriction to the width of the natural creek bed. If at least one metre diameter pipes were installed on the at present hard surface side of the abutments must surely go a long way in reducing the flood risk in this area by not causing the water to dam up.
The flood protection work already done in the Water of Leith seems now to be working satisfactorily. This should be more than capable of handling the seldom occurrences of high volumes of water discharging from Lindsay Creek.
Two properties in Kelvin Rd have, in the relatively recent past, been adversely affected by the effects of torrential volumes of water coming down Lindsay Creek. A "patch up" solution is not appropriate when both these properties have already lost at least over 100cu m of land.
A long list
Elspeth McLean’s When Moths Collide (Opinion ODT 12.11.24) is another excellent example of a policy which shows the present government knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. How many more examples or such stupidity are we going to see? There is a long list already.
Milo brouhaha symbolic of a wider concern
Health New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora’s initial decision to remove Milo in the clinical environment reflects ignorance and disconnect between frontline staff and management.
If HNZ wishes to engage the minds of those directly involved in provision of clinical care, which after all is the solution to the current problems, they first need to engage the hearts of clinical staff. Milo may appear as an insignificant need to those that form our management and governance, but the point that is missed is that Milo in this situation signifies much more than a hot drink: it signifies that those with hierarchical power do not understand, nor care, that in the current environment there is little opportunity for sustenance on some shifts, and for some Milo is the glucose (and more) that keeps the brain functioning and that helps when clinical reasoning and care is required.
The removal of Milo has unintended negative consequences: it simply disengages the heart. The mind quickly perceives such sanction as punitive, uncaring and ignorant by those who have the privilege of going for a break anytime they choose.
HNZ would do well to take a very deep look at what matters when engaging their staff and if they have the foresight to do so I am confident they will find that this Milo fiasco signifies deep disengagement which is the last thing our patients need right now.
One to keep an eye on
With all the brouhaha about Chris Wood's deserved success, it's worth pointing out that my team, currently downtrodden West Bromwich Albion, were the team to spot his potential and signed him up when he was a 17-year-old. The Baggies also now have another young Kiwi on their books with Joe Wallis, a keeper, getting rave reviews having being signed from Auckland City.
Hīkoi demonstration: we know our history
IT was incredible to be part of the hīkoi. Māori, Pakeha and others, young and old, workers and professionals, all coming together, 50,000 strong, in great humour, but also in powerful resolve to reject what is, in the view of many, Seymour and Luxon’s attempt to divide us by attacking Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our founding document and roadmap to peace.
Mr Seymour’s facile mantra "one person one vote" as the essence of democracy, is the failed cookie-cutter logic of the brutal coloniser. Any democratic version which ignores the special rights of the tangata whenua, or other indigenous peoples, is good only for scrap.
Māori signed a treaty with The Crown. Its guarantees do not wane with time. Māori are guaranteed tino rangatiritanga, i.e. sovereignty, which they never ceded. They are guaranteed full possession of their lands and waterways. Where those were contravened, apologies and redress will always be due.
Judging by that massive hīkoi, far too many New Zealanders know this history and support Te Tiriti for a weird 8% right-wing extremist to rip it all apart.
Time to reconsider
I inititially thought that National was being disingenuous not fully supporting the Act Treaty Bill, aimed at ensuring that no Kiwis are disadvantaged along racial lines. Perhaps they were relying on settling the issues by goodwill and discussion?
However, now that we are seeing the lengths that a minority are prepared to go to in opposition to the Bill, I suspect that the concept of goodwill and discussion is highly unlikely to resolve this matter. Perhaps it is now timely for National to reconsider its position?
I really am quite saddened that it is necessary to establish the fact that all Kiwis are equal. There was a time when New Zealand was an example to the world on racial equality and a lot of time and money was spent over many decades by the Crown redressing historic wrongs.
What divisiveness?
In the process of making a submission to Parliament on the Treaty Principles Bill, I scrutinised the Bill to see what has caused the widespread media publicity regarding its being "divisive". The three principles in the Bill proposed for discussion include phrases such as: "best interests of everyone", "free and democratic society", "everyone is equal before the law", "equal protection", equal benefit", "equal enjoyment" and "same fundamental human rights without discrimination".
All this is unifying, not dividing. So why is the Bill being promoted as divisive? The only reason I can think of is that those who currently benefit the most from the "consultation" gravy train are very concerned that clarification of the principles will reduce the need for consultation. After all, the government will not pass it into law so why the angst? Clearly they need to suppress discussion itself and keep the public as ignorant as possible.
The only divisiveness around this Bill is coming from those parties on the left claiming exclusive interpretation rights for a few and in doing so, promoting racial division. It is certainly not a quality of a "partnership".
Daily dismay
There appears to be a pandemic of idiocy and poor judgement. We have a politician who thought it was acceptable to use the Treaty of Waitangi as a political football in coalition negotiations to ensure he got to be prime minister without consulting Māori. This is utterly disgraceful and the Treaty Principles Bill should be killed immediately.
Those who want to dismiss our rich Māori culture seem to ignore the fact that most countries in the world have indigenous peoples. Closed minds need to open and learn.
This is the worst government of my lifetime. It fills me with dismay on a daily basis.
Look at the causes
IF chutzpah were gold, Dame Jenny Shipley could pay her Mainzeal costs many times over. To strike such a righteous attitude and even suggest the possibility of civil war, to stand so staunchly on the side of the oppressed (ODT 18.11.24) is a bit much from someone, who, taking the baton from Roger Douglas in the early 1990s inflicted more damage on Māori wellbeing, and others’ of course, than anyone else for most of the 20th century. The damage is still with us.
I have no time for Mr Seymour’s antics either, but if we want to address harm done to Māori, we should look at all its causes.
Daring to speak
The editorial which seemed to blame David Seymour for the riotous behaviour in Parliament (ODT 15.11.24) because he has dared to speak up about that which must not be spoken about.
My own observation is that a majority of New Zealanders think this old Treaty, created in 1840, should indeed be discussed to try to clarify just what it means today.
In this matter the ODT seems to be joining with the generally well-heeled elite of Wellington bureaucrats, teachers, King’s Counsels, Māori tribal leaders, and the media who want to shut down debate, while the rest of us really want to have a say in something that we all have to pay for.
David Seymour deserves our praise for speaking up in the face of intimidation and bullying.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
