In edition 211 there is an article on medical marijuana, in the 'looking abroad' section it talks about Sweden’s choice to have a zero-tolerance policy against drugs which as stated had a backlash of drug related deaths. I am confused why you used a negative example while talking about healthy drug control and use. However, Portuguese would be a positive example of change, their government chose to decriminalize personal illicit drug use, they offer addiction help for people caught with personal amounts and those with more than the legal personal amount gets sent through the justice system. I think that would have been a more positive one to review. Their drug related issues have gone down hugely. But because people show such negative changes like the one in Sweden people then continue to see drugs in a negative like when in reality drug use will sadly never be at 0% However I love how you provide some alternative ways to help with depression - getting more sunshine,laughing yoga,giving up worldly things. New Zealand does have very high mental health rates and marijuana can help but just like Benzodiazepines it can be abused. I also love how you go on to effectively say we should live off the land again which I hugely agree with yet here I am stuck into technology; its crazy isn’t it how it is all consuming being in the technological world. It went from healthy cannabis use to realising we went wrong a few generations ago in finding peace we found utter laziness, preservatives and mindwashing technologies! Maybe the new generation will fix it before it's too late. Haha well thanks for reading my wee novel!
S.Gray
Why is the Anglican Church apologising to a couple of Tauranga sub-tribes for selling its land to the Crown in 1867 "without seeking their agreement"? There was no need to seek anybody's agreement since the Church Missionary Society had bought the land outright by two purchases in 1838 and 1839 – transactions that were ticked off by Governor Hobson's Land Commission after 1840 as conveyances that had been made freely between willing sellers and a willing buyer.
Either the Church is plain dumb or it is colluding with the tribal elite to deceive the public.
At the Anglican Synod in May 2018, the Church said that it would support an application to the Waitangi Tribunal by the Ngai Tamarawaho and Ngati Tapu to get some ‘compensation’ (from the taxpayer) for this ‘grievance’ that historically does not exist.
As we wrote in our recent book Gate Pa and Te Ranga: The Full Story "If the Anglican Church genuinely wants to create harmony and integrity in society, it should not be misrepresenting historical truths in support of a bogus claim for a non-existent grievance that has as its object the further enrichment of the tribal elite at the expense of the taxpaying public".
J MCLEAN AND J ROBINSON,
Wellington.
NGAI TAHU
It is interesting that neither of the articles about Ngai Tahu's financial activities (Oct 26, 30, Christchurch Press), inform readers of Ngai Tahu taxpayer-subsidised status.
An uninformed reader would assume that these were businesses owned by private shareholders, not a charitable trust with its income tax-exempt status.
For example, one article states that as the business was run under an iwi model, its shareholders had a strong requirement for social and environmental responsibility.
Iwi are not shareholders at all.
They are the beneficiaries of the business activities undertaken by the 39 companies that have been registered as tax charities, as well as numerous other joint ventures and interests in other companies.
Ngai Tahu Farming Ltd is owned by Ngai Tahu Corporation Ltd, which in turn is owned by Ngai Tahu Charitable Trust, of which the sole trustee is Te Runanga 0 Ngai Tahu.
DR MICHAEL GOUSMETT, University of Canterbury Independent Researcher and Public Historian
WHAT A SHAMBLES
Fellow Kiwis, just ponder the series of conundrums you are about to encounter.
In 2019 Chief Justice and Supreme Court president and one-time legal adviser to the Maori Council, Sian Seerpoohi Elias, in some eyes a driver of judicial activism, reaches the compulsory retirement age of 70 years, and frankly won’t be missed.
Coincidentally Christopher Finlayson, ex-Attorney General and Minister for Treaty Settlements, and one-time legal counsel for Ngai Tahu, has indicated he will leave Parliament by next election — no loss either. Some sources suggest he may possibly be interested in any Supreme Court vacancy despite the apparent incompatibility between political and judicial roles.
Notwithstanding the mega millions given to tribes and the abject apologies for mythical grievances, Mr Finlayson inanely thinks his main achievement has been Marine And Coastal Area Act (2011),(MACA), notwithstanding the myriad claims he maintained would never occur having mushroomed. His assessment that only rare applications would surface, made for public consumption was arrant nonsense.
This will prove to be one of the most racially-divisive and controversial pieces of legislation ever passed in New Zealand.
Next cab off the rank is Ngai Tahu itself, which seems to have had a clandestine meeting about floating its own currency. Good luck with that hogwash.
Representing one of the worst travesties ever foisted on taxpaying Kiwis, the Ngai Tahu multi-million dollar settlement with top-ups was given for what exactly? Particularly when only around a couple of thousand Maori were living in the South Island in 1840, and never signed the treaty.
In my view the operations are non-contributory creating no genuine Maori business /economy, being based on taxpayer funding support, therefore living off efforts of others. All this while becoming invasive, like a cancer steadily creeping into most South Island institutions, race-based and privileged, paying no meaningful tax, so no wonder it is prospering, with current assets around $1.6 billion.
Hold on, it is all happening. Ms Devoy’s five-year tenure as Race Relations Commissioner controversially came to an end in August. We now have the spectacle of some Johnny-comelately taking injunction proceedings in the High Court because he was not short-listed for the job.
The answer is simple; abolish the meaningless post forthwith. Problem solved, especially as it looks like New Zealand will never get a regular, impartial Kiwi selected who might, God forbid, perhaps relate to 85 per cent of the population.
The whole outfit has become a racially-divisive self-centred hot bed of PC activism anyway. Just check out the credentials and backgrounds of the most recent seat warmers — who in the wildest dreams could say they were qualified or suitable appointments to take on the task?
Now updating MACA, here is an aberration — Auckland City Council, and it is assumed most other councils state they won’t actively oppose applications, presumably even those without merit (which is probably all of them) along with — wait for it — the Attorney-General and by inference the Minister of Justice, also stating they won’t oppose applications either.
This nonsense exists even while the Crown is fully funding even dubious part-Maori applicants to the tune of tens of millions in legal costs, yet will not fund the likes of CORANZ or other groups, like NZCPR, who robustly oppose the MACA try-ons.
In reality, MACA needs repealing immediately and Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 reinstated. In its current state, MACA has all the makings of another classic rort on Kiwi citizens.
Just wait for the freshwater ownership fiasco to unfold and farcical ongoing te reo Maori language $600 million funding, which defies belief, to hit the fan. However, that’s another story.
Kiwis need to sit down and ask themselves, is this the type of world they want to live in? Make no mistake, the above stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. Or are they finally prepared to stand up and be counted and say enough is enough? You would have to be a simpleton not the see the common thread in this mish mash.
ROB PATERSON, Matapihi