Letters to the Editor
Mangawhai belongs to all
I have been on the committee in the past and am in awe of the way that it has improved over the years thanks to the hard work of the committee wisely using the money, hard earned, from the Gala Day to do this.
A long time ago a group of very far-sighted farmers gave this land to the people of Mangawhai for sport, recreation and "the enjoyment of ALL".
Any changes to this, for example commercial use, banning certain groups, more structures on site destroying the open nature of the site etc, should and must be open to public consultation.
This land belongs to the people of Mangawhai and not one group.
We are facing a situation which could permanently alter the face, feel and fellowship of our village.
Voting process hijacked
It would appear that this valuable community facility is now in the hands of a local sporting group who have seized control by attending the meeting in large numbers to oust the incumbent committee.
Whilst this is not in itself illegal, the methods used by Matt Rowe and his supporters will not sit well with most fair-minded community members who are also stakeholders in this facility.
Ross Parkes, who attended the meeting, is in my view correct when he stated in his letter that “the point to all this is not that a change of committee occurred but the unprofessional and offensive way it was done and that a community facility is now at risk of being controlled by a group (MFC) who have a vested interest in the Domain as a resource.”
It certainly sounds to me that the process has been hijacked in an underhand and bullying way and this I believe will backfire on those who took the decision to take this route.
I for one am an avid football supporter and really look forward to the game being promoted at the Domain, but this is not the way to go about achieving this aim.
Public opinion will in the end determine if Matt has acted irrationally and not in the best interests of the broader community and given a red card.
It is crucial to our community that we have a Domain committee that is made up of members who have the necessary skills to manage this valuable community asset.
The fact that Matt spoke (interrupted the meeting) for almost one hour is a good indication of what lays ahead.
No doubt there will be more to come as this saga plays out but I am confident that the wider Mangawhai community will engage in this debate and have the final say.
Read the small print
Where I stated “if there is another minority group out there looking for a facility just turn up en-masse to the next Domain Society AGM and she’s all yours” this is actually incorrect.
The founders of the Domain Society actually provided safeguards within the rules of the society whereby only registered and eligible members of the Mangawhai Domain Society can form a quorum and vote at an AGM.
This in itself should prevent any “rent-a-crowd” takeover situations occurring. Apologies for the error.
It does however make one wonder how many (if any) of the attendees at the last AGM were actually Domain Society members.
Customary rights cover-up
We the descendants of the first settlers to this land have the right to decide what we want to see happen to those long gone, and welcome the tireless research work done and being done by our scientists uncovering skeletons in the cupboard and bringing to light the truth and honest history of this country, New Zealand.
Why should we sit back and take a back seat to these newcomers who call themselves the New Zealand Heritage Trust? I wonder if they would act with the same selfishness if the history was their own? I bet not.
Archaeologists who actually dig and make finds all over the world welcome research such as that conducted by scientists at the behest of Noel Hilliam but here in New Zealand such efforts are being treated with snobbery by the selfish
few placing themselves above all others – and for what? What has become of freedom of speech?
Good luck to Noel and his achievements in bringing to light exactly what my people looked like, the DNA research, putting a face on the John Doe’s of this far off land of ours – Aotearoa – we now call New Zealand.
This wonderful gentleman deserves credit for what he has done and should be given all the assistance needed, along with many others who work alongside him, and, anyway, why are these objectors trying to cover up our true history, especially when so much has been destroyed deliberately.
To me the word ‘heritage’ historically means the preservation of our customary right to let the world know that this country is rich in history of the ancient ones, the Patupaiarehe, the Turehu, the Urukehu of the ancient tribe Ngati Hotu whose migration began during the times of Queen Esther of the Bible.
Their journeys, the places they went to and stayed, leaving behind evidence they were there, stretch from the Mediterranean to this beautiful land Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Monica M. Matamua (Nee Ham)
Another ‘flag’ trick?
Her ‘legitimate expectation’ seems to lie in creating a newly written constitution based around the Treaty of Waitangi, thus legally entrenching a one country/two peoples racially privileged system.
Apparently there is a group called Matike Mai o Aotearoa, which she describes as “the independent working group on constitutional transformation”, whose aim is to infuse the Tiriti into existing legislation.
I would like to know the answers to the following questions: Do the people of NZ want a new constitution that includes the Treaty of Waitangi? And secondly, is this project being funded by taxpayers?
This could well turn out to be another John Key ‘change-the-flag’ manipulation, with millions being spent on a project that the majority do not really want.
I believe that one panel member’s main claim to fame lies in her denial of the existence of reverse racism when she announced, “Maori can’t be racist because they are not in a position of power.”
Logic such as this hardly inspires hope for future generations when amendments to NZ’s constitutional laws are at stake.
The validity of the ’official English’ treaty wording is itself questionable, with modernist part-Maori translations assigning meanings to words that meant something completely different to the original Maori signatories.
Sir Apirana Ngata’s “An explanation of the Treaty” translated the document as it was understood back then and is at wild variance from today’s extortionate power-sharing claims. Even the name ‘Aotearoa’ applied solely to the North Island of NZ and the Maori language version that was signed referred to the tangata maori of Nu Tirani – not one mention of tangata whenua or Aotearoa.
The goal of any new constitution must be to unify our nation, not to divide. The government may well have forgotten that it was elected to carry out the wishes of the majority. We, the New Zealand people, must therefore insist upon any rewritten constitution being subjected to a binding referendum.