As a result of an article in your newspaper titled ‘Walk the beat with wardens’ [KMN, January 15], it was agreed at our most recent meeting that I write to provide your paper with a clearer understanding in regards to the procedures and requirements to become a Maori Warden.
Maori Wardens are the community volunteer workforce of a four tiered structure: The New Zealand Maori
Council, District Maori Councils, Maori Committees and Maori Wardens.
Maori Wardens work within specific boundaries and do not have the right to work wherever they choose.
The Maori Community Development Act 1962 is the overall Constitution of the above structure. Its requirements include triennial elections which each tier must abide to.
All groups and Maori Wardens lose their previous status until they have completed public elections to stand for a further three years. This process is similar to organisations who allocate a three-year period of status to their chair, secretary, treasurer and so on.
Maori Wardens undertake this process to seek approval to continue their work. Their applications are supported by the Maori Committee which they belong to and are submitted to the District Maori Council for approval.
Politics, as stated within the article in your paper, is created by groups who do not comply with the MCD Act 1962 and yet make claims to the status of being Maori Wardens.
These loose statements deliberately create confusion which is unnecessary given that there are very clear guidelines as outlined in the MCD Act 1962. It is important to have a balanced accurate understanding of how a Maori Warden is appointed. If people have not been approved by an accredited District Maori Council to be a Maori Warden, they are not Maori Wardens. (Letter abridged) We regret any confusion caused by our misunderstanding of the process to become a Maori Warden.
The main intent of the article was to acknowledge the contribution of volunteers in community, be they officially sanctioned or not – Editor Editor,
I have been led to believe the city council is proposing a law to prevent private citizens from cutting down or trimming trees on their own property.
What right does the council have to interfere with what people grow on their property?
To me this is just a step in the direction of communist control.
I consider this to be gross interference with the democratic and freedom rights of individuals.
It must be remembered that many residents over the years have paid good money to buy property because of a beautiful view or to catch the sun, and over the years the trees have overgrown their usefulness and become a problem and consequently devalue property by reducing views or by causing excessive shading.
One should have the right to either remove the trees or at the very least to trim the trees on their own properties to remedy this problem, and these same trees may also have become a problem to neighbouring properties.
I for one would be tempted to ignore such a rule.
If a tree on my property was causing the problems as mentioned above, I feel I should retain the right to remove or trim it.
This is my business, not the council’s bureaucratic right to decide for me.
Can council please note my objection to the proposal. (Letter abridged) barbecue we got talking to a group who now live in local rest homes. The idea of this group, who were 82 years and older (some on sticks to get around) was to be able to do what we were doing.
The thing that stopped them was lack of barbecue tables as they can’t get down to sit on rugs. I do feel two barbecue tables are not nearly enough.
More could be added without taking any of the grass area where people like to play ball, and so on.
These wooden tables don’t cost much these days and a bit of concrete to cement them in.
Is this passible while we enjoy a long hot summer?