Nuclear next?

So, generally, New Zealanders are happy that the government’s mass immigration policies have caused Aucklanders to be charged 11 cents/litre extra for fuel.

Those of us whose forebears migrated to Auckland in the 19th and 20th centuries, and built Auckland to be the wonderful city it was until the past couple of decades, feel aggrieved that we can no longer afford to live in Auckland, and our grandchildren will likely never be able to afford a home in Auckland (please look at John Hoyt’s picture of Auckland when the first colonists arrived in 1841).

It is not the public’s fault that there is insufficient infrastructure in place to meet the demands of such massive migration, it is government policy. Government should have planned the infrastructure before implementing such policies.

At a staff development conference we were told in the 1990s that a World Bank representative said that we had to have 10 million people in New Zealand. Now, having reached nearly five million, the Auckland housing supply and roading infrastructure has collapsed. What will be next? Probably not telecommunications, because we can get that from the satellite.

Will it be water? Or will it be power? Will our nuclear-free country have to build nuclear power stations to provide electricity to us because the existing dams and coal stations will not be adequate?

Labour and NZ First promised to reduce migration to a more manageable level, yet there seems to be no reduction in the numbers arriving in New Zealand.

We New Zealanders need to seriously consider where our power will be coming from, and say no to nuclear power now, whilst there is still an option with our current population number.

BEVERLEY ALDRIDGE KATHLEEN PATTINSON

Otamatea Grey Power

fixated on cannibalism, and the role they believe infanticide played in Ma¯ ori population decline 1800-1900.

They reveal their truly sick motivations by openly calling this unproven allegation “daughter slaughter”.

Muriel Newman is nonetheless a persuasive writer. Her often well but selectively researched diatribes are liberally sprinkled with the word ‘democracy’, conveying the assumption that our Westminster Parliamentary variety is the zenith of democratic evolution – the highest form democracy can attain. To Pa¯keha¯ living in constant fear-hatred of Maori renaissance and tino rangatiratanga, this may be exactly the confirmation bias they need.

Newman, a doctor of mathematics, should know about representation and diversity in statistical populations, and if she applied her qualifications to her political analysis, should rightly speak about diverse representative democracy or proportional representation rather than a naive concept of democracy meaning simply majority rule.

Newman firstly fails to mention the abysmal voter turnout in recent local body referendums on Maori wards — 37.21 per cent in Palmerston North and “around 40 per cent” in Western Bay of Plenty. This is a blatant failure of democracy as we know it. Even a large majority of a small percentage of eligible voters is at best only indicative — 100 per cent of 40 per cent is 40 per cent.

Human populations are inherently diverse, segmented and/or divided along any number of lines, gender, age, race or ethnicity, culture, heritage, wealth or social status being merely the tip of a population’s intersectional existence.

Majority rule might work in homogeneous populations, if anyone can actually locate one. The populations of ancient Greece and Rome, where our concept of democracy originated, with their patriarchal social classes, ethnic enclaves, slavery and colonies, were hardly homogeneous, or all the same.

In Roman democracy, even if she was born a citizen, no woman could vote or hold political office. New Zealand led democracy’s adaptation to include women. Hence, to believe democracy can evolve no further, or that Te Ao Ma¯ ori has not evolved since the Musket Wars, is to deny reason, if not renounce thought altogether. Mathematics supposedly helps us think logically.

Majority rule can so easily become tyranny of the majority, as Ma¯ ori, indigenous, minority and conquered peoples all over the world can readily testify, and some no longer exist to bear witness. If democracy is not

representative of a population’s intrinsic diversity, the tyranny, or rule of the dominant culture inevitably prevails.

New Zealand’s colonial ‘democratic’ history is, in considerable part, a record of that tyranny.

That’s a second fail for Muriel Newman’s brand of democracy, along with its F for numerical representation. There are a number of other fails on present-day democracy’s scorecard, notably equity, engagement, information, access and participation.

Democracy is broke. Newman and her cronies can chant, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” all they like. It is stuck, confused, flawed, challenged, and often morally bankrupt. It’s definitely broken.

Hapu/iwi Ma¯ ori are partners with the Crown in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, an indisputably race-based document. The founding of our nation February 6, 1840, was undeniably racial, but not necessarily or inherently racist.

At central government level, Aotearoa New Zealand has found a way to ameliorate lack of Ma¯ ori representation and potential tyranny of the majority by having Ma¯ ori seats in Parliament.

LGNZ may simply be trying to do a similar thing at local government level. How do we achieve Ma¯ ori representation, overcome tyranny of the majority and honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Neither assimilation nor majority rule have succeeded. The important question is, can democracy evolve and adapt?

To paraphrase Dr Newman, it is an appalling state of affairs when the very democracy that purports to represent us is itself undermining representation. WALLY HICKS

Kohukohu Zealand super scheme.

The KiwiSaver scheme falls into this category because of the New Zealand government’s initial contribution. The Social Securities Act 1964 states any pension or other scheme contributed to or run by a government is subject to Section 70.

The New Zealand government can now, or at any stage in the future, use your KiwiSaver funds to subsidise the New Zealand Super Fund, an option which the government are seriously looking to implement.

Attention all KiwiSavers — when this eventually does happen (be sure it will) you will be termed as double dippers by the very government who persuaded you in the first instance to join this scheme. All the money you have saved from your wages, along with the contributions from your employer, will be directly deducted from your New Zealand Super.

When the shoe is on the other foot and you find you’ve been hoodwinked yet again by the New Zealand government, let’s see how you react. PAUL NORFOLK

Cambridge