Rules to live by

The Northland Age - - Opinion -

King David es­tab­lished his cen­tre of power in Jerusalem. His son, King Solomon, built the first tem­ple there.

The Old Tes­ta­ment of the Bi­ble sim­ply tells the sto­ries where life was good when the laws of the prophets were kept. When so­ci­ety and lead­ers strayed from them things went pear-shaped, with dis­as­ters of all kinds, un­til Jewish so­ci­ety pulled it­self to­gether and re­cov­ery came as God for­gave them.

Their big­gest mis­take was the re­jec­tion of Christ’s teach­ings and or­gan­is­ing His death 2000 years ago.

They, like many oth­ers, didn’t recog­nise the res­ur­rec­tion of Christ. A true Chris­tian does.

Aris­to­tle was a ge­nius who died, aged 62, in 322 BC. He pon­dered many sub­jects. Christ sim­ply taught the rules to live by as no one else has, and with author­ity. World prob­lems could

be solved if peo­ple obeyed his in­struc­tions.

I met one author­ity. An old kuia sit­ting in her lit­tle gar­den, smil­ing at grow­ing ku¯ mara and other veg­eta­bles. Her hands were painful with arthri­tis as she filled a kit with ku¯ mara for me, as I had brought her a cou­ple of snap­per I had caught.

I protested that there was no need for her to give me any­thing in re­turn. She said, “Lis­ten boy (I was 40), the more I give the more God gives me!”

I un­der­stood why peo­ple in that set­tle­ment ended up hav­ing a cup of tea with her when they needed lov­ing, wise ad­vice. SAM McHARG


It is about our re­serve. The boat­yard has long had all the con­sents it re­quires to func­tion on its own land, as it did un­der the pre­vi­ous own­ers from 1974. The present owner is the first to as­sert claims to the ad­join­ing pub­lic land, in­clud­ing by means of ‘ad­verse pos­ses­sion’, a ten­u­ous le­gal stratagem to be com­pared with a child’s claim of find­ers keep­ers.

By that mea­sure any in­di­vid­ual could lay claim to any of the na­tion’s pub­lic re­serves as free real es­tate.

The sec­ond is that the ar­ti­cle is an im­prove­ment on that ear­lier printed in the Ad­vo­cate and Herald in­so­far as it lays some ini­tial em­pha­sis on the fact that the chal­lenged and quashed ‘ease­ments’ were ‘granted’, not di­rectly by DOC or the Min­is­ter of con­ser­va­tion, but in fact by the FNDC, act­ing un­der a min­is­te­rial del­e­ga­tion. How­ever that was in 2015, whereas your ar­ti­cle states it was in 2006.

The FNDC in 2006 made a rec­om­men­da­tion for the grant of ‘ease­ments’ to DOC, and in 2007, the DOC de­ci­sion de­clined some of the FNDC pro­pos­als, as did the Court of Ap­peal in July this year, for much the same rea­sons.

DOC had pre­vi­ously made the same de­ci­sion in 2000, and did so sub­se­quently in 2013. This is be­cause the boat­yard owner re­fused to al­low the regis­tra­tion of the granted ease­ments, and has kept ap­ply­ing for ex­tra pri­vate rights over pub­lic re­serve, again, and again and again. These were the ex­tra pri­vate rights that were the down­fall of the FNDC’s grant of pur­ported ‘ease­ments’ in 2015.

By the boat­yard owner’s es­ti­mates, his ap­pli­ca­tions and court pro­ceed­ings have cost the dis­tricts ratepay­ers and the coun­try’s tax­pay­ers ap­prox­i­mately $1.5 mil­lion to date. Mayor Carter pub­licly claimed these ris­ing costs to be a

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.