Cracking it? (Updated)

I wasn’t going to blog about the free contraception for beneficiaries’ thing. To be completely honest I feel a bit apathetic about it all - shameful I know.
But here’s the thing, I agree that it is probably not the most responsible decision to have a baby if you are on the benefit. Equally I believe that it is a decision that the would-be parents have to make themselves.

I also accept that the move could be seen as putting the responsibility of birth control solely on the woman but I think that there would be many out there who would be grateful for the option, especially if it’s free.

And the offer of free contraception is just that, an option, for now. Those women who are on the benefit and do not want to get pregnant (for whatever reason) will have to want it to ask for it.

Obviously there are many arguments for and against this policy and it is good that it has been widely discussed. I am not sure where I exactly stand on the whole debate but it was a story in the Waikato Times that got me thinking about it as a subject for this post.

Well actually it was a conversation between a DJ and a guest on Radio Tainui about the story that got me thinking.

I had seen the story beforehand, I think most in the Waikato had, but it is hard for me to be objective on this one. I have worked with Alistair Bone and found him to be a good guy. He sees things through a different perspective and I always thought that was a good thing.

His story on Huntly had clearly irked some, with the radio guest taking a swipe at the newspaper over it, while others applauded it. The diverse range in opinion shown in the posts on the bottom of the story

KMTW posted a comment, which read:

“I'm sick to death of people bagging Huntly. There are so many hardworking people here. I live down the road from where these ridiculous interviews took place and love living in this town. Come on Alistair Bone - this article is crap on a stick.

“'The rail line runs straight through Huntly West' - yes it does, well done. It is also used to transport coal. Solid Energy is a major employer of local people. 'The twin towers of the power station don't go anywhere' ???? Where are they supposed to go?? The power station employs many locals. Maybe your interviewees could get off their asses and get a job there! 'There are so many gangs locals need more than a hand to count them off and subset them into senior and junior' - Really? Where? Gangs as in Mongrel Mob or Black Power are not dominant in our streets. We are not a gang town!! Sure we have youths who wear scarves (as pictured) but I would hardly call them gangs which you could 'subset' into senior and junior chapters.

“'On paper its a terrible place'... we don't live on paper. We live and breathe in the real world. Huntly West is as safe as houses to me. I walk these streets at night. I know my neighbours and they know me. We are a proud community. We choose to live in Huntly West. “

Bryce said it was a “good article".

"There are so many people in New Zealand who think with this same mindset of "have a baby, get a payrise" that I am glad to see something like this published. Drug, alcohol & gang culture is what leads to this mindset, these are the true evils of society.”

Reading the story what I think Alistair was trying to do was paint a picture of those who could potentially benefit from National’s policy of free contraception. It is a shame that some of the people he interviewed said things like "I heard you crack it on the benefit if you have babies.

Raising children is hard; there is no doubt about that. Raising children on a benefit is even more difficult.

The problem, the way I see it, is Huntly could be any town or city in New Zealand and when you have a claim in it you become protective of it.  Perhaps that was the point, I don’t know - what do you think?

Alistair wrote an opinion to run the day after his story. Check it out here, does it change your opinion on the story?

So what?

The opponents told you to worry about the Government'sForeshore and Seabed Law, and now politicians like Winston Peters are saying"I told you so".

What a truly hideous intro. It deserves better.

So what if Maori have made claims for customary rights to 20 beaches under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) act? Maori still cannot restrict public access if the rights are granted.

And isn’t that what everyone wanted to avoid, I mean nobody wanted to pay to use the beaches, right?

Under the new act that is what is ensured, is it not?

So, so what if a group of Taranaki Maori want customary title over Whitebait? Is that going to stop you heading to the river during Whitebait season and catching your family a feed?

The introduction of the Marine and Coastal Area act, which is the replacement to Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed legislation, was opposed for a variety of reasons but I do not ever think that they would have disputed that Maori should have a right to test their rangatiratanga over certain areas and resources.

I mean that is what the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi ensured, isn’t it?

“Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession. but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.”

And confiscation by treacherous means has been documented to the point it cannot be disputed. I mean, that is why the government has to settle treaty claims, isn’t it?

So, the question again: so what if Maori want to test their customary title over 20 beaches? I mean that’s not even rangatiratanga and anyway it is the right Maori have under the act, a piece of legislation sanctioned by the New Zealand government.

Passed last year the new act replaced the Seabed and Foreshore one.

Under the old legislation Maori could not go to the court for a determination of Maori customary title to the seabed and foreshore, a right confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Ngati Apa.

The new act restores this right and any customary interests in land but, like the previous one, it also guarantees public access. 

It does not give Maori full title over the land and in order to gain customary title to a section of the seabed and foreshore it must be proven that their use of it has continued to be exercised since 1840 and has not been extinguished as a matter of law.

If only Patrick Gower had read Radio New Zealand’s snap on the Amnesty submission maybe he would have thought a little deeper.

Not only was his story, screened last night on TV3 news, alarmist but it missed out important facts.

From the presentation it seems Gower may have been torn between two angles for the story – whether to concentrate on the Taranaki iwi’s claim on the kiwi-delicacy, whitebait, or the supposed in-fighting over poor little Motiti Island?

In my opinion Gower shouldn’t have concentrated on either of them.

So what if Taranaki want to try and prove customary rights over whitebait in their rohe? It’s a right allowed to them under the act.

And so what if there are three groups who want to claim customary rights over Motiti? Take a visit over there and try and work out how many whanau whakapapa to that island because under this act the Motitians couldn’t legally stop you roaming up onto one of their beaches even if we were to be granted customary rights.

Wow two rants in two days, sorry. But ah well that’s what you get I guess, I am passionate about these things and I just want informed, balanced news on Maori issues. Is it too much to hope for?