Letters: Attacks on the Treaty of Waitangi akin to domestic abuse; electricity sector review urgently needed

Protesters march up Bank St in Whangārei as part of the National Māori Action Day on May 30, 2024. Photo / Michael Cunningham

Treaty attacks akin to abuse

It was interesting to note that Simon’s Wilson’s fine column (”Are we ready for this? The Treaty of Waitangi debate in 2024”, Weekend Herald, July 27) mentions “anger” as the trigger (for racism).

In the 1980s, I started what was called anger management counselling on a voluntary basis, explaining the meaning of anger, which is the response to a threat (fight or flight reflex).

It was obvious to me that in order to have a meaningful relationship between two parties, there must be a balance of power. In domestic violence (not just physical but financial, sexual, psychological, etc), there is an imbalance based on societal indicators set by our “betters”.

At the time of the signing of Te Tiriti, the people who signed on behalf of the Crown allowed the husband to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb; they were sending people overseas for stealing a loaf of bread; they denied Irish people access to grain during the potato famine. All examples of institutional abuse – no different to domestic abuse, but on a larger scale.

There has been no equal partnership between Māori and Pākehā, and Māori attempts ever since have been regarded as a threat. Colonisation is abuse writ large, and David Seymour and co are acting just like the male partner in domestic violence. Simon Wilson has made a great start to stop changes by this small minority hiding behind the apron strings of what is still a colonising power based in London.

It is not just Māori rights involved here, it is our national sovereignty also – the Treaty is an extra safeguard we have for our sovereignty, and we should leave it as it is.

Frank Rowson, Matamata.

One-sided perspective

Simon Wilson asks “Are we ready for the Treaty debate?” Wilson then sets out his opinions concerning the Treaty while simultaneously disparaging viewpoints which do not concur with his own.

In support of his case for the Māori version of the Treaty, Wilson argues that: “In 1840, there were about 80,000 Māori in this country and 2000 Pākehā.” I could as easily, and just as fatuously, argue that the British Crown at that time represented, for Treaty purposes, all the millions of British citizens then living in the UK. Wilson argues “partnership” when it suits him.

In advancing his case, Wilson quotes emails received by the Herald from what are obviously white supremacists advancing unacceptable racist viewpoints. But I could just as easily respond by quoting outrageous, divisive things said in recent times by the leaders of what, by definition, is a racist political party, Te Pāti Māori. Wilson, though, is silent on such matters.

On the basis of Wilson’s unbalanced Saturday contribution, I fear that the answer to his question is: “No, we are not.”

William Gardiner, Cable Bay.

Blackout risk

I welcome Vector CEO Simon Mackenzie’s call for an inquiry into the electricity industry. Right now, we are at risk of major blackouts if it doesn’t rain soon and the recent high wholesale prices will lead to a significant increase in domestic energy prices.

Thirty years ago, the group responsible for determining the future of the system chose a risky market that had no one directly responsible for providing an economical and reliable supply. If the group had adopted the less risky option, we would still be paying for hydro generation at cost, we would not have spent $1 billion on a 400kV line and billions of dollars on the 220kV cable across the harbour bridge.

So why has it gone so badly wrong? The blind assumption that “electricity is a commodity like any other” is probably the main reason. Another reason is that, as two departing CEOs said, the way to make money in this market is to keep the system at the edge of a shortage. This makes shortages and very high prices in dry years almost inevitable.

We urgently need a comprehensive review led by people who understand power systems.

Bryan Leyland, Pt Chevalier.

Defining abuse

The media has been full of the Abuse in Care report. Fair enough, but nowhere has abuse been defined for the purposes of the report. What criteria has been used? Today’s definitions, or what applied in past decades? I am particularly referring to corporal punishment, which was legal and normal for some 50 years of the period covered.

In the past, we had a very disciplined society, which resulted in little of the serious crime we have seen in the last 20 years. So, as I observed above, many aspects of the report are obviously fair enough, but the society we live in today falls well short of past measures in areas such as education and crime.

Bill Capamagian, Tauranga.