Letters to Editor: polytechs, learning spaces, right to vote
The government's announcement that it will abolish the long established right of special votes by people who enrol after the voting period has started is cause for concern.
About 150,000 special votes were cast in the last general election and they strongly favoured left-wing parties.
The coalition government should not be allowed to stack the electoral deck in this fashion as it is a serious assault on the democratic process.
Bill Southworth
Port Chalmers Something borrowed
Golly, National is taking on Ingrid Leary's retirement village proposals as theirs.
The ideas cupboard in the National camp must be almost bare.
Maybe it's true then, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Robyn Bridges
Roseneath Learning spaces
Well said Bridget Davidson (principal of Otago Girls' High School) ''open-plan or not - the quality of teaching and learning remains if the school culture and relationships are rich and strong, and the thirst for learning and knowledge is there'' (ODT 22.7.25).
Learning spaces vary from single-cell classrooms, open-plan/flexible, outdoors (on and off a school's campus), and spaces designed to support specialist subject learning (such as science laboratories, technology workshops, music studios, gymnasiums and all-weather turf).
Each learning space has its purpose and contributes to broad and deep learning.
Evidence affirms that positive school culture and relationships, along with effective teachers are the most influential factors that promote learning across learning (subject) areas.
So much rich learning would be utterly constrained if we think single-cell classrooms are the magic bullet for student learning and achievement.
Margie Campbell-Price
Dunedin Crossing swords and turning around opinions
Since crossing swords with Jean Balchin several years ago I have come to enjoy reading her column. I have re-visited the archive, however, and her memory (Opinion ODT 14.7.25) has played a scurvy trick - she did more than question Captain Cook's ''sainthood'', holding him largely responsible for all the ills of colonisation.
And I certainly said if that was the best she could do I'd have failed her first-year history at Otago. I did not hazard a guess as to her likely fate at Oxford though I'd have undoubtedly sought her out for further tuition. Curious and even opinionated students are the lifeblood of universities.
However, all that aside, I mainly want to reassure her, as a member of the distinguished club of School Certificate failures, that I have never considered falling at one of the hurdles along the way has much significance ... And may I add that I am delighted to know that Ms Balchin is planning to work on Truby King and the Plunket Society. I hope Ms Balchin will keep up her column while she works away on Sir Truby and Plunket.
Erik Olssen
Dunedin The Gaza blues
Re the response to my own letter re the council writing a letter to a political party offering support.
If Heinke Matheson had read my letter closely she would have seen that at no time did I actually mention any war by name. Nor was I addressing any personal feelings on any war, nor did I mention a political party.
I was addressing the issue of Dunedin city councillors using their democratically elected positions to support a political party response. Councillors are not elected on the basis of party affiliation or the actions of a political party unless it affects the citizens of Dunedin.
Council represents the citizens of Dunedin who voted for them to devote themselves to the running of our city regardless of their personal political and religious views. Discussing a world event is out of council business.
Asking councillors to publicly vote on an issue of political, religious and moral grounds in any situation is putting peer pressure on a councillor. Any such vote should be done in a private and anonymous way.
Lynne NewellDunedin
[Abridged - Editor.] Winston fooled
Winston Peters' statement to Israel (ODT 23.7.25) is misplaced and misinformed: he and foreign affairs ministers from 27 other countries have fallen for the ruse.
The demand for an immediate unconditional permanent ceasefire and a return to the previous compromised UN and humanitarian aid, is naive.
Israeli conditions for a ceasefire are reasonable: free the hostages and remove the perpetrators. It's not, and never has been, Israeli aggression that is the issue.
It's not Israel taking and holding hostages, it's not Israel intentionally shooting civilians gathering for food, it's not Israel selling the aid, after taking it from civilians. Israel does not use civilians as shields. Israel did not build tunnels and purchase arms, using financial aid given to house, feed and educate civilians.
Unfortunately 28 countries are now on the wrong side of history.
Tony VinkAndersons Bay
[Abridged - Editor.]
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
16 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt forges ahead with foreshore and seabed change
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. Today Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless, and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024 will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek to recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that, saying the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
Otago Daily Times
16 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt going ahead with foreshore and seabed change
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. Today Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless, and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024 will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek to recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that, saying the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Aaron Smale: Why politicians don't take the Māori vote seriously
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Christopher Luxon's indifference reflects the larger issue of the major parties ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. Photo / Getty Images Whoever the press secretary is for Christopher Luxon these days, they might want to have a weekend bootcamp teaching him how to keep his foot out of his mouth. Apart from when he uses corporate gibberish to masquarade as an answer, on the rare occasion Luxon says something pithy, it often turns out to be an absolute clanger. Luxon tossed off one such clanger when he questioned whether the September 6 by-election for the Māori electorate seat of Tāmaki Makaurau would be a real fight or 'a pillow fight'. (Kind of ironic given the real pillow fight is in the Epsom seat, which National hands to Act every three years.) A by-election will be held in Tāmaki Makaurau because the person who held the seat, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, recently died. And she held the seat because the voters of that electorate put her there, unlike some party list mediocrity like, well, take your pick. Luxon's comment was flippant at best and disrespectful to both the late MP and her constituents. So, no, it's not a pillow fight, it's a vote in the largest Polynesian city in the world. But Luxon's indifference to Māori voters in the coming by-election reflects the larger issue of the major parties mostly ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. One of the underlying reasons for this was first pointed out to me by my sixth form history teacher at Edgecumbe College, Gerry Rowlands, an American originally from Florida, a southern state with all the history that entails. Mr Rowlands posed a hypothetical idea that Māori would be better off all going on the general roll and getting rid of the Māori seats altogether. His rationale was that the electorate we were in was often held by National because of the high number of Pākehā farmers. But if Māori all went on the general roll, then National – and Labour, for that matter – would actually have to compete for the Māori vote to win. The then-named Eastern Māori seat went from the Bay of Plenty all the way around the East Coast and down to Wairarapa and Wellington. This area has one of the highest Māori populations in the country and the election campaigns in the general electorate seats would look completely different if all Māori went on the general roll. Mr Rowlands didn't say this but I don't think he'd disagree – the Māori seats are acting as a passive version of what Americans call gerrymandering. That is, Māori are being electorally contained – or at least split – and thereby robbed of their actual voting power by the Māori seats. The Māori vote has been ghettoised; every Māori who goes on the Māori roll is a Māori the candidates and the elected MPs in the general seats can ignore. And they do. Back to Auckland and the present day. One of Luxon's long catalogue of gaffes since taking up National's leadership was encouraging women to have babies to boost the flagging population. He quickly backtracked. Women have fought long and hard to have control over their fertility and some male politician telling them to start banging out babies for the national cause wasn't landing well. But what Luxon dimly recognised was that Pākehā numbers are in the early stages of decline, and this decline will only accelerate as the 34% of the Pākehā population that is over the age of 55 falls off the perch at an increasing rate. Luxon doesn't seem to recognise, even dimly, that Māori and Polynesian populations are rising steadily. Listen to Luxon's political messaging and it's as if Māori don't exist in his calculations. Labour's Chris Hipkins isn't any better, and in some respects he's worse. When Māori became a political target, he, like Helen Clark before him, dropped them like a hot hāngī rock so he could appear non-threatening to old, white people. The coalition government has had a free run in its attack on Māori because Hipkins does little to stand up for them, or articulate in any coherent way why what's good for Māori is good for everyone. He'd rather let Te Pāti Māori take the flak. Te Pāti Māori has become a convenient – and, it must be said, easy – political target. But those who bear the brunt of the political attack are actually their voters. Their interests get drowned out in all the posturing from across the political spectrum. The merits of the Tāmaki Makaurau candidates – Peeni Henare for Labour, Oriini Kaipara for Te Pāti Māori and Hannah Tamaki for Vision New Zealand – are open to serious question. But National, NZ First, Act, and even the Greens, have disqualified themselves from any part in the conversation, because they haven't bothered to put up candidates. Māori are at the pointy end of issues that concern everyone, particularly those of a younger generation: the cost of housing, the cost of living, the environment and the future of employment. The economic and social direction of South Auckland and other regions of the country with high Māori populations is the direction of the country as a whole. It's a bare-knuckle fight for the future of the nation. Mr Luxon is just too scared to even get in the ring.
