Treaty is a partnership
Bryan Johnson is wrong (Letters, February 7) when he says there is no partnership between the Government and Maori.
The Treaty is a legal partnership agreement, as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and court judgments that followed.
Parliament makes the law, and it decided the Treaty is a partnership.
It is an agreement between two parties. The wording in the Treaty is irrelevant.
Tauranga ratepayers, who support Trustpower, are being asked to forgo their yearly $500 TECT cheque in order to increase community and charitable distributions.
Only ratepayers who are customers of Trustpower are going to contribute to those increased distributions, by suffering a $500 drop in their household income, while ratepayers who buy their power elsewhere will not contribute and their household income will not change.
TECT also contributes to city council projects, which should be financed equally by all Tauranga City ratepayers.
If the TECT proposal proceeds, this history-based inequality will be even more pronounced due to the total disenfranchisement of Trustpower customers.
Other ratepayers will enjoy only a marginal city council rates increase (courtesy of TECT), which Trustpower supporters will also pay, on top of the $500 drop in their yearly household income.
Over the remaining 55 years, your TECT cheques will equal approximately $27,500, and TECT propose to furtively buy that entitlement for $4300.
TECT will only flourish for as long as local people support Trustpower.
If they lose their TECT cheque and abandon Trustpower, TECT will have less revenue, not more, and community and charitable distributions will decline, not increase.
On February 3 around 8am I was driving on Devonport Rd towards 11th Ave roundabout.
I stopped at the roundabout waiting for cars entering from my right.
As one vehicle moved forward a cyclist travelling straight through the intersection - having, I assume, come down the Devonport Rd hill - moved through the roundabout at speed higher than I have seen any vehicle negotiate this intersection.
I did not see the cyclist approaching and I suspect the driver of the vehicle did not either.
There was less than one arm's length from the death or serious injury of the cyclist. I thought 'Where the hell did he come from?' as the cyclist appeared and passed.
Mr Cyclist, it is clear that had a collision occurred the driver of that vehicle would have carried the can for not giving way to his right and suffered trauma for the rest of his life while you lay either dead or seriously injured because of your negligence and stupidity.
To approach a give way at speed and proceeding through an intersection or roundabout at speed is ludicrous.
We motorists are forever being reminded to "Watch out for cyclists" but as a cyclist you also need to be aware of motorists. The same road rules apply to every road user. See and be seen, should be first consideration.
The city streets are not a race track, training course or velodrome.