So TV3 is experiencing financial woes — a risk for any commercial business. Employees of such a business must be aware of the possibility of sale, redundancy, restructuring or any other reconfiguration.
Although I have great sympathy for TV3 workers, as I do for any worker in such a situation, there are obvious reasons why TV3 is facing this problem.
First, they are using the corporate model, which has proven to be a global failure with senior management and the chosen few wallowing in excess while living off the backs of the workers.
Second, the number of TV3 personnel sent to cover various events is well over the top, with 13 TV3 people in Japan. I wonder what necessary function [Mike] McRoberts and [Patrick] Gower provide.
Third, the opinions, thoughts and ideas of people such as [Duncan] Garner and [Mark] Richardson, are presented as if more important than those of the interviewees. Garner et al consider themselves to be journalists; they are not. They cannot even justify the title of reporters, because the job of the reporter is to pass on facts and information.
Furthermore, their habit of waiting until the interviewees have left the building, therefore knowing they have the last word, before making immature, spiteful and back-stabbing comments, is cowardly and unacceptable to any thinking person.
Finally, the attitude of the front-of-camera TV3ers is pathetic — why should the Government bail out a sinking-ship TV3, a commercial enterprise? These people need to grow up and live in the real world.
Potonga is looking forward to the day when the real history of New Zealand is being taught in schools.
It will be wonderful, if only we're allowed to know about all the people who were here before the Māori.
Deb Frederikse (Chronicle, October 25) bemoans the lack of Maori elected to the Wanganui DHB and Wanganui District Council. Opinions of this nature are not uncommon and generally attribute the cause to — to use the current "in" word — colonisation.
These opinions are not helpful, as they avoid mentioning, as Deb also does, two incontrovertible facts:
1. Maori have the same right, ability and opportunity as every other eligible voter in New Zealand to put themselves forward for appointment to the many central and local government boards, councils such as those Deb mentioned. In fact, in some instances, Maori have more rights and opportunity to do so than any other eligible voters because, in these instances, only Maori may do so.
2. Maori have the same right, ability, and opportunity as every other eligible voter in New Zealand to vote in favour of the appointment of any Maori or non-Maori mentioned in 1 above who seek election to these boards, councils etc. In fact, in some instances, Maori have more rights and opportunity to do so than any other eligible voters in New Zealand. because in these instances, only Maori may vote.
So why do Deb and the Chronicle use phrases such as "diversity deficit" and "perpetuating the imbalance?"
The glaringly simple answer is the same, be it Maori or non-Maori who stand for office or those who may vote for them.
If the quality of candidate standing is not perceived as adequate and suitable for the appointment, voters either do not vote for them or do not vote at all.
The solution is also glaringly simple: Maori need to field suitable candidates for office, and Maori need to vote for them.
There is no need for race-based positions nor race-based appointments.
Those who promote such positions and appointments are not viewed with favour by voters, as a New Plymouth mayor found out.
V. W. BALLANCE
•Send your letters to: Letters, Whanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Whanganui 4500 or email email@example.com