Index | Top Stories | General News | Sports | Court News | Environment | Letters | Features | Archive | Subscribe | About Us

Letters to the Editor

Week ending Wednesday, January 27, 2009

Send us a Letter to the Editor

We will not publish any material which we consider to be defamatory

Wealthy men, big business back PM?
What’s the difference?
Revamp energy division
Let the 5 rule till the election
Election year jitters, and now they’re tainted
People are the highest authority
Suggestions
Lord of the Flies back again
Tepuka road the same as in 1999
Mou Piri is nonpolitical
Beware of seabed opportunism
Give the figures
It’s treason!
Direct election of PM is dumb
Reduce MPs to 15
Political paranoia
It’s taken 4 years to ‘embrace the future’
Time for a third party?
What if it’s wrong?
Reform changes more like ‘communism’
Lazy litterbugs spoil it
Don’t fear change – it’s good for us
Tata the ‘new messiah’
He’s not the only expert
Speed limit changes draw criticism
Reform the electoral rules first
Do the right thing, like Sir Tom
Most want to reduce seats

Dear Editor,

I have been following the current political saga for the past three weeks. I can only say that I am offended at the casual indifference at how our constitution is disregarded by the public and certain NGOs.

Parliament of the Cook Islands is the highest authority of the country. We all elect our MPs. The majority of the MPs elect our prime minister. The fact that the current prime minister casually admits he does not have the support of a majority therefore he will not call for parliament because in all likelihood he will lose his position as PM is a disgrace.

I was astounded when the prime minister called for the police to surround the prime minster’s office because of a threat of protests against his untenable position. I can only thank God that we do not have an army (like Fiji) at the disposal of a PM and his cronies intent on holding on to power. They certainly had no qualms in calling for the police to surround the streets to protect their interests. We may laugh at it now, but is this sign of things to come when we concentrate authority in the hands of one person?

Our constitution ensures that the right of the people to be represented is protected and that the country is governed by the majority. This is a fundamental right that some people forget was gained through blood and loss of life. Today, in the world, there are countries still fighting and killing for the right to elect a representative government.

That the PM and his mates will do anything to prevent the people and their representatives from having a rightful say as to who should govern is an affront to those that fought for our right to vote. The public apathy at the deliberate trampling of our constitutional rights just leaves me in dismay.

The prime minister and his cronies have surrounded themselves with the likes of Tata Crocombe, Iaveta Short and Mike Mitchell – all wealthy men. Are these your advisors prime minister? Do they represent the voice of the outer islands and the ordinary person?

What I have also been amazed at is the deafening silence from the likes of the Chamber of Commerce and the Cook Islands Law Society. There has been no comment at all on the prime minister’s admission that he does not have the democratic right to govern the country. Is this silence an admission of support for the government of five MPs and an opposition of 19 MPs?

I guess that this situation suits big business and their high charging attorneys. It must be much easier to bankroll one PM and a small cabinet.

I can just imagine the advice being given to simple, honest Jim and his gullible cabinet – just make sure the people have running water and good roads and let us worry about big business and the finances.

May I suggest that one way to force the issue of an unconstitutional cabinet would be for all 19 opposition MPs to tender their letters of resignation to the QR postdated for 48 hours.

This should send a clear message to the QR that he is supporting an abnormal government and allow him 48 hours to decide whether to call parliament due to “exceptional” circumstances.

Or he could just sit back and accept 19 by-elections that would throw the country into turmoil and disarray.

Uphold our democratic principles or uphold the government of Jim and his buddies. The only catch is that this action would require some balls on the part of the 19 MPs. Individually that may be difficult but collectively a small cluster may be achievable.

Guy Fawkes

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

We had a conversation on Sunday that I suspect is common wherever Cook Islanders meet this month.

One of us asked, “What is the difference between the CIPs and the Demos?”

Of course, one difference is that five Demos are running the government, but that aside, why should anyone vote for one or the other party?

Before nine CIPs recently joined in unanimous support of the former-DPM Sir Terepai, it was possible to assume that the CIPs were against big spending and horrified by the proposed purchase of Toa Oil. No more.

If the doomed petition to the QR had miraculously been accepted and the ruling five voted out, then Sir Terepai would have become PM and, no doubt, leader of the opposition Tom Marsters would be the deputy PM.

Fortunately that coup got nowhere, but it does make us wonder where it puts the CIPs in June as they ramp up for September elections.

Will they assume that voters will forget CIPs supported the Demos in January? Maybe.

Of course, both parties will issue the usual manifestoes promising better health, education, roads and a guarantee that, if elected, Cook Islanders will return from overseas in droves.

They should save their money because few ever believed manifestoes in the past, and, after the recent fiasco, no one will believe them this year.

Another in our group agreed with this assessment, but asked what the rest of us would do if we were disgraced CIPs. We heard answers like, ‘change the name of the party’, ‘get out of politics’ and ‘everyone should become Demos for real’. The last suggestion is interesting.

Those in favour of reform should take note because if all the MPs were under one banner, we would have in effect a true no-party system instead of pretending otherwise.

No difference

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

I would like to add some comments to your recent articles about the recent works undertaken by the new National Energy Committee (NEC).

Firstly, I do appreciate the work done by this committee to date with the recent release of their policy. I also welcomed Te Aponga Uira’s policy on ‘Net-Metering’.

In my opinion, the NEC should also look at revamping the existing energy division as one initiative. I don’t know whether there was any thought or talk about it. History will tell us what the existing energy division has done in the last 20 years.

For the Cook Islands to move forward with renewable energy (RE) in particular, we need to look at our existing energy division. This division is being manned by the same personnel for the last 15-20 years or so.

We are now in 2010 and there is no single RE project from back then that is still working in the Cook Islands now. I can only recall TCI’s solar systems for their telecommunication equipment that are still running in the outer islands which probably did not involve our existing energy team.

Our history on RE projects included the Rakahanga wind/battery/diesel hybrid system, Mangaia wind/diesel hybrid system, Rarotonga proposed wind farm and there may be others which I don’t know.

We have only done these very few projects in the last 20 years and they all failed for various reasons. What does that tell us? To me, other than funding, this is a clear indication that those in this office possibly do not have the experience, knowledge, skills and competencies in this field.

A good start for the Cook Islands in RE other than the NEC being formed is to revamp the current energy division.

Firstly, separate the inspectorate section from the energy division and place current energy director in that division since his experience and knowledge matches its requirements. Secondly, employ a new energy director that has got the experience, qualified, innovative with good leadership and management skills. There may be a few locals around who can take this role.

Leave the other two existing energy personnel in the office as supportive staff.

Employ other technical personnel only if necessary.

Lastly, in my opinion locate this new energy and inspectorate divisions under the Ministry of Infrastructure and Planning, where it should be, not the Ministry of Transport.

With an effective energy division, the NEC will not have to do much but set the policies, roadmap, make critical decisions and then monitor our progress. This is a role similar to those taken by existing project steering committees.

It will be the new energy division’s responsibilities to get us there and to achieve these objectives. We cannot rely on the existing team as they have shown during the last 20 years as they are not up to it. The energy division needs a change and it must be done now otherwise we will never move forward in this energy field.

Time for Change

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

I think it is a fairer playing field if the current five cabinet ministers run the country now and during the election because they would not have a political party to join by then.

By that conception the Demos and the CIPs cannot blame each other for being in government and abusing government funds and resources to win the election.

If the five ministers wish to contest the election then they are each on their own and with no party to rely on. They paddle their own canoes, so the playing field is open and fair for all.

I know one person that has an automatic ticket back into being a member of parliament no matter whether he joins the current political parties or not and that is the PM Jim Marurai. In fact, the rest of that team looks set to be returned as MPs for their constituencies.

I also would like to see people like Teina, Tom, Pai and the three recently resigned ministers, Aunty Mau, Kete and Vavia, resign now to show the public that they walk the talk because they are all collecting one way or the other their perks.

The three resigned ministers are on three months’ full ministerial pay, Tom and Teina collect their Leader and Deputy Leader allowances, and Sir Terepai gets nothing because he is sacked. Teina, you make the most noise, so take the lead.

Lastly, may I ask, why is Dr Maoate given a car? Dr Maoate is just an ordinary member of parliament, so he is not entitled to any transport or privileges. In fact, I am contemplating of writing a complaint to audit to investigate both Dr Maoate and whoever gave him that car.

A word of advice to the Demos: if Dr Maoate needs a car and perks then fight for the Opposition Office because you have more opposition members than the CIP. Or Maoate and Co should call another meeting with the CIP caucus and formalise a joint Opposition Team, then vote for the leader. I am sure Dr Maoate will win by three votes.

Enough is enough

( Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

I am happy with the Public Service Commissioner’s explanation, (CINews, Saturday January 16) that his visit to the Prime Minster on Sunday December 20, 2009, was not to add pressure to Prime Minister Marurai, to sack Sir Terepai Maoate KBE.

In an earlier letter to your paper, I stated that the Prime Minister had informed me and another colleague that a very senior public service commission staff was one of those who ‘pressured’ him.

Others the prime minister stated had ‘pressured’ him, were current finance  minister Wilkie Rasmussen (then a sacked minister), some executive members of the Chamber of Commerce and some very senior members of the legal fraternity in government and the private sector. He named most of them.

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the prime minister’s statement and that of the public service commissioner. I am satisfied that both have told their versions of their truth.

I feel however for the integrity, mana and tapu of the office these gentlemen within government and the private sector hold.

They are now tainted, compromised, sullied and desecrated. The prime minister has implicated their office, in his self defence to justify and redeem his own actions. Election year jitters?

Certainly.

On another point, the Toogood QC report was tabled in cabinet as an information paper on December 21, 2009. But it was removed from the agenda on the day, by the secretary to cabinet on instructions from the PM himself. I do not know the PM’s reasons for removing the report from the agenda.

Consequently, the Toogood QC report was kept away from him by his new cabinet. Five weeks later, this week, the PM is provided a copy by his new minister of finance.

Even more interesting, is word of  a certain minister’s lunch meetings with key caucus and executive members of the CIP, to strike a new gentleman’s deal when parliament meets.

The new deal will see CIP Tom masters as prime minister, Teina Bishop as finance minister, Wilkie as deputy prime minister.

The rest of the current cabinet gets a cabinet post.

Wigmore gets nothing.

Makiuti Tongia

Ruatonga

Dear Editor,

Your letter writer ‘Guy Fawkes’ can complain but the least he/she could do is to research the topic well before going public.

For example, he is wrong when he says that “Parliament of the Cook Islands is the highest authority of the country”. It is not. In fact, under the Westminster system of government, the parliament is largely a rubber stamp for government. Government decides when to call it.

Its business is decided by government and government decides and draws up all bills to be debated in parliament bar a very few minor exceptions.

The Queen is the highest authority of the state but again her powers are limited by the constitution. The highest authority of the country is the “people”. Without the people you do not have a country.

Secondly, he may not like the fact that I have been asked by the prime minister for advice. That is Guy Fawkes’ problem, not mine. I have been asked for advice by every prime minister of this country including Papa Arapati. I have always considered it an honour to be sought for advice and have always given my best advice freely, not that all my advice has been accepted or appreciated.

And I will continue to give advice when asked and treat the office of prime minister with the respect it deserves.

Lastly if Guy Fawkes thinks of me, Tata and Mike Mitchell as “wealthy men” that is a laugh because he is merely languishing at his/her own sense of poverty.

My advice to him is to be careful because with the kind of mistakes he has made, he is likely to blow himself up.

Iaveta Short

Dear Editor,

When my husband and I came to Cook Islands four years ago for our honeymoon I felt very safe. Perhaps like other counties, maybe your hotels should have a security boxes at reception with your own key, and employee security at your hotels.

These are only suggestions.

Tracey Roy

Australia

Dear Editor,

It’s me again, I’m starting to sound like a broken record. The flies are back. The sunset strip hotels in Arorangi are once again invaded by flies from the rubbish tip up behind Rarotonga Hospital.

Sadly, my in-house guests don’t believe my explanations and point fingers at our restaurant for poor hygiene, etc.

Can government please please please do something about this.

I’ve already had to refund two guest tables after hearing of their complaints about flies zapping around their plates of food. Can I send the unpaid guest invoices to government to pay for the hotel’s lost revenue? This is not funny.

It’s low season for tourism and our hotels need every dollar we can get to pay for the huge staff wages, the huge VAT bill, the huge power bill, the huge Telecom bill and so much more.

If nothing is done about the flies, we may be forced to close our restaurants for fear of not being able to charge guests for an unacceptable dining environment.

I predict this issue to be sorted in four day’s time, then you will read another letter to the editor from me in about four month’s time requesting similar assistance. Broken record big time.

If government can’t manage the tip behind the hospital, please cover it up and move the tip closer to downtown Avarua so that the powers that be see the results of their inaction. This is now just plain ridiculous.

I was going to sign this Lord of the Flies, but I am

Rohan Ellis

Group General Manager

Manuia Beach Boutique Hotel, Castaway Beach Villas, Lagoon Lodges

Arorangi

Dear Editor,

I fully support the writer of ‘Open letter to the new minister’ dated January 18 regarding the state of Tepuka’s road.

I was very saddened when I turned into Tepuka on the morning of Tuesday December 1 after just arriving from Auckland to see that the road situation had not improved a bit since I left Tepuka in 1999. Yes, ten years is a very long time.

I hope the new Minister of Works or Whatever can improve the roads of Tepuka. I hope there won’t be a rush job come August or September because when the rain falls it be Tepuka ‘varivari’ again.

Mathew Pau Tauia

Auckland NZ

Dear Editor,

Mou Piri would like to clarify the position of our group. First we repeat we are nonpolitical. We especially did not form to support the aims of the Economic Task Force.

We are a group of citizens concerned with our elected politicians continually refusing to act on what was clearly the people’s wishes for political reform, improved governance, reduced party influence and increase transparency.

The 1998 Commission of Review clearly states the wishes of Cook Islanders. It did not request enactment of all suggestions immediately, but a proposed gradual change to an improved system.

Mou Piri does not believe to have all the answers for political reform.

The 1998 Commission of Review is a way to begin the process.

Mou Piri does not know what proposals Messrs Short and Crocombe have put to cabinet.

We do know that when proposals to limit political tyranny have been raised in the past, both parties and politicians have been unanimous in their decision to ignore them.

We also clearly remember in the last two elections where both parties used the promise of political reform and promised to make changes as soon as elected – nothing that didn’t support their personal agendas has been done.

The PM is approaching the other 19 MPs to support reform. We wish him luck but expect a drawn out debate and we the citizens wait on the sidelines yet again.

We urge you to sign our petition to show our MPs that only by supporting reform can they be assured of your support in the next election.

Are the MPs prepared at last to decide to listen to the people who elected them or simply remain out of date and out of time?

Mou Piri

Dear Editor,

It is a real worry to all of us that are thinking clearly that one of the criteria for the job of commissioner to the Seabed Mining Authority requires the person to have held “elected office”. That can only mean one thing – a former MP.

The Kata cartoon of former MPs Sir Geoff Henry, Dr Robert Wigmore and Tepure Tapaitau lining up for interviews for the post of commissioner spoke volumes. Kata got it.

But the rest of the media hasn’t and the media should be taking the new minister to task over this because there is something very underhanded going on here.

Surely there must be discrimination and legal issues about specifying that the commissioner must have held elected office. We are all now believing that someone has already been lined up for the job.

Can minister Wigmore also publicly deny that convicted tax-evader Richard Barton has not been advising him about seabed mining?

Can minister Wigmore please confirm if he is conferring on seabed issues with Barton, an opportunist who for ages has been promoting the interests of a Canadian company wishing to exploit our seabed resource?

The people of this country demand that the right thing be done with regards to the seabed resource that belongs to all Cook Islanders.

Get the right person for the job and start that by admitting that there is no Cook Islander right now who is qualified to process, examine and decide on any type of licence covering our seabed resource – whether it be exploratory, exploitative...whatever.

There is no one qualified to head such a ministry here and for the minister to think that the job is no more difficult than policing tuna vessels, then he needs to stop accepting that kind of misguided advice and wake up.

He says it doesn’t need some “expensive international person” to sit full-time in Rarotonga policing exploration licences ... etc.

The minister must realise that if he hires a local person with no experience or qualifications, then that is indeed what will happen. The person will be sitting full-time in Rarotonga twiddling his or her thumbs. If you get an expert, that person will be networking internationally with the right people and companies to promote the potential that the Cook Islands resource has.

The minister is called upon to disregard the self-serving advice he is being given by opportunists who want only to reap benefit from our resource for themselves. The minister is called upon to do the right honest thing for the people of our country.

J Emere

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

Over the past few months there has been much public debate and political controversy surrounding the Toagate scandal. And rightly so.

However, seeing that the country’s national financial situation is looking very grim, the finger of blame should not just point at those who pushed for the nationalisation of the country’s fuel.

Some of the blame should also be pointed in the direction of those who were instrumental in convincing government that our country could afford to host the Pacific Mini Games.

After all, the estimated tens of millions of dollars spent to finance the cost of these games came direct from treasury’s coffers.

So how much did the mini games cost for our country to host?  The taxpaying public has every right to know these details. They also have a right to know how each and every dollar was spent and who got what. This information will allow the public to better judge whether our hosting these games was really worth it.

That way, those politicians who have played some role in bringing the country to the brink of financial ruin can be held to account by voters at the upcoming general elections later in the year.

Disgruntled tax paying voter

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

Despite all the advice from our constitutional lawyers, it still doesn’t take away the fact that what Marurai and his cronies have done in wrestling power from a democratically-elected government, is to commit a constitutional crisis and treason against Her Majesty the Queen’s government.

The office of the Queen’s Representative has also been poorly advised and has allowed an illegal government to govern when they don’t have the constitutional right as a government to govern even with the constitutional requirements of a legitimate cabinet.

Cabinet alone is not the definition of a Westminster government and of a majority government.

What we have is a minority five against the majority 19 and governing as an illegitimate and illegal government. This must not be allowed to go on for another day. They don’t have the right to do so constitutionally and every moment they are allowed to govern is allowing them to commit treason. That’s imprisonment for every one of them.

So I call on the Queen’s Representative to do the right thing. Cancel this illegal government’s reign and call an election, or appoint a new prime minister or call a new parliament. Whatever. But do something.

You should not allow this illegal government to govern and commit treason against the Queen one more day  – not on your watch anyway.

There is probably no precedent like this in the whole history of the commonwealth. Check it out.

Kia  kakara te basileia Kuki Airani

Makiuti Tongia

President Democratic Party

Dear Editor,

Like a great majority of the people of this country, I believe that some political reform is long overdue and good for the country.

I suppose any changes to old structures and processes and how people do things so as to better reflect the rapidly changing times is healthy.

However, I strongly oppose a lot of the drastic, radical changes that political reformists Iaveta Short and Tata Crocombe are proposing on the political reform agenda. Some of these proposals are really mind boggling and I hope that our politicians think very carefully before giving any of the radical proposals the green light.

In any case what guarantees do we have that sweeping political reforms will benefit the country? The simple answer is that we do not have any guarantees.

Yes, there is no argument that diminshing the size of parliament or number of MPs from 24 to 19 will probably save the country a half a million dollars. There are obvious financial merits in downsizing parliament so I can support that specific recommendation.

However, the recommendation to have our PM elected by all the voters in the country is downright dumb so for me this proposal would go straight into the waste bin. Seems like this recommendation is specifically designed for wannabe politicians who know that they don’t have a chance of winning any ordinary constituent seat.

Toketoke enua

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

The political reform proposal is headed in a positive direction but still fails to address the need to reduce the number of MPs which most people want.

We had a population of 24,000 with 24 MPs, now (due in a large part to their mismanagement), we have a population of 14,000. We simply don’t need more than 15 to do the job.

We most definitely need a high percentage of them to be national seats for all of the given reasons. Therefore I repeat my earlier suggestion for an equitable format Rarotonga – Tupapa-Maraerenga-Takuvaine-Tutakimoa 1672 voters, Avatiu-Ruatonga-Palmerston-Nikao-Panama 1622 voters, Ruaau-Akaoa-Murienua 1672 voters, Titikaveka-Ngatangiia-Matavera 1883 voters. Aitutaki 1315 voters. Southern group  1064 voters. Northern group 688 voters. Seven constitutional seats in all plus 8 national seats total 15.

Note that it costs every voter over $250 a year for their MP now not counting cabinet and overseas travel costs. Reducing MPs to 15 would save about $1 million a year. Wouldn’t you rather have that spent on health or education?

Grandfather of 15

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

I loved Kata’s cartoon Saturday of the public pulling a stubborn donkey-like parliament towards reform. It makes me wonder why politicians fear reform.

One obvious reason is because several outer islanders fear losing their seats because several constituencies will be combined into one under any rational plan. It takes a true patriot to vote himself out of an easy $50,000 –$80,000pa plus travel and mana.

We can understand that, but what about the all those MPs who have been in for years and still balk at reform?

Maybe it’s because what we voters view as a ‘secure seat’ seems insecure even to old timers. In fact, the Oxford dictionary defines paranoia as ‘delusions of persecution combined with self-importance’.

By this definition, all politicians must fear losing the next election. Political paranoia, it would seem, begins the day after election when the newly-anointed have begun basking in their importance. Fear of personal loss is fear of reform.

Presently, we are blessed with a cabinet of five that has accepted the reform baton from a young reformist and are running hard with it.

The list of recommendations under consideration in last Friday’s CINews represents an astounding show of political courage for a three-week-old government. But, that’s only five ministers in favour.

Where do the other 19 MPs stand and how will they vote once 12 bold changes to the constitution are strongly backed by a referendum? It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict the outcome.

Of the 19, nine are Opposition and 10 are Toagate-Demos. Unless the CIPs admit to their strategic blunder in supporting the Toagate-Demos and rally behind the ‘treasonous’ five, they are doomed to be anti-reformists going into September elections.

However, CIPs won’t back off and apologise and, of course, neither will the Toagate-Demos. Instead, both will spend the next eight months like truculent children deprived of their lollies and saying no to everything, even their supper. Equally likely is that five ministers will pursue reform with vigour because, if nothing else, it differentiates them from the wolves outside the door.

I made two suggestions above as to why politicians tend to be anti-reform, yet the main reason this year seems to have little to do with the reform issue and everything to do with truculence.

Think what a break that can be for a dozen independent candidates who four years ago would not have had a hope.

If the 19 cannot swallow their pride and advocate reform, they may be felled by those who do.The year 2010 could well be the Year of the Independents.

Reformist

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

It’s about time Jim Marurai was actually leading the country. Good on you Mr Prime Minister, it should have happened a long time ago.

Welcome into the new year also is Smiley Heather, Apii Piho, Wilkie Rasmussen and the new deputy prime minister Robert Wigmore.

We can see all the changes in only a few weeks. How long have the people of Arorangi been crying to the government about the water problems as well as the swarming flies at the Rarotonga landfill. Now we have the right people for the job, people will receive answers. The past leaders only cared about the fatness of their wallets.

The ministry of health has now got the thumbs up and welcome Tupou Faireka for coming on board.

Now we have professionals in our health care service.

Can I mention that health services boss Heather Webber Aitu be called upon this year as a Queen’s Birthday recipient of a KBE because she surely does deserve it for saving millions of dollars on health referrals to New Zealand as of right now and because of her we have a CT screening machine, first ever in the Cook Islands. We may now see a lot of high school students vying for a university degree in medicine and health services training.

In the agriculture industry it is a bonus to have our DPM as minister as he knows everything behind the field and to revive the industry in the outer islands is just awesome. We can now save money on buying veggies and fruit from overseas which is very expensive.

This is the best government I have ever seen as they are loyal to their party and our people and their personal backgrounds are very beneficial for the people of the Cook Islands business wise.

To the rest of parliament’s MPs, don’t gang up on this new cabinet. Why not just support them as they are moving the country forward. If we have a snap election, then we will go backwards again and people will be moaning because nothing is being done and by experience people who vote our leaders into parliament will be ignored when asking questions about the running of our country.

By reading Saturday’s weekend paper I believe that this strong government is moving the country ahead and now I have no complaints about the Demo slogan EMBRACE THE FUTURE even though it has taken four years to achieve.

Finally please to everyone in the Cook Islands, let this government run our country into the September elections or else we will go backwards and the people will be left in the black hole again following refusals of a referendum of Sunday flights to Aitutaki which was not fair on the people because their leader agreed with the government of the day and it indeed formed the coalition between CIP and the Demos.

Stay faithful as this is our new year’s resolution for all to enjoy

Grant Young

Takitumu

Dear Editor,

You can already see from their first reactions the gang of 19 are going to squabble, whine and protest against any change to their personal status through political reform and certain elements are still only interested in overturning the present cabinet.

We can only wonder what they have to hide that pushes them to such extremes as wailing treason etc in the media.

The PM’s timetable, though rather short to really determine what the people want, doesn’t differ much from either the original September or a snap election.

Where it does differ is that the PM is actually trying to promote some change which is what most people want and secondly provide time for us to find out more of the facts surrounding Toagate and other questionable financial activities before going to the polls.

Perhaps, Mr Prime Minister, you should start recruiting reform-minded candidates for a third party and we could simply vote the turkeys out of existence.

There must be sufficient evidence for even the staunchest party members to question voting for the delegates that are thrust on them now.

We the people should demand that all presently elected MPs publicly and clearly state their personal position on reform preferably in writing by means of a questionnaire.

Still an Optimist

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

The comments by Iaveta Short in response to those of Guy Fawkes raises a couple of interesting points.

First he says that government is a higher authority than parliament. Fair enough if that is his view. But I wonder, as a lawyer, what interpretation Mr Short would place on Article 13(1) of the Constitution which clearly says: “There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers, comprising the Prime Minister....and not more than six other ministers which shall.....be collectively responsible to Parliament”.

Excuse me, but in my simple mind, if someone is responsible to me that means I am the boss. Isn’t that right? Using that same simple logic, shouldn’t that apply to government and parliament as well, Mr Short? That if government (cabinet) is responsible to parliament under the law, that means parliament must be the boss? I don’t see any confusion here at all.

Second, Mr Short makes mention of the fact that he has been asked for advice by many prime ministers.

Nothing wrong with that as he himself is a leader of this country with both knowledge and experience. But what if his advice is wrong? Who will correct and advise him then? Worse still, what if the PM relies and acts on his wrong advice?

I can’t help but wonder if this is why the PM refuses to call parliament to sit. Is this on your advice, Mr Short?

Side-Kick

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

National seats have been tried and they failed.

At the general elections in March 1965 there were 22 candidates for the newly formed Cook Islands Party (CIP) and 22 individuals to be nationally elected. The result was 15 seats to the CIP Party and 7 National seats. A by-election followed in July, to allow the Leader of the CIP Party to be elected and he became the first Premier of the Cook Islands.

The CIP presented an election manifesto, containing its planks, platform and policies, what the CIP shall accomplish if elected. The National candidates had no such manifesto, no plans, no policies.

At the 1968 elections, the Opposition National Sevens formed a party – the United Cook Islands Party (UCI). The result of that election was the same 15-7.

In 1972, Dr Thomas Davis returned to the Cook Islands, joined the UCI and changed its name to Democratic Party. He stood as leader and took one (1) seat from the CIP. The state of the Government was CIP 14, Democratic 8, Nationals nil.

We had in place the Westminster system of party politics. We were self governing in “free association” with New Zealand, retaining NZ citizenship and free entry to that country. Our Head of State was in “right of New Zealand”.

The exchange of letters between the then PM of NZ the late Hon. Norman Kirk and the Premier explained our relationship. A clause stated that for a country giving its citizenship to a country outside of its laws is “very special” and warned that when the Cook Islands makes its laws, it must be as such, these are acceptable to New Zealanders.

Now the proposed reform points: (i) PM elected nationally, (ii) PM to appoint cabinet from anywhere other than Members of Parliament (iii), reducing electorate members to be replaced by 5 nationally elected members.

Just these changes are outside the Westminster system, therefore against NZ laws. To this writer, if these were accepted, we are no longer passing NZ laws. The proposals are not Westminster, more like Communism.

It would be easy to assume that NZ will break our relationship, will take away our NZ citizenship, including our Head of State (in right of NZ) and when it’s known to the British authorities, we could be thrown out of the British Commonwealth.

It is very surprising to think that the two experts on the reform committee will make such recommendations, without realising the consequences.

So to accept what are being proposed is to allow us to be just a few DOTS on the Pacific map, hopelessly left to ROT.

Tupui Ariki Henry

Secretary Cook Islands Labour Party Branch

Manukau East

New Zealand

Dear Editor,

I am consistently amazed at the amount of rubbish thrown out on to the sides of the roads.

I do a little bit of walking and have been taking a shopping bag and picking up the rubbish as I go. It does not take very long at all to fill one bag up with both glass and plastic and other rubbish, including today a revolting filthy nappy.

The workers keep the edges mown and looking good and it is spoilt by people too lazy to keep their hands in their cars and take their own rubbish home.

This country relies heavily on tourists who actually pay a lot to get here, and also when they are here, and it is sad that they have to look at the rubbish on their trips around the lovely island when it is totally unnecessary.

Come on Cookies, do your bit, take responsibility for your actions and keep your rubbish to yourselves. Clean up your acts, please.

Unpaid Cleaner Upper

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

Tupui Ariki Henry, your letter to the editor made you sound like a scared little child. “If we make political changes like reform, mummy (NZ) and daddy (UK) might not like us.”

The fact is the NZ government members have stated many times that they don’t think our current political system is beneficial to our people as a whole – except of course the 24 MPs who benefit and are doing just fine.

The UK really does not give a damn about  Cook Islands politics, they have their own troubles and most Brits don’t even know where the Cook Islands is and the few that do, just want to enjoy our beautiful Islands.

When you talk about communism are you talking about the philosophy of communism as in Karl Marx or the reality of communism as in China and Russia, as they are quite different things.

Our current political system is as close to the reality of communism as you can get, that is – low living standard for most, poor wages, education, health, infrastructure, water, roads, etc, and only a hand full of people benefiting (our MPs and their in-crowd).

Now if that isn’t communism in reality what is?

The fact is that if we try a new political system designed for PMs to do their jobs, not spending their time inter dealing with each other for positions, looking after the small group who voted them in and travelling here, there and everywhere so they don’t have to see what a mess the place they are meant to look after is in.

If we manage to put a new system in place we have a chance and if this chance works we’re totally sure that the NZ government and the UK government will be proud we are associated with them.

But the best possible benefit is not the stamp of approval from Mummy (NZ) and Daddy (UK) –it’s the benefit to each of us and our children that is really important.

None of us really like change – the fact that our political system has not changed in 40 years is proof of that.

Be brave Mr Henry and all of us who fear the change – why not look forward with delight to the chance for better and brighter things for us all.

Political reform is the chance for improvement.

Let us embrace it with open arms, not push it away because we fear change.

Melinda and Andrew Ponga Ngatangiia

Dear Editor,

Why on earth is this government allowing businessman Tata Crocombe to dictate and dominate more and more on the future affairs of this country?

For some unknown reason it seems as if Tata is the country’s new mover and shaker. A man on a crusade. The person lurking behind the PM pulling all the strings. The so-called Mr Fix-it guy that our new cabinet seems to turn to for all sorts of economic, financial, political, tourism and whatever advice?

It really scares the hell out of me to see the growing control, influence and power this guy has been given. While not everything the previous government undertook turned to gold, it would be very wrong for the Marurai-led government to believe that Tata has the Midas touch. He does not.

Sure, Tata’s got some valid concerns as to government’s poor performance over the past four years. But so do the large majority of the people of this country. Sure Tata has got some ideas worth considering that could help to solve some of our national problems. But so do a lot of other people in this country.

So please PM, stop putting the guy on a pedestal. And so what that he studied at some exclusive university in the US? You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the problems confronting our nation and how best they could be solved.

This government must realise that the view of one person is not necessarily the accepted view of the masses. So Jim and your cabinet, please stop relying solely on one person for all the answers.

Everyone I know finds it very insulting that Tata is being treated by this new government like some socio-economic-political messiah. Maybe the time has come for the country’s general elections to take place immediately. That way we can vote into power a government that is prepared to listen to all the people of this country rather than special interest groups or individuals who have their own hidden personal agendas.

We are not stupid or blind.

Very concerned voter

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

This cabinet seems to think that Tata Crocombe is the only expert on the island and he will deliver this country out of the mess that we are in.

Personally, I don’t trust this man. I was told that Tata got the old Rarotongan Hotel from government for a very low price. All of a sudden Tata is now the expert on political and economic reform.

What about the views of the little people, the Aronga Mana, the churches, the youth and the village elders?

Tata is already pushing for what he wants... he praised John Dean for a good job at tourism, then he ends up telling him what to do.

That’s the real reason why John Dean is leaving. The next CEO will also do the same.

Why doesn’t government just give Tata all the tourism money to spend on his hotels.

If cabinet cannot think for themselves, then resign now and call a snap election. Wake up, cabinet and government, Tata has his own plans and it’s not for you and me.

As an outer islander, I don’t want Tata dictating my future. I can do it with my own people.

Toke Enua mei Po Mai

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

I returned to Raro after a few years overseas and was pleasantly surprised to see the speed limit had been changed to 50kph, much more realistic than 40kph (which very few followed anyway).

I was even more surprised when I got a speeding ticket doing 50kph in a 50 zone!

Apparently you can only do 50 if you have a helmet.

I was not informed of this, and it was not mentioned on the flight over or anywhere on the roadside. The only information given was that it is 50kph.

The policeman said it was advertised on TV! Sorry but I didn’t see the ads, not in the last two weeks at least! Plus who watches TV on holiday?

And (I checked) there is no fine print on the 50kph sign either (indicating that this doesn’t apply to all vehicles).

So is it deemed false advertising in saying speed limit is 50kph, when it is not?

Perhaps a lawyer can help with this query?

Or did they set this up and purposely not have it displa- yed anywhere so that the police can get their $100 from unwitting travellers.

More like protecting their pockets than society.

Common sense really seems to be lacking in our police farce.

Not happy.

Returning Road User

(Name and address supplied)

Editor: Police commissioner Maara Tetava responds

In 2007, parliament passed the Transport Amendment Act 2007 which changed the speed limit from restricted zone – 40kph and open road...any speed over 40kph to the one speed of 50kph – for Rarotonga and also made it compulsory for every motorcyclist to wear a safety helmet on motorcycles;

The Minister of Police has also designated two other areas (Vaikapuangi stream to Budget Rental Cars – Avarua CBD) and Nikao (Avatea School to Wichman homestead) as reduced speed zones where the maximum speed limit is 30kph.

In 2008, parliament amended the above act removing the compulsory wearing of safety helmet provision and replacing it with the requirement for motorcyclists to wear approved safety helmets if they intend to exceed 40kph on any road.  This means any motorcyclist travelling over 40kph on any road on Rarotonga whether it be a 50kph zone or 30kph zone must wear an approved safety helmet.

Brochures are handed out to new driver’s licence applicants at Police National Headquarters stating above;

Ads have also been played on television about this;

Current law does not allow for fine print to be inserted on regulatory speed signs. NZ, Australia and most other countries don’t have them – why the Cooks?

We are not about “protecting our pocket” as suggested, we are about enforcing the laws of our country as they exist.

We also do not make laws, parliament does;

Perhaps ‘Road user’ should have taken the time to better inform himself or herself about  the current road safety laws in the Cook Islands before driving.

I am sure ‘Road user’ now knows that it is bad practice to assume what happened two years would happen today. We do change with the times and in this case when parliament amended the Transport Act in 2007 and 2008.

Dear Editor,

It seems we are departing from the original ideas in the report of the 1998 Political Reform Commission.

The political change now proposed is that there shall be no change in the number of Rarotonga seats but only in the number of seats in the outer islands. Justification for this appears to be based on the idea that there are fewer people now living in the outer islands and so, outer island MPs obviously represent fewer people.

This thinking is wrong on two counts.

First count, almost all outer island MPs live in Rarotonga and have often lived in Rarotonga for most of their lives. They are concerned about Rarotonga, have many friends in Rarotonga, have their children educated in Rarotonga, use Rarotongan roads, worry about hurricanes on Rarotonga and basically are concerned about all Rarotonga issues.

This is not to say they are not concerned about outer island issues, they are as well, but these issues are not in their face day after day because they do not live in the outer islands. They live on Rarotonga.

The second count is that even though there may be few people left on the outer islands, there are a lot of outer islanders now living on Rarotonga. When these people have a problem they do not go to the MP of their electorate but to the MP of their outer island. The outer island MP becomes their representative.

So by these counts we see that outer island MPs are representing more people than just those on their island, they also represent friends in Rarotonga and people from their island living in Rarotonga. They may in fact be representing more people than MPs representing Rarotonga electorates.

We all recognise that existing MPs represent families, so isn’t it time that we recognise that MPs for Rarotonga electorates don’t represent all the people in their electoral district because they often do not represent the outer islanders that have to vote for them.

We suggest a change in the district electoral rules before we go down the path of only reducing the number of MPs from the outer islands.

Outer islanders need representation whether they are living in the outer islands or in Rarotonga. Offer the chance to these voters to either vote for the electorate they are living in or to vote in the island of their family origin be that an outer island or another district.

Outer islander

(Name and address supplied)

Dear Editor,

As one of the members of the Cook Islands Parliament(1978-1999) who brought the present Cook Islands Constitution into being, I clearly remember one important principle that the Queen’s Representative is charged with and that is to ensure that the prime minister enjoys the confidence of the majority of the people’s representatives in parliament and to rectify the situation if  there is an anomaly.

I remember very clearly when the late Sir Thomas Davis KBE was replaced by the late Sir Pupuke Robati KBE.

Looking on from Aotearoa at events back home, clearly Jim Marurai has lost the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament.

Come on, Queen’s Representative Sir Frederick Goodwin KBE and Prime Minister Jim Marurai, please do the right and honourable thing like Papa Tom did – he was the prime minister when he was voted out of office by his own party.

Ngereteina Puna

Dear Editor,

I am a little concerned at some of the so-called ‘reform’ proposals put forward by the two individuals recently given this task. The major questions in my mind are:

We don’t seem to have any reduction in the number of overall seats in parliament, merely a reduction in the number of constituencies to create room for the ‘National Seats’.

What I believe the majority of people want is less seats in parliament, which equates to less cost to the taxpayer. The reality is that 24 MPs for a population of maybe 15,000 people is simply too much.

What I hear most commonly suggested is something like: one representative for each of the inhabited outer islands, and three for Rarotonga – a total of 13MPs, which is more than sufficient to run this small country.

The idea of the prime minister picking his cabinet from outside parliament strikes me as undemocratic.

Those that make decisions on behalf of the public should have a general mandate from the people to do so, otherwise you run the risk in increased cronyism, not less.

I wonder what the motivation was to have this included as part of the reform package being proposed. I realise that this idea is borrowed from the US system, but I am unconvinced that it would work quite as well in such a small community with much more opportunity for conflicts of interest to arise.

When will the general public get the opportunity to discuss what options we have for reform under any referendum?

I think we should at least have a wider cross section of people included in the process. Whilst the contribution recently made by the two individuals could provide the basis for discussion, there may be other who are equally if not more qualified to make valuable contributions to the reform process.

The last comment I would like to make is that I fully agree with the PM that this referendum needs to be run in concert with the next election so we can get the process underway as soon as possible, and avoid having it sabotaged by the same old wolves in sheep’s clothing that exist in our political environment (i.e. all of our current crop of MPs!).

Joe Public

(Name and address supplied)

Index | Photo Gallery | Memory Lane | Cooks Info | FAQs | Subscribe | About Us