text:
Excerpt from online Yomiuri Shinbun Story, Jan. 11, 2000:
Seeking true independence
In a slight departure from interviews with and discussions among prominent figures from around the world, this special installment of this series offers a unique roundtable attended by three key political leaders in this country: Former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone; Koichi Kato, former secretary general of the Liberal Democratic Party; and Yukio Hatoyama, president of Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan). The three legislators put 20th-century Japan into perspective while discussing what kinds of goals, principles and obligations the nation should pursue in the upcoming century.
Nakasone: In the 20th century, the five major trends were: industrialization, democracy, nationalism, recently emerged regionalism and finally globalism. In the 21st century, these trends will be found side by side. The challenge of this era will be how to develop and harmonize them.
In the fields of environment, information, science and technology, academic studies and finance, the trend is toward transcending national boundaries. The advance of the Internet will lead to a global network, creating an "Internet global citizens alliance." Such an entity may possess a considerable say over issues and threaten to dissolve national sovereignty.
Japan, for its part, should solidify its foundation, by which I mean the Constitution. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the nation, and solidifying this constitutional basis will lead to development of civilization in the 21st century and reconfirm and reunify national awareness.
Kato: Since then-Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty (with the United States and other noncommunist countries) in 1951, Japan has experienced a lot. After Japan's aligning itself with nations pursuing liberalism proved to be the right path, Japanese politicians have been unable to solve certain disputes. Nationalism is said to have been emerging in certain quarters. Constitutional controversy has begun amid uncertain prospects of whether nationalism will lead to international contributions or public contributions to domestic regional communities.
Given these circumstances, a dispute over the Constitution has emerged. This dispute might, in one respect, bring about the first important change since the Jomon period (ca 10,000 B.C.-ca 300 B.C.) because it touches on core issues of the individual versus the whole, as well as the principle of equality.
Hatoyama: It was just pointed out that the tragedy of war has occurred repeatedly. There has been a transition from a multipolar world to a bipolar world after World War II and then to a unipolar one after the Cold War, rather than a transition from war to peace. In short, with the United States having unparalleled power, the rest of the world is in a multipolar structure. I wonder if this power structure should remain unchanged. I think the 21st century will be a difficult era, in which people are pressed to solve the extremely difficult problem of how to establish peace in an era of economic globalism and an era of multilateral and multipolar political frameworks.
Considering what role Japan has pursued within this framework, I think answer is the principle of independence. After Japan was defeated in the war, Japanese adopted a mentality of dependence on the United States and other advanced nations and created a society that is extremely dependent on bureaucrats. In the process, Japan was not able to foster a true democracy. Japan's biggest challenge in the 21st century will be establishing a true democracy and liberalism and paving the way for individuals and the state to become independence.
3 political leaders exchange opinions over The Last 100 years
It can be said that Japan has constantly pursued goals. It pursued wealth and military strength before World War II. Then it tried to catch up economically with Western nations. Could you sum up Japan's last 100 years?
Nakasone: During the last 100 years, Japan opened its doors to the world twice. The first time was during the Meiji Restoration (1868) and the second time was during (the Occupation led by) Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
A half century later, Japan has entered a phase of opening itself to the world for a third time, but Japan is not fully ready for it. Japan doesn't have a blueprint or the strength for it.
At the time of the first opening, there was a blueprint for creating a nation-state and there were mighty powers of the Satsuma and Choshu clans. Because of these factors, Japan was able towin the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905).
The second opening of Japan was propelled by a blueprint for a U.S.-style democracy.
Reflecting on the past, I think the Meiji era was a period of progress. The Taisho (1912-1926) and early Showa (1926-1989) eras marked a period of derailment starting with the 1915 Twenty-one Demands (claims made by the Japanese government for special privileges in China during World War I). That deepened Chinese distrust of Japan. Furthermore, Japan made the blunder of taking no action (to stop arbitrary actions made by the military), citing "the independence of the supreme command." That caused the despotism of the military and led to the Greater East Asia War.
After Japan was defeated in the war and Douglas MacArthur, supreme commander of the Allied Powers, came to Japan, the nation was awakened in many ways.
A thorough analysis of the 50 years since the war is necessary. Reflecting on these past developments, one would find the pressing issue of security, which is Japan's particular headache and is linked to its character. The issue of the Constitution has emerged at a time when we have realized that we will have to review and revise it ourselves this time around, rather than leaving it to MacArthur. Article 9 of the Constitution is ambiguous and subject to changes in its interpretation with Japan's changing situation. It is an extremely dangerous situation. At the dawn of the 21st century, we need to build a national consensus on such an ambiguous matter as soon as possible.
We do not expect major changes until the House of Representatives election is held this year.
After the election, we need to map out Japan's future course and have the power to realize it.
Constitutional research panels will be established in the Diet. In the area of education, proposals have been made to revise the Fundamentals of Education Law. Those trying to give momentum to these sorts of national movements should unify. It is a good thing to have political consolidation in accordance with politicians' thinking toward policies.
Kato: Japan has actually opened itself up to the world for the third time. It is the liberalization of the financial sector, which brought on a revolution that jolted the Japanese economy and society in its foundations.
Japan originally had egalitarian cultures and traditions. After the war, the Liberal Democratic Party went along to a great extent with the demands of the Japan Socialist Party in particular to maintain its monolithic rule. Japan has become a high-level welfare state, or a socialist state.
Japan had the so-called convoy protection system and a uniform educational system. Japan felt there were limits to such systems, and the Hashimoto Cabinet launched the financial Big Bang.
What has specifically turned Japan topsy-turvy is the full liberalization of foreign exchange dealings.
The question of what form a nation should take in this borderless society has been put forward.
What is the significance of traditional Japanese culture at a time when the economy is becoming increasingly borderless and individuals' sense of values is being globalized?
From a comprehensive point of view, I believe there is a sense of coexistence with nature at its most basic. Some people say love of family is at the root of Japanese culture and tradition. There are also people's views on the Imperial family.
Hatoyama: Speaking of the "third opening" of the nation, let me point out that Japan was forced to open its doors in the face of external pressures as represented by the "kurofune" black ships (before the Meiji Restoration) and MacArthur.
If you say that now is the time for the third opening, that is an idea based on the theory that Japan is always influenced by external pressures. Fundamentally, a nation should not be forced to take actions by such external pressures. Japan should be equipped with an ability to change on its own initiative and adapt to changing situations.
Looking back over the past 100 years, Japan adopted the policy of enriching and strengthening the nation to catch up with the United States and European powers. As Japan had to enrich the nation and build a strong military force, Japan pursued what we call invasive wars. Even that era was not based on an independent Japanese initiative. Rather this was a kind of "catch-up"militarism following a certain model. Japan tried to emulate that model as closely as possible.
But even after MacArthur completely wiped out that type of militarism, Japan tried to follow an economic model based on a philosophy of following in the footsteps of other major countries.
To realize that goal, a strong leadership, mainly consisting of bureaucrats, has always guided the economy and politics. Politicians have not exercised an active role to a full extent.
The Constitution
Discussion of the Constitution would chart Japan's course in the 21st century. Let us hear your opinions on the issue of the Constitution.
Hatoyama: Japanese lawmakers have been reluctant to discuss, from a long-range and broader point of view, how this country should stand today and in the future. We should hold more discussions on the way the state should be. If we do so, we cannot avoid discussing the Constitution.
Some have harbored erroneous ideas such as discussion of a constitutional revision would put the nation in danger or would pose a threat for the peace of the nation. And these ideas have been associated with a stereotyped notion that keeping the Constitution intact is a manifestation of the pacifism.
On the other hand, there are those who assert that the Constitution must be amended because it is one "borrowed" from the United States.
We should stop basing our arguments on these notions and discuss the matter from a new perspective.
Kato: We often hear people speak of the way the state should be. In this regard, the most important issues are where Japan should position itself in a globalized world, what form Japanese culture and traditions should take, and how Japan has been up to the present day and what it will be like in the future.
From this point of view, it may be said we (Japanese) have maintained our own philosophy when it comes to dealing with nature. The important point is that we should search for our national identity by returning to that philosophy.
The next important point in discussing how Japan should be as a nation-state is whether Japan should defend itself on its own or rely on other countries.
There is some confusion over these issues because there are those who advocate that Japan should defend itself on its own while at the same time arguing in favor of maintaining the
Japan-U.S. security treaty. These positions are contradictory. Even the United States considers ensuring its national security in an international context.
We should firmly take it to heart that our national security should be considered within the context of Japan-U.S. relations, or rather within the context of the relations between Japan, the United States and China.
As for the revision of Article 9 of the Constitution, I believe we should propose revisions to the public if the international situation changes in the following three ways.
The first is if bilateralism becomes a condition for maintenance of the Japan-U.S. security treaty, meaning that the United States demands bilateralism in the treaty.
The second is if countries around the world agree to have the United Nations establish standing forces.
The third case is if a "collective security organization for Asia" is established, and Japan, in accordance with its obligations as a member, is asked to provide its police and armed forces.
Article 9 contains some phrases that are incomprehensible in light of the right to individual self-defense. Therefore, we would be able to win understanding from China and South Korea over the article's revision if we explained this issue even now.
The most crucial issue is the right to collective self-defense, which rests on the issue with which country Japan should conclude a military alliance on the basis of the right to collective self-defense.
South Korea will not want such an alliance in the next 10 to 20 years, nor will China. Thus, there is little likelihood for such an alliance to be formed as a practical theory.
The issue we have to discuss at most depth is whether we should continue letting the United States alone act as the international police. As far as this issue is concerned, the international situation has yet to be ripe for our neighboring countries to approve Japan's dispatching its armed unit abroad.
We should create favorable diplomatic and political situations, including the solution of issues left pending in the postwar period.
Nakasone: It seems odd when Mr. Kato cited three conditions for amending the Constitution.
If we amend the Constitution only in relation to actions taken by foreign countries, it shows a lack of independence. This could run counter to Article 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates the sovereignity is in the people, and the people are entitled to enact the Constitution. Democracy is what puts this right into action.
When considering how the present Constitution was enacted and the fact that various things have happened since the enactment, democracy's first step should be that we Japanese will create and own our own constitution. It is unreasonable to discuss whether we should or should not amend the Constitution in view of the nation's relations with foreign countries.
Kato: I would like to refute Mr. Nakasone's viewpoint. I think that Article 9 of the Constitution was characterized as the nation's statement to the world about Japan's postwar diplomacy and national security.
Mr. Nakasone just said that Japan should make a unilateral judgment on that particular issue. As a matter of fact, even before the formation of the Nakasone Cabinet, you had been advocating constitutional revisions, just as you do now.
But once you assumed the post of prime minister, you had no choice but to state that your cabinet would not propose constitutional revisions, in light of international relations.
We should take full consideration of Article 9's significance as Japan's statement to other countries.
Nakasone: There are priorities once one comes into power. In my case, I undertook the major project of carrying out the administrative and fiscal reforms in which I had been involved since I was the director general of the now-defunct Administrative Management Agency. That came first. Next came educational reform. Meanwhile, constitutional revision was considered a long-term project, while public opinion was not yet ripe for revision.
If the cabinet had embarked on revision, it could have caused major disruptions to the higher-priority projects of administrative and education reforms. I had my strategies, which was a matter of choice from the viewpoint of a politician. Differentiating between principle and strategy is realpolitik.
Another important issue is that of the right of collective self-defense. I have long asserted that it is absurd to argue that even though Japan has the right of individual self-defense, it cannot exercise the right of collective self-defense.
The right of collective self-defense means that a country joins hands with its allies because it cannot defend itself single-handedly. As long as a country has the right to defend itself and exercises that right, the country should be allowed, as a matter of course, to exercise that right even if it does so jointly with other countries.
Paragraph 1 of Article 9 can stay in place, but I think we should revise Paragraph 2.
Hatoyama: The most insecure element as far as Article 9 is concerned is the tendency of top government leaders to often read between the lines to their own advantage.
Both in the Constitution and laws, we should discuss what should or should not be written and should stipulate what should be.
If we have forces which are apparently considered armed forces under international law, we should admit that we have military forces. And then we should make an international declaration of what they cannot do. While doing so, I think it is possible to revise Article 9 for Japan'snational security in such a way as to win full approval from our neighboring countries.
Foreign policy
As to Japan's foreign policy, Mr. Kato insists that the Japan-U.S.-China relationship should be in the form of equilateral triangle in terms of power balance, while Mr. Hatoyama argues in favor of maintaining the Japan-U.S. security treaty without U.S. troops stationed permanently in
Japan. What basic diplomatic stance do you think Japan should adopt for its future foreign policies on Japan-U.S. relations and other relations?
Kato: Japan must give urgent and serious thought to why the United States has long maintained the Japan-U.S. security treaty. This is because Japan has sufficient diplomatic channels with China--the country with the strongest political influence in Asia--and is the nation that the United States gives most weight when implementing its international strategy.
Therefore, the United States wants to firmly maintain the Japan-U.S. security treaty, because otherwise its national interests will be undermined.
When forecasting the prospective circumstances in Asia over a 15-year span, I come to the conclusion that Japan, the United States and China should maintain a firmly triangular relationship. From a comprehensive multilateral perspective, we should recognize the necessity of the three nations' forming the relationship of an equilateral triangle. Unless such a triangle is maintained, members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and southwest Asian nations will develop serious anxiety concerning the future of the entire region.
Hatoyama: It is a big problem that the sides of the triangle are not equilateral. While I am very aware of the importance of the Japan-U.S. security treaty, I am of the opinion that Japan should keep some distance from the United States when it comes to security.
We should make more efforts to reinforce China's confidence in Japan because we are not certain what the future holds for U.S.-China relations.
In this light, it cannot completely be ruled out that Washington and Beijing will not compete with each other over hegemony. Thus, it is potentially somewhat dangerous to consider it safe to always side with the United States.
I agree with Mr. Kato's opinion that it is contradictory to advocate independent self-defense while calling for augmenting the Japan-U.S. security treaty. My argument for a security treaty without the permanent presence of U.S. troops is quite similar to that in favor of independent self-defense.
I am not saying, however, that will happen. Practically speaking, it is impossible. In making that argument, I would rather propose that the nation gradually shift its national security policy from reinforcing the bilateral security treaty to establishing a framework of multilateral security arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region.
Nakasone: Listening to both of your arguments, I feel that your awareness of international affairs is too naive. I think it is particularly mistaken to place equal weight on the nation's relations with the United States and China.
We share almost identical values and systems with the United States in terms of freedom, democracy, human rights and the market economy. On the contrary, China is a communist country that is equipped with a powerful military whose composition is not necessarily clear to the outside, and the country has developed different values. It is basically an error to use the same approach in dealing with the two nations.
There were many problems with the ratification of the Japan-U.S. security treaty at the time.
Nonetheless, peace and stability have been fundamentally maintained in the Asia-Pacific region.
It would not be necessary for us to destroy the basic framework of such security arrangements now. The Japan-U.S. security treaty, though its effect is invisible, has played an extremely important role in maintaining Japan's national security.
Also in view of the 21st century, we should keep the security treaty intact as an axis for national security. The maintenance of peace in the Asia-Pacific region can be sustained by a network of bilateral alliance treaties, such as the Japan-U.S. security treaty and similar alliance treaties concluded by the United States vis-a-vis South Korea and Australia.
It will be much more desirable, however, if Japan, using the Japan-U.S. security treaty as a basis, can establish a security mechanism designed to help concerned countries communicate with each other, build up confidence in each other and jointly prevent and stop conflicts&emdash;by forming a multilateral network of security in northeast Asia in cooperation with such countries as Russia, China, North and South Korea, and the United States. It is important for Japan to carry out its national security and diplomatic strategies with the Japan-U.S. security treaty and the multilateral security cooperation framework as the main pillars in the 21st century.
Copyright 1999 The Yomiuri Shimbun


text: Explore Burgundy Auxerre The Yonne valley The Canal de Bourgogne The Morvan Nevers Dijon The Côte d'Or The Saône valley Share Mâcon is a lively, prosperous town on the banks of the River Saône, 58km south of Chalon and 68km north of Lyon, with excellent transport connections between the two. A centre for the wine trade, with a surprisingly relaxed, seaside atmosphere, thanks to its long café-lined riverbank and free outdoor concerts in late June, July and August, it also boasts the best nightlife between Dijon and Lyon. It is, however, a nightmare to drive around and parking is problematic, so it's not recommended as a base for a regional wine-tasting tour for anyone renting a car. Alphonse Lamartine: the great Romantic

subset: commoncrawl


text:
One of Peter Lynch's most famed principles of investing is "Invest in what you know."
I humbly disagree.
You Don't Actually Know
The only problem with that bit of advice is that, as human beings, we tend to have too high an opinion of our own intelligence and abilities. In other words, you think you "know" but you probably don't actually know as much as you think you do, or as well as you think you do.
I was studying computer science at Carnegie Mellon University during the tech boom of the late nineties and (very) early 2000s. I saw all these technology companies offering great services and saw that there was a very bright future in technology. I saw that the future of commerce was online so I believed that companies like Amazon.com and Buy.com and Overstock.com would be the future powerhouses (none have reached they tech bubble peaks, but all are doing relatively well… though Overstock's CEO keeps complaining about the shorts). The only problem is that while I knew basic computer science theories, I didn't actually know much about technology companies and the business world. I thought I knew, but I didn't.
Too Many Eggs In One Basket
Another reason this bit of advice is dangerous is because it depends localized knowledge and, more specifically, often knowledge of an industry you're working in. That's dangerous for the very same reasons why people often recommend that you don't invest your 401(k) money in company stock. When you invest your 401(k) in your own company, you run the risk of being hit with a double whammy if a market downturn affects your company. You don't want your long term retirement assets pegged to your job, right? While the reverse may still hold true, if things go well then they go doubly well for you, it's a risk that simply isn't worth it in the opinion of most financial advisers.
Diversify Everywhere
Let's say that you really do know an industry inside and out, that's still only one industry. While Lynch's advice wasn't that you should put 100% of your investments into any one thing, it could be misunderstood. If you're supposed to invest in what you know, shouldn't you invest it all in at least that industry? Or that one country? I live in the United States, I "know" the United States, does that mean I should invest in domestic markets only? Probably not.
Even Those Who Know, Don't
In reading Full of Bull, I saw how weak industry analysts were at predicting the trends in the industries they were covering. They spend their entire days analyzing industries, far more than what you would do if you worked in that industry, yet they were unable to pick the winners from the losers with any consistency. While part of the reason was because they had to play the marketing game, the reality is that the market is more of a random walk than an orderly march. Even those who devote their entire careers to tracking specific industries aren't good at picking the winners.
I know I took a good statement and twisted every which way but I think it's valid. Don't invest with what you know, invest in fund who are led by people who know a lot and who invest in a lot of things. Or buy an index fund. 🙂


text:
The GSMA understands that people are concerned about possible health risks from the use of mobile phones and living near wireless network antennas. We believe in the importance of providing clear answers based on established scientific research.
For more information please see the GSMA booklet Mobile Communications and Health available in Arabic, Brazillian Portuguese, Chinese (simplified), English, French, German, Russian and Spanish.
To provide comment on the content send an email to: email@example.com
Click on the question to expand
The consensus of expert groups is that there are no established health risks from the radio signals used by mobile phones or networks. Some studies have suggested increased brain cancer risk for long-term users of mobile phones but there are limitations to the studies and a lack of supporting evidence of cancer increase in national health registries. In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence. The WHO has identified areas for continuing research to support future health risk assessments. For more information please see the GSMA booklet Mobile Communications and Health available in Arabic, Brazillian Portuguese, Chinese (simplified), English, French, German, Russian and Spanish.
Independent scientific and public health institutions around the world review relevant research as it is published. The consensus of these expert groups is that there is no demonstrable evidence of a risk to human health from radio signals that comply with the current international safety recommendations. Some studies have shown small physiological changes that are not regarded as harmful to health.
Sophisticated and sensitive research methods using well-tried models for assessing health risks from other agents have been applied to investigate the safety of mobile communications. The scientific process follows a distinct path from hypothesis (idea) to established knowledge. Key steps include peer review and confirmation by other laboratories. The total body of science then contributes to the risk assessments by independent experts such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).
A number of national and international standards bodies have developed safety and compliance standards for wireless devices and network antennas. These committees are usually composed of persons with expertise in key areas and representatives of major stakeholder groups. Standards are developed by examining scientific evidence to determine the threshold for an established health hazard and then incorporating safety factors to define the allowable level. The safety factors are intended to account for uncertainty in establishing the threshold level and variation among people For specific information you should contact the regulator in your country.
The World Health Organization (WHO) states: Large disparities between national limits and international guidelines can foster confusion for regulators and policy makers, increase public anxiety and provide a challenge to manufacturers and operators of communications systems who need to tailor their products to each market. These factors have motivated the World Health Organization (WHO) to build a Framework for developing health-based EMF exposure standards using a rational scientifically-driven process. The WHO encourages international standards harmonisation based on the ICNIRP guidelines. The WHO warns that 'arbitrary cautionary approaches', such as '...if limit values were lowered to levels that bear no relationship to the established hazards or have inappropriate arbitrary adjustments to the limit values to account for the extent of scientific uncertainty' could undermine public confidence.
Topic: Some scientists and the BioIntiative report claim that current safety standards are inadequate. What do you say to that?
The GSMA understands that people may be concerned by such claims, however, they are based on selective reviews of existing research and do not present a balanced analysis considering the relative scientific quality of different studies. Specifically, the BioInitiative reports were criticised for these failings by the Danish government Sundhedsstyrelsens (National Board of Health), the German Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS - Federal Office for Radiation Protection), the IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR) and the Dutch Kennisplatform Elektromagnetische Velden. In a specific review report the Health Council of the Netherlands concludes:
'In view of the way the BioInitiative report was compiled, the selective use of scientific data and the other shortcomings mentioned above, the Committee concludes that the BioInitiative report is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the report does not provide any grounds for revising the current views as to the risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields.' There have been many independent scientific and public health authority reviews and the consensus position, as summarised by the World Health Organization, is that current international recommendations incorporate large safety factors and are protective of all persons.
Topic: How do you respond to that there is evidence of a substantial risk of brain tumours from mobile phone use?
Independent reviews from more than 30 countries and the WHO have concluded that present international safety recommendations are protective for all persons against all established health risks.
Several of the studies relied upon to support claims of increased risk have been criticised for scientific weaknesses. Importantly, studies of brain cancer trends show no increase since mobile phone use began (Deltour et al., 2012; de Vocht et al., 2011; Little et al, 2012). These studies are limited in their ability to detect possible small risks so research continues. The COSMOS study plans to follow the health of up to 250,000 European mobile phone users for 20-30 years.
There is a large body of existing scientific research at frequencies above and below those used for mobile services and a growing body of science using these particular signals. Expert groups have not established any signal (or modulation) specific effects, so the scientific consensus is that compliance with current international safety standards provides protection against all known health effects.
Mobile phones use adaptive power control to reduce the transmitted power to the minimum possible whilst maintaining good call quality. This prolongs talk time and minimises interference to other callers. For example, when coverage is good, such as close to a base station, the output level may be similar to that of a home cordless phone.


text:
The natural areas at Mt. Cuba Center are a precious resource and critical to preserving the integrity of the remaining natural habitats of this physiographic region in Delaware. We conduct a variety of projects and programs which support our management and conservation goals and allow us to better understand the impact on our unique Piedmont ecosystem.
Improving the understanding of Piedmont natural history, biology, and ecosystem functions requires ongoing research and scientific studies. Scientific studies are critical for building sound stewardship strategies. Monitoring techniques are necessary to measure changes in natural community composition and rare species population status over time. Monitoring also helps assess the effectiveness of stewardship management actions. The effectiveness of land stewardship strategies, therefore, is based upon evaluating changes in natural community composition and rare species populations.
Mt. Cuba Center Natural Lands department is working with the Centreville Layton School to create a native outdoor classroom. Read more


text:
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
(continued on Thursday, 4 September 2008)
Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill
In Committee
Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Normally with these sorts of bills, because they are momentous in a number of ways, the Opposition is given an opportunity to sit down with the Minister, or the Associate Minister, and receive a briefing. We are still waiting for that briefing. Funnily enough, yesterday I happened to pass the Hon Michael Cullen, the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and I must say a pretty damn good one. But he said to me, on passing—and he looked very pale—"Oh, have we given you a briefing on the Te Roroa bill?", and I happened to say "No, but it's all right; we've come to expect that sort of treatment by the present Government."
We see here an attempt to put right a wrong that happened not 100 years ago, not 50 years ago, but about 9 months ago, or around that time, when the Government could manage to cough up only $9 million, and it was just not enough. The people told the Government that it was not enough. The Māori Affairs Committee was told that it was not enough. There were issues to deal with, about not only the quantum but some of the valuations, and some of the returning of taonga had to be sorted out. So now we are back because of the prodding of the Opposition, and because of the sterling work of the select committee. I think that individual members of this House have been back and forward to the claimants, having a few words about the settlement, and finally the claimants have an opportunity.
National will support the bill, but not without a few kicks and a few punches here and there, because I think the treatment not only of Te Rōroa in this whole shambles but also of the Opposition party, which has had no briefing whatsoever, has been pretty terrible. In fact, many Opposition members had to ring the claimants, and the claimants' lawyers, to find out what was going on. If that is the way this Government wants to run things, well, it is no wonder that the jug has boiled over and they will be out of there within a couple of months, because the country wants better from a Government, especially when it is dealing with a Treaty settlement.
This might not be the biggest Treaty settlement, but for the people up there it is the biggest thing since sliced bread. So those are the opening salvos, and I say "Let's get on with it."
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : Members should consider the history of this matter. The Waitangi Tribunal reported on this issue in 1992. Between 1992 and 2005 the tribe and the Crown were engaged in periodic negotiations. Then on 20 December 2004 the party signed an agreement in principle. In 2005, shortly before Christmas, Te Rōroa ratified the Crown's initial settlement offer and entered into a deed of settlement. Then on 14 February 2007 the bill was introduced, and on 1 March 2007 we had the first reading and the referral to the Māori Affairs Committee.
In the 3 years I have been in this place I have never been more moved by submissions to a select committee than I was by the submissions made by the good people of Te Rōroa in Dargaville shortly before Easter last year. Several people were genuinely upset at the history of the matter and at the way the matter had played out, and the majority of the select committee were very concerned—I know my friend from New Zealand First certainly was, and we three in the National Party were.
When the bill was being dealt with in the Māori Affairs Committee, we were very concerned about durability. The Government did not talk to Opposition members—we heard nothing. As the Hon Tau Henare said this morning, we have continued to hear nothing. Any information about improvements to the settlement proposal has been obtained from the claimants. I think it is a tragic state of affairs when a senior Opposition MP is spoken to in such a dismissive way by the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Dr Michael Cullen, as he wandered through the Beehive last night. It is simply unacceptable.
We in the Opposition regard these Treaty settlement bills as being of paramount importance. To quote the words of Isaiah, I say that we are "undoing the heavy burdens of the past." To be treated in such a cavalier, smart alec fashion by the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is simply unacceptable. His performance over this legislation makes Mark Burton look competent.
Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Maybe that's going to far.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, they are tough words, but tough words need to be said about the legislative history of this bill.
We still await a formal briefing. It is unacceptable that we have been treated in this way, and, more important, it is unacceptable that Te Rōroa has been treated in this way. This matter has not been treated as an important historical Treaty settlement. It has been reduced to the level of commercial bartering so that the Government can push this legislation through. Will it be durable? Well, we will have to wait and see. But New Zealand deserves better than this kind of legislative shambles, and Te Rōroa deserves better.
We will have a good look at the bill as we go through the various clauses. As Mr Henare said, we know, having spoken to the tribal claimants, that by a majority the trust board has indicated that it wants the settlement to proceed. Therefore, we will support the legislation, but we are very unhappy at the way the iwi has been treated, and we are not impressed with the way we have been treated. We still do not know the detail other than what we have managed to glean from the various claimants. This is not the way Treaty settlements should be conducted. A higher standard is required, and the Minister should be disgusted with himself.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I am very, very pleased the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill has now found its way to the top of the Order Paper and that we are here this morning to help progress it. My colleague Chris Finlayson talked about the tenure, the gestation, of this bill from 1992 till now. That is a long, long time for any iwi to be waiting for their settlement to be brought to a conclusion. As I say, I am very pleased for the iwi that we are here this morning. My colleagues are correct: I know that Tau spent quite a lot of time on the phone yesterday—as did Chris and I—chasing down claimants and lawyers to see whether there had indeed been an improvement on this bill. Obviously, if the bill has made its way to the top of the Order Paper, there must have been an improvement, but we do not know what it is. So that we on this side of the Chamber are not talking slightly in the dark, I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, might take a call now and let us know about the improvements.
Clearly, National has indicated it will support the bill and we do that on the basis that claimants have indicated that they are happy with it—at least, they are willing to accept the improvements and see this bill progress. But, in my view, at the end of the day it is up to the Government and the Minister in charge of the Committee stage now to enlighten us and to officially, formally, tell us what those improvements are. As I say, I am waiting for the Minister to take a call. Hopefully it will be when I resume my seat.
We are debating the preamble to the bill, and in the couple of minutes that I have left I want to talk about the background to the claim, which, of course, is set out in the preamble. After all the political to-ing and fro-ing between the Government and ourselves, as there has been this sort of interregnum when nothing has happened for the last however many months—is it 7 months?
Chris Tremain: At least.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: —well, since we were last in the Chamber debating this matter—we need to remind ourselves why we are here now.
These people, Te Rōroa, are an ancient people with a history that was clearly a proud history, until, of course, they came up against the settlers, the Government, not long after the Treaty was signed, when things started to turn to custard for them. So, yes, we can talk about the last 15-odd years but we must remember that the events that give rise to this claim originated way, way back, not too long after the Treaty was signed—indeed, their own people signed that Treaty. We must not forget, as I say, in the political shots that are fired between ourselves in this Parliament, that there is a sad history behind this claim, and it has been made even more tragic, in my view, by the delay that has been a feature of this settlement for the last 15 years, and, particularly, for the last 7 to 10 months when the Māori Affairs Committee clearly indicated that we were not happy with the settlement that had been offered to Te Rōroa. The committee members went to hear the submissions and it was so very, very clear that little of the hurt that these people have carried for all of these years had been atoned for.
I agree with my colleague Chris Finlayson that the hearing of the submissions was an eye-opener, really. One could feel the hurt the submitters were carrying, and the Government offered the settlement that it did—a settlement that, indeed, one would almost say that, rather than becoming the springboard for the development of Te Rōroa, it will likely become a bit of an albatross around their neck. As I say, National will support this bill but we would like to know the detail of the improvements.
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson. Tēnā tātou katoa. When we come to the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill, we recognise the wider framework in which all Treaty settlements take place, and we say it is vital that we get that right. Inevitably, when we think of those who are putting forward claims—we recognise the statutory registration threshold, which is that claimants must be Māori and then cite the actions of the Crown that were prejudicial in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi—we think also of all those who have signed up to those claims, and their descendants.
In the case of Te Rōroa, I will never forget one particular submission to the Māori Affairs Committee that was put forward by Te Rōroa Manawhenua Trust and Te Rōroa Whatu Ora Trust. That submission suggested that Te Rōroa will not be in a strong financial position following settlement, but the trusts were prepared to concede that, following 14 years of difficult negotiations, the settlement reached was the best possible deal available in the circumstances—I repeat, in the circumstances.
Those circumstances were brought to the world's attention last year by a damning report by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The United Nations committee was concerned about our Government's routine ignoring of Waitangi Tribunal recommendations and noted that "such arrangements deprive claimants of a right to an effective remedy". Those are circumstances that are tabled in the House on an ongoing basis—the views of the people that the Treaty settlements process is an exhausting, abusive process that grinds claimants into a position of defeated acceptance. But as Te Rōroa Manawhenua Trust and Te Rōroa Whatu Ora Trust reminded the select committee, this was the best possible deal available to Te Rōroa in the circumstances.
What made that submission stand out in my memory forever was a simple statement, followed by a list of names, a roll-call three and a half pages long. The trustees wished to note the people who have passed away during this period; that was the full extent of their submission. The sense of absolute defeat and emptiness is very palpable. Ka maumahara mātou ki a rātou—we will always remember them. What is even more poignant, of course, is that we know that list will be longer now. The cost to Te Rōroa, both at a financial level and in relation to the suffering and loss of its people, has been really high.
We are mindful that those costs extend outside the boundaries of its rohe. The select committee report noted the late introduction into the debate of concerns from the Hokianga Whanau, Hapu, Land and Resource Claims Collective. The collective's view was that the Te Rōroa settlement would jeopardise its claims, and it sought an assurance from the select committee that such an injustice would not take place. The Office of Treaty Settlements confirmed that during negotiations it had consulted groups that have claims inside Te Rōroa's area of interest, but that the work on claims in the surrounding areas was incomplete. Although the committee noted the situation was unsatisfactory, it stated that no amendment to the bill could improve it. So again an injustice continues.
What happened to Te Rōroa must not be relegated to history. The record of continued breaches by the Crown against Te Rōroa is a matter for public record, and we must all learn from that. The House must take responsibility for the Crown's confiscation of the Te Kōpuru block and the destruction of Ngāti Whiu and Ngāti Kawa communities. The House must take responsibility for the unconscionable seizure of the multibillion-dollar flora and fauna of the Waipoua Forest. The House must take responsibility for the Crown's theft of Te Rōroa wāhi tapu, its attempted destruction of the Waipoua community, its violation of taonga, and its persistent failure to listen to Te Rōroa's grievances. Those are not matters that can rest easily on the nation's conscience; neither should they.
Given the extent, seriousness, and continuation of the Crown's breaches against Te Rōroa, the Māori Party has placed on record its immense dissatisfaction with the quantum that is under proposal. Our recommendation has been that the quantum must be increased sufficiently to allow Te Rōroa to purchase both Kaharau and Te Taraire and also to ensure the durability of the settlement. The Crown refused to include Kaharau and Te Taraire in the Treaty settlement or to find a way in which they could be included. I want us all to reflect on what such obstinacy does to the soul of a people.
Kaharau is a large area that includes burial caves—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Do you want to call again?
Hon TARIANA TURIA: Sorry.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): That is all right.
Hon TARIANA TURIA: Madam Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The Hon Tariana Turia.
Hon TARIANA TURIA: I have been here long enough to know I should have sought the call again. Te Taraire is an area of similar cultural significance to Kaharau, and both areas are located at Waimamaku. They are the sites of critical cultural redress, and the failure to see them as such compromises the settlement. Not only was nothing included in the quantum for the express purpose of buying back those areas but many in Te Rōroa found the suggestion that they be forced to buy back their own wāhi tapu, including kōiwi of their tūpuna and wakatūpāpaku, insulting, offensive, and degrading.
We have been particularly concerned about the negative impact that poor settlement processes have on the durability of any settlement, and about the deep rifts that have arisen because of the effect of flawed processes on overlapping claimants. The processes have often created enormous harm within tribal relationships that have existed for generations. In the case of Te Rōroa, we think back to the submissions of Patrick Paraone Welsh, of Sheena Ross for the Moetara whānau, of the Rev Daniel Ambler, who is a former tribal negotiator, and of Gary Hooker, Te Rōroa's tribal historian and mandated negotiator. We think of the overwhelming sadness that they expressed in their submissions. It was their considered opinion that, given the strength of claimant objections to being forced into a full and final settlement, the Crown should abandon the use of that phrase.
Will Ngākuru told the select committee that for the members of Te Rōroa and the descendants of Ngākuru Pana, the settlement would never be full and final until the burial places at Kaharau and Te Taraire were returned, as was the wish of their tūpuna. Seven words in that submission said it all: "We agree to this Bill under duress." "Duress" means to be coerced, to be forced into something beyond one's will—is that really what we want our Treaty relationships to be? Another way forward was recommended by Professor David Williams, who suggested that rather than go down the path of unseemly haste, with the obsession of time frames and deadlines, all parties should engage in a longer conversation.
These settlements are truly what one could understand to be heartbreaking. I have been listening to National members and the speeches that they have made not only on this matter but on other settlements, and they may yet get their day. But the parameters for Treaty settlements were, in fact, set by National. So, should the opportunity present itself, let us see whether National can do any better than this Government has done. We in the Māori Party are always torn between our love for the people and our respect that their wishes be heard, and our absolute contempt for the way in which the policies and procedures used to negotiate settlements with hapū and iwi have been so flawed. Nā reira, tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson. Tēnā tātou.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Ā, tēnā koe, Madam Chair, tēnā tātou o te Whare nei. Tēnā hoki koutou o te hau kāinga, arā, Te Roroa mēnā kei te mātakitaki mai, mēnā hoki e are taringa mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. I acknowledge my relatives of Te Rōroa who may be watching, or who may even be listening to, the debate on this bill concerning their Treaty claim.
Once again I say that I have a vested interest, and I say that specifically for those who belong to a group called the One New Zealand Foundation. Since the introduction of this bill they have hounded me with a number of emails, suggesting that because of my vested interest I should not be participating in the debate on this bill. But I have declared that interest, and my participation in this debate will always be focused on the issue and not on my own personal interest. I say that to those principals of that organisation.
I also want to have it recorded in this Chamber that I take exception to members of that organisation making contact with my father—when he was alive—to question my whakapapa in relation to the claimants of this bill. As a consequence, I have now ceased to correspond with or even talk to the person to whom I always made myself available to discuss these issues. He knows who he is, but I am not going to give him the privilege of having his name recorded.
Having got that off my chest, I will speak to the preamble, which I think gives a very good historical background to this claim. It highlights the importance this iwi has put on their wāhi tapu. I think that it is the issues surrounding wāhi tapu that have given cause for some disquiet for those who have negotiated on behalf of Te Rōroa. The sites, particularly some that are outside the purview of the bill, have given some cause for further discussion between the representatives of Te Rōroa and, as I understand it, the Crown. The issue of quantum has certainly been a debating point for the people of Te Rōroa. The fact that some of these wāhi tapu are located on land that is outside the settlement quantum is what many of Te Rōroa are concerned about.
I should say that this bill has some historical significance not only for Te Rōroa but for the laws of this land. It was the report that emanated out of this claim that gave rise to legislation being introduced that excluded land in private ownership from any settlement quantum. For that, I think this bill will certainly have some significance in the history of the legislation of this House.
I also need to say that I found it a little bit disturbing that some of the original negotiators were at odds with their colleagues on the negotiation team. Given that point of difference, the bill has proceeded along its way. I am not going to question that, because I think it really is an issue for the people of Te Rōroa.
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I stand to take a very brief call in response to many of the comments that have been made by members from the National Party in relation to the level of consultation that they claimed they did not have from the Ministers in charge of this bill. I am mindful that we are actually on the preamble of Te Roroa Claims Settlement Billand I want to thank the New Zealand First member Pita Paraone for his contribution in terms of the accuracy of the preamble regarding the treatment of the Crown and its agencies toward the people of Te Rōroa over, shall we say, 160 years or so.
I am standing for the benefit of National Party members to apologise if, in any way at all, they found the communication between me and them to be insufficient. But I say to the Hon Tau Henare that he is aware and I am aware that the Māori Affairs Committee will be meeting at 1 o'clock today for 1 hour, and I will take that opportunity to give him a formal apology. I know he has some issue with the select committee sitting at that time, but I am sure that he will make himself available, as will his colleagues the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and Christopher Finlayson, and at that time we can have an in-depth discussion around that particular matter. Their points are made very clear, and I will respond to them formally at that time, be they on the agenda or not.
The matters around the issues that were raised by way of submissions and were discussed by the select committee in terms of the quantum and the adjustments that have been made to satisfy the claimant groups of representatives of Te Rōroa, I am sure we can discuss further along in the Committee stage of this bill when we get to the part where we actually talk about the quantum. I just wanted to clarify those points. Thank you.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I thank the Minister Mita Ririnui for his humble apology. I accept the apology now because I do not think I will be at the Māori Affairs Committee this afternoon. Because we are in urgency, one has to take what one gets when one can.
I put these questions to the Minister, though. The preamble to me means the beginning. It is the start of something. If we look at the preamble we see that 188 years are contained in 12 pages. That works out to about 16 years per page. If we look at the preamble, we see, right at the end of the 16 pages, that it does not give us an indication of what is new. There is a little chapter missing, if members understand my drift. So what is new? How much more? I know the Minister will address the quantum later on. Where are the changes? What about the valuations? This is the problem with not being given a briefing—we do not know what we are supporting or opposing.
I think we have a very unfortunate situation. Like I said, 12 pages cover practically 188 years of tribal history in a nutshell—little paragraphs here, there, and everywhere that I think should actually be put in a leather-bound book and be put in the archives for ever and a day. The preamble to a settlement bill is, I think, one of the most important parts. It does not matter what the quantum is and it does not matter who did what to whom. The preamble tells a story in a way that will enable people in subsequent generations to get a snapshot of what Te Rōroa is.
I want to digress a wee bit and offer my support to my whanaunga Pita Paraone after the abuse he has taken from the One New Zealand Foundation. I say to him: "Any time you want some back-up, matua, you know where we are."
It is really important when we are doing these things to get off on the right foot, so I ask the Minister to take another call and finish the preamble as it should be finished. He should tell us what is new, why we are here, how much more there will be, and where the changes are. He should also tell us about the valuations. He should do this only if he wants to—I will not die in a ditch over it.
I make one final point, and that is regarding the comments from the co-leader of the Māori Party about National. I suppose my comments are that we should not forget where we all started. By that I mean that I was a member of New Zealand First—and a very proud member of New Zealand First—back in the day.
Pita Paraone: Then you got lost.
Hon TAU HENARE: I may have got lost, but I am found again—as I think the song "Amazing Grace" goes. But I say that members should not forget that Tariana Turia was also a Cabinet Minister in this Labour Government. Kia ora.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I will take another brief call to again mention the preamble. My colleague is right: the preamble is a very important part of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. Te Rōroa have the advantage of a very comprehensive Waitangi Tribunal report, and much of what was traversed and found in that report now finds its way into the preamble in the bill before us.
It would be great to read out some of this narrative in full for the benefit of those who are not in this place and who do not readily have access to the background to these settlements. I mentioned in my earlier contribution that Te Rōroa are an ancient people with a proud, proud history—a history that quite soon after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi started to become blighted by their interactions with the settling Government of the day, the Māori Land Court, and the legislation from those days, which has a lot to answer for in terms of breaches of the Treaty that have been found.
Te Rōroa, once a proud community of various lands in the north, came to find themselves virtually alienated, disjointed, and lost—lost from their whenua. That loss—as I also referred to earlier—still shows itself today in the way the people recount their history and share their aspirations for what they want to do into the future, and it was so obvious to the Māori Affairs Committee when it went north to hear them.
Although the claim that immediately gives rise to this settlement in the bill before us is more recent, Te Rōroa actually began petitioning the Crown from the late 1870s over the Crown's failure to provide appropriate reserves once the Crown had made up its mind to go in and by various means deprive Te Rōroa of their landholdings. As I say, there is a long history here. Further petitions were made into the early 20th century—in 1907, and so on—and between 1908 and 1912 approaches were again made to Parliament. This, like many claims, has a long history of petitions, other claims, court cases, and approaches to various Parliaments over a long, long period of time. That is why it is so important that New Zealand continues on its way to settling these longstanding injustices. I am sure it has been quite hurtful, in a way, for Te Rōroa over the last 12 months to witness the sudden burst of energy that has come into the process, driven by Dr Cullen, and to see other tribes move forward—move ahead, even—with the settlement of their claims, with Te Rōroa still languishing on the sidelines.
So, yes, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, might like to be all tidy, and wait for us to move to the next part, but we are on the preamble and we are, in a sense, talking in the dark. The Minister did not brief us on the improvements to the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. If the Minister had, we would not have been on the phone yesterday, chasing around the country. One of the claimant negotiators had been out of New Zealand for a month. Fortunately, I managed to get him. He had just hopped off the plane from the United States, and we were able to get some details. So, I say to the Minister in the chair, he should tell us now.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I endorse everything my friend Mrs te Heuheu said, and I believe we could move very quickly through the Committee stage and third reading of Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill if we had some answers. But I will make a few preliminary points. First, I join Mr Henare in what he said about Mr Paraone. We have been receiving volcanic emails from the One New Zealand Foundation. That is not helpful, and I think that what the foundation did to him was totally unacceptable. It is a source of some regret that there are people in this country who do that sort of thing.
The second point I will make is that the Associate Minister generously indicated that he would be prepared to apologise for the insufficiency of consultation. Well, as Mrs te Heuheu said, where is the insufficiency? There was no consultation.
The third point is that we want to move on from a culture of complaint. If I set out the detail of what I understand to be the position, and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, could condescend to confirm some of it, we will be able to move through the Committee stage very quickly. As I understand it, in about June this year, the Minister in the chair and the Hon Shane Jones had a visit to Dargaville, and a further Crown offer in settlement of the claim was made. I further understand the proposal is that the offer be implemented outside the Treaty claims settlement process. That is the first point, and I ask the Minister in the chair whether that is correct.
The second issue, dealing with the consequences of the Minister's visit to Dargaville, involves the increase in quantum. The settlement provided for about $9.5 million. Our understanding, as a result of discussions with various claimants, is that it has increased to around $15.5 million, to enable the purchase of certain farms. I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that, and confirm what the farms are.
The next element is that the Crown indicated it would purchase and vest in the iwi the portion of the Kaharau wāhi tapu of about 1,400 to 1,500 acres of land known as "Bob's", and we would like to know whether the property has been purchased.
The final element is that there would be a continued discussion between the parties regarding the Te Rōroa taonga, the burial chests that are held by the Auckland Museum. If we are dealing with those elements it is good, because it does deal with certain key issues that the Māori Affairs Committee was very concerned about, but I would really like to know, before we move into the other parts of the bill, just what exactly the components of the settlement are.
I say to the Government, it should not worry about an apology, or about a mea culpa. Let us move on from there. Let us look at the substance of the amended offer so that we can get through the Committee stage, get through the third reading, and ensure this bill is signed into law as quickly as possible.
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : I take the member's point, and I think that in the interests of moving on and getting a closure motion on this particular part of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill, in respect of the preamble, it probably is important to highlight some of the changes that have been made. I think it is also important to say first that these improvements, as we might classify them, did not require an amendment to the settlement legislation.
As the member pointed out, he was of the view that an ex gratia payment had been made in respect of the deferred properties that Te Rōroa had expressed an interest in. As the member knows, and as members of this Parliament are aware, a number of issues were highlighted by Te Rōroa throughout the negotiations and the select committee process, and we discussed these in some depth in our deliberations. The issues related to certain wāhi tapu, as they were classified, and there was a desire by Te Rōroa to have their history in relation to those properties acknowledged in a more tangible way—and I mean by that to have those properties, wherever possible, returned to them. Steps have been made, through my colleague the Minister of Māori Affairs, to allow that to happen. And, yes, there is an ex gratia payment of about $6 million to allow Te Rōroa to purchase a particular property that is identified in the deferred properties schedule.
I reiterate that these improvements do not require an amendment to the legislation. I think that if we had had to go down that track, we would have set the settlement negotiations back by some time. Through the foresight of Ministers, and in particular the current Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, better ways of doing things were discussed and resolved. To that end I take the member's point that it is important to highlight this, for the benefit of the Committee and in the interests of time, but I am glad that he does not want an apology because I do not do that very well. Thank you.
- Preamble agreed to.
Part 1 Purpose of Act, acknowledgements and apology, interpretation provisions, settlement of claims, and miscellaneous matters
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui. Obviously we had the information, but it is good to get confirmation from him. It is also good that the decision was made to make improvements to this settlement in a way that did not delay the settlement through having to have a change in the legislation. We find that a great improvement from where we found ourselves some months ago, having to write a minority report on this settlement. We are very pleased that on the advice and affirmation of the claimants, and now the official indication from the Minister, we are able to say without any demur that we support the settlement.
My colleague made a comment about the apology. Of course, the apology is hugely important to Te Rōroa. We have now seen these apologies in the House over a number of years. The apology here follows the apology that has been part of previous settlements. The few words in clause 8 state: "The Crown profoundly regrets its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles as detailed above and seeks to atone for those breaches." I have always been fascinated by the way in which those few words mean so much to claimants. For me they have always underpinned the burden of injustice that claimants have carried for nearly 160 years—the burden of loss, not only in physical terms but also in human terms. While all of this has dragged on over generations and into the current generation, our old people have passed on without seeing any redress or any indication from the Crown, represented by whatever Government of the day, that wrongs were done and wrongs needed to be atoned for. So the apology in its preciseness is important to claimants.
The apology is also important to us, because it indicates that in a sense the Crown is endeavouring to restore some of its own honour. Of course, by the actions of the Crown and of successive Governments from the 1840s onwards, the Crown has not only been in breach but has also been without honour. It has been in a place without honour, and that is not a good place to be. All of us here now in this Parliament, in our collective passing of laws, represent the Crown on behalf of New Zealand. So to be without honour in the way we have behaved and acted towards a group, a tribe—whānau, hapū, iwi—or any New Zealander, for that matter, and in this respect in relation to the particular settlement of Te Rōroa, is not a good thing. So the apology is important to them, but it is also important for us as representatives of the Crown in this House that the apology is made, that it is acknowledged, and that it is meant. Then we can put behind us a part of our history that none of us here today were responsible for. No New Zealander today was responsible for the hurt, but all New Zealanders want to feel that if the honour on their behalf has been lost or crushed, then that honour is restored. Today we move on behalf of the Crown to have our own honour restored, and to help to restore the honour of Te Rōroa, as well. That is very, very important.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I will just take a call to talk very, very briefly about the Supplementary Order Paper that seeks to amend a couple of clauses. We totally agree with it. Clause 14, of course, has to be amended in that way because there is a new way of recording settlements in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and we have no problem with that. We also have no problem with the amendment that inserts new clauses 82A, 82B, and 82C after clause 82. It simply inserts additional clauses relating to the alteration of place names, and the clauses follow the model of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. So that is all good, technical, and sensible.
I just have two questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, and I would be most grateful if he would answer them. Then I think we could just move through the remaining time in the Committee stage very quickly. The first issue relates to the deferred selection properties. Can the Minister give the Committee an indication of the date at which the properties are to be valued? Will it be December 2005, or some other date? I have a concern about that issue, because of the delay in dealing with this matter and the possible increase in land values that has happened over the last couple of years. So if the Minister could deal with that, it would solve a bit of a problem I have.
In relation to the second issue, I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation to me of the way in which the settlement is to be implemented, but I ask whether he could perhaps explain to the Committee what the impacts are on the Tainui and Ngāi Tahu ratchet clauses, where the Crown provides settlement redress outside the Treaty settlement process. Is it accounted for in triggering those ratchet clauses? I am not quite sure about that. So if the Minister could provide some answers to those questions—very simple questions—I am sure we could move on very quickly and get through the Committee stage. We must get this legislation signed into law.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson. I think it would be very remiss of any member of New Zealand First currently in the Chamber not to speak to this part of the bill, and in particular to the clause where references are made to the Treaty of Waitangi and, more important—as quoted in the bill—to its principles. I do not need to reiterate what our concern is, but in terms of reading the actual clause itself one can easily suggest that it is implied that previous clauses actually outline the principles. I do not believe that that is the case; I certainly went through the previous clauses, and they do not outline the principles. I will quote from clause 8: "The Crown profoundly regrets its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles as detailed above and seeks to atone for those breaches." Again, I take the opportunity of inviting the Minister in the chair to articulate what those principles are. However, having said that, we know that we are required to make some reference to them, because they are actually included in the apology.
Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Well, there's no bill if you don't do it.
PITA PARAONE: Well, that is the argument, but it is not beyond the ability of this Parliament to rectify that concern, anyway. That member perhaps perceives herself as becoming the new Minister—I do not know; I will not go down that line. My apologies, Madam Chairperson, for digressing, but I just wanted to point that out, and to be consistent with the contributions that New Zealand First makes in regard to these bills.
I also agree with the previous speaker; we do not have any concern about the Supplementary Order Paper and the suggested amendments submitted by the Minister. In fact, we believe that the amendments actually give clarity to clause 82. I will also take the opportunity to make reference to the definitions in clause 11, "Meaning of Te Roroa". As it reads, "(1) Te Roroa—(a) means the collective group composed of—(i) individuals descended from 1 or more Te Roroa tupuna; and (ii) individuals who are members of the groups referred to in paragraph (c)(i);", which are "Te Roroa, Ngati Kawa, Ngati Whiu, and Te Kuihi;".
I refer to this clause, and do so because of the allegations made by One New Zealand about my right to participate in this debate. One of the original claimants on behalf of Te Roroa is a first cousin to my father; his mother and my grandmother are two sisters. So in view of the Māori perception of genealogy and relationships, that provision makes me a link by whakapapa to Te Roroa, but I am not a beneficiary in terms of this definition of who Te Roroa claimants are. I just want to clarify that point. Suffice it to say, New Zealand First has no difficulties in terms of Part 1 of the bill.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Can members remember going to the dentist when they were kids? You know, they had those horrible dental nurses in schools—
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon TAU HENARE: Well, not dental nurses but dental clinics—sorry. And we used to have the feeling that we could either do things the easy way or the hard way. Well, we can do this bill the easy way, or do it the hard way.
There was a question by my colleague Chris Finlayson about how the ex gratia payment of $6 million impacts on the ratchet clauses in the Ngāi Tahu and Tainui settlements. I am sure the brother-in-law has the calculator out right at this moment. But it is an interesting question that I think the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, might want to explore, if he wants to go down the easy track. He might wish to focus his mind on that issue, as we move on this settlement—and I congratulate the Government on moving at pace on other settlements and agreements in principle, and signing deeds of settlement, in the rush before the election. But the question remains of how, now that the quantum has increased, that has affected the total, dare I say, fiscal envelope or multi-year appropriations, and how it affects the ratchet clauses in the Ngāi Tahu and Tainui settlements.
So that is the easy way. The hard way is that we draw this process out a wee bit. And I would not want to do that. I am not known in this House to be a filibuster—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Spell it!
Hon TAU HENARE: P-h … That is a serious question, and I hope the Minister can give us a steer. I am not expecting him to give us a policy statement on the quantum or on the Ngāi Tahu and Tainui ratchet clauses, but I ask him whether there has been any thought on how it impacts on any other settlements and on the ratchet clauses in both those two settlements.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I want to take a call just to make some comments on the observations that were made by our colleague across the Chamber, Pita Paraone, who, of course, and rightly so, always feels compelled to raise the issue of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and I, in turn, always feel compelled to make some comment on his raising that issue. Of course, these claims are brought under the mandate or brief of the Waitangi Tribunal, which has to look at a claim to see whether it breaches the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. That notion or measurement is to be found in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. As I say, it is the measure by which the tribunal must measure all the claims. So of course when we come to settle a claim, there has to be some acknowledgment in there that that claim has been well founded, in that there has been found to be a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Aroha mai, I feel sometimes for New Zealand First and for our associates across the way, who still seem to be in the dark after all these years as to what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are.
Pita Paraone: Tell us! Tell us what they are.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: First of all, there is the principle of good faith—the duty upon the Crown to negotiate with claimants in a spirit of partnership and good faith. Secondly, there is the principle of protection. I can go through these, but, really, I would have thought that after that party has been in Parliament this long, supporting settlements, as it does—unlike ACT, which used to, and probably still does, oppose everything to do with Treaty settlements—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Rodney's got the tan now. Rodney's got the spray-on tan.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: That might make a difference as to whether ACT supports a Treaty settlement. It probably will.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It's a bad spray-on tan.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Bad or not, we wait with anticipation to see whether ACT will support this Treaty settlement.
But coming back to New Zealand First, I say that I would have thought, for a party that considers itself, despite its numbers, a big party, equal to National and Labour, that after all this time someone there might have taken the time to comb through the Court of Appeal and Waitangi Tribunal decisions, because the principles are to be found in the judgments and the reports of both those organisations. As I say, I have talked about the principle of the Crown acting in good faith and in the spirit of partnership towards claimants. That is an underlying one. This settlement is meant to embody those principles, and that is why, earlier, I talked about the apology. That is why it is important that reference to the principles is here, so that we all know, and New Zealanders know, that, yes, this claim has been properly investigated, and, yes, a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi has been found. That phrase was integrated into legislation back in 1975 by that member's relative, probably, the Hon Matiu Rata—
Pita Paraone: Yes.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: —yes—who came up with that phrase, because, as we know, the Treaty is in English and in Māori, and if we were to say "the Treaty", people would ask which Treaty. So using the phrase "principles of the Treaty" enables the tribunal to look at both versions and distil from both versions what the underlying principles, thoughts, and thinking of the signatories to the Treaty were at the time. So aroha mai to our colleague in New Zealand First. He should not worry; the principles are there. They are talked about constantly, particularly in the Waitangi Tribunal reports, because they have to be. The Waitangi Tribunal has to set out how it has found a claim to be well founded because it is in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So those principles are easily gleaned, if the member were to take the time, along with his party, to find them.
- The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to omit clause 14 and substitute new clause 14 be agreed to.
- Amendment agreed to.
- Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2 Cultural Redress
- The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2 be agreed to.
- Amendments agreed to.
- Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Part 3 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
- Bill reported with amendment.
- Report adopted.


text:
Brittany Bailey: Driving with a suspended license.
Eric Cabrera: Probation violation.
Joshua Merino: Battery.
Richard Padgett: Battery.
Ismael Torres: Non-support.
Melissa Vasquez: Possession of a controlled substance without a prescription.
Timoty Vandever: Probation violation.
Jimmy Tran: Dealing in stolen property.
Shanice Taylor: Failure to appear.
Indera Sookrah: DUI.
Israel Saucedo: Failure to appear on a written promise.
Mark Soligny: Driving with a suspended license.
Luis Silva: Driving with a suspended license.
Solied Sanchez-Melendez: Out of county warrant.
Vanessa Roman: Child neglect.
Diego Restrepo-Del Valle: Expired driver's license.
Jesus Rivera-Andujar: Burglary.
Yvonne Rodriguez: Probation violation.
Wilfredo Perez: Out of county warrant.
Kevin Perry: Grand theft.
Roeiry Montes-Rodriguez: Out of county warrant,
Carlos Osorio: DUI.
Jose Pgan-Cartagena: Driving with a suspended license.
Jonathan Ortiz: Burglary of an unoccupied dwelling.
Eliseo Nieves-Agosto: Driving with a suspended license.
Jessica Gaddis: Grand theft.
Joshua Murphy: Driving with a suspended license.
Jevic McGee: Petit theft.
Wilbert McMillon: Grand theft.
Dadreanna McElyea: Petit theft.
Gamier Marrero-Aponte: Inciting or encouraging a riot.
Anthony La Berge: Driving with a suspended license.
Hugo Landrau: Probation violation.
Patrick Kennedy: Out of county warrant.
Kimberly Jackson: Driving with a suspended license.
Shoshanna Johnson: Driving with a suspended license.
Michon Harrington: Probation violation.
Richard Elie: Marijuana possession.
Emanuel Cruz-Soto: Aggravated assault.
Maximo Diaz: Resisting arrest without violence.
Mizael Delacruz-Pichardo: Petit theft.
Gene Christensen: Sexual battery.
Hector Carlo: Petit theft.
Nico Carmiche: Probation violation.
David Cruz: Aggravated assault.
Gary Bush: Resisting arrest without violence.
Raheem Cabrera: Petit theft.
Nayomi Burgos-Fontanez: Petit theft.
Christopher Allen: Marijuana possession.
No email address was supplied by
To complete your registration on this site, please supply an address.
Please confirm or modify the email address to which you will have subscription offers sent.
For a more personalized experience, please supply the following optional information.


text:
The purpose of this website is to help you with managing your money and provide you with practical solutions for increasing your wealth. We have a simple method and easy to use tools.
As part of these solutions we offer you the chance to see how biblical principles can impact your finances. The biblical principles will help you determine and understand areas in your life that impact your ability to have financial freedom. In addition you will learn how to manage finances according to God's way.
To get started, go to the Index Page. There are 3 sections on this page
If you want to jump right in and start with the practical side, go to the Track It! section and begin increasing your wealth. Then follow each application to increase your wealth potential.
If you want to see what the Bible says about finances, start with the Biblical Principles section.
The Bible is packed full of Scriptures that are related in some way to financial topics. The Scriptures relate to personal stewardship, issues of debt and credit, saving and investing, how to treat the poor and less fortunate, honesty and truthfulness, laziness and diligence, contentment and the cost of self-indulgence, business and entrepreneurism, tithing and the giving of offerings, as well as wealth and abundance. So many areas of our financial life are written about in Scripture.
The Scriptures in the Bible that relate to issues of finance and stewardship offer to each of us help in many areas of our personal and professional life. With them we can learn and understand that:
We hope you enjoy the information and increase your wealth to achieve Financial Freedom!


text:
A Jonas Brothers reunion may be in the works – at least it's stacking up that way, according to one-third of the music trio.
Speaking at his 24th birthday party in Las Vegas, Kevin Jonas hinted at such a reunion, saying, "My brothers are performing Broadway. Nick is doing [the Broadway musical] How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. Joe's all over. My wife and I just moved back to New Jersey, which of course is on the East Coast, which means we'll all be together."
Though he wouldn't completely commit to another Jonas Brothers Project, he said, "I think the tides are perfectly lining up for the future of the Jonas Brothers again."
Celebrating his at Vegas's Chateau Nightclub Saturday with his wife, Danielle Deleasa, and brother Joe, Kevin's future is a bit different than that of his brothers, considering he's married. And what's ahead for him, he says, involves children.
"It's nothing we've shied away from. It's something we want to do at some point. Not right now for us, but it will happen in the future. When it does it will be great."
Kevin Jonas: A Jonas Brothers Reunion Coming?
Charles Sykes/AP


text:
Issa Touma
Born Safita, Syria, 1962. Lives Aleppo, Syria
From the series 'Sufis: The day of al-Ziyara'
Gelatin silver print
Museum no. E.71-2011
Art Fund Collection of Middle Eastern Photography at the V&A and the British Museum
Issa Touma is a prominent figure in the Syrian art scene. Self-taught, he began his career as a photographer in the early 1990s. In 1996 he founded Le Pont Organisation and Gallery, an independent art organisation to promote freedom of expression and stimulate the local art scene through international events.
His series on the day of al-Ziyara documents an annual procession of Sufi pilgrims in northern Syria. Sufism is a mystical path within Islam. Touma photographed the event over the course of ten years, gradually gaining the trust of his subjects. The resulting images convey his sense of immersion in the festival and capture the fervour of the worshippers.


text:
LANSING -- While some teenagers are out causing trouble, Philippe Quint was discovering his passion for the violin. Now an award-winning musician, Quint brings his talents to the Lansing area this Saturday, Jan. 5 as he performs Red Violin and Brahms with the Lansing Symphony Orchestra at the Wharton Center.
MLive chatted with Quint about his musical talent and more.
Q. How did you get started with the violin?
A. My grandparents wanted to have a family trio. Mother played the piano and uncle played the cello. While the trio never happened I ended up being a concert violinist.
Q. You began performing at a very young age - when did you know the violin would be your career?
A. As a child back in Soviet Union I was always attending concerts, ballets, plays in theaters. I found the music scene to be very inspiring at the time, but it took me a little while to really fall in love with the violin. I remember I was about 13 years old when I had a break point in my musical life and knew that from that time violin and I will be inseparable.
Q. Tell us a bit about your upcoming performance with the LSO.
A. I am excited to start the year with a performance of one of my favorite compositions: Red Violin Chaconne by John Corigliano. I have had the chance to work with John who has made many valuable suggestions for interpreting this work derived from his Oscar-winning score for the movie. I think the audience will be delighted to hear this exciting work that encompasses the romantic style of the past with some original sounds effects.
Q. You have won many awards for your musical abilities, which one means the most to you?
A. Each award and accomplishment is a milestone. I can't select one over another. While working on a project I never concern myself with what this idea or venture can bring me in terms of accolades. My concentration is entirely on the soul of the project, but if it receives an award or gets noted by the music press it certainly becomes a pleasant surprise.
Q. Tells us a bit about the movie in which you star "Downtown Express."
A. I always felt that the two worlds - theater and music are more similar than different. As an actor, you have to stay in the moment and as a musician you have to stay in the moment. If you are a great, conscious musician, you are very good at listening to your partners whether they're a symphony orchestra or chamber music ensemble.
Any acting teacher will tell you that acting is not about acting, it's about reacting. This has to do with the art of listening — how you respond and interact with your partners on stage. All of that felt natural to me. Again I was not playing rocket scientist, I was playing Russian violinist.
A lot of people underestimate what it's like being actor. There's sort of a notion that you can just show up in front of a camera, say a couple of lines, and you get an Oscar. But I knew right away that this was not the way to go. Of course, a lot of careers have been made like this. But if we're talking about true actors with substance — Lawrence Olivier, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino — these are actors with great training. So I thought I should study in depth the world of theater and television.
The producers recommended me to [Lee's] studio. Of course I couldn't take classes consistently because of the violin schedule. But whenever I was in New York, I would jump into her studio. It was a great experience because I got to study a lot of great plays, and I found more than one parallel between theater and music. So, inadvertently, one benefited the other.
Q. What advice can you offer other aspiring musicians?
A. Never waste a minute of your practice. Better to invest in concentrated practice while spending less time then many hours of thoughtless repetitions which only prolong the process of getting the work under your belt. Make metronome your best friend and the goals will be achieved at a much quicker pace.
Emily Caswell is the managing editor of Capital Area Women's LifeStyle Magazine and the Discussion Diva at M3 Group. Contact her at emilypcaswell at gmail dot com or follow her on Twitter @emilycas.


text:
The New York Rangers (43-30-4) visit the Colorado Avalanche (48-21-6) at the Pepsi Center starting at 9:00 p.m. For a preview, visit Yahoo! Sports.
TV: MSG Radio: ESPN Radio (98.7 FM)
Live Stream (Don't click on ads in stream, may download virus):
Probable Line-up:
Richards-Moore-St. Louis
Henrik Lundqvist – 31-23-4, 2.41 gaa, .919 sv%, 5 so
Semyon Varlamov – 38-14-5, 2.48 gaa, .926 sv%, 1 so
Opponent Notes:
– The Avalanche have won four straight.
– Matt Duchene, Colorado's top point getter (70), is out four weeks with a knee injury.
– Gabriel Landeskog has five goals and two assists in the last four games.
– Semyon Varlamov's career goals-against average versus the Rangers is 3.75 – his worst against any opponent.
– Ryan O'Reilly has just one point (an assist) in the last five games.
– Rookie Nathan MacKinnon has seven points (1g, 6a) in the last eight games.
– Paul Stastny has five points (1g, 4a) in the last four games.
– On Monday, former Ranger P.A. Parenteau skated for the first time since suffering a knee injury last month.
– With the Duchene injury, another former Ranger John Mitchell has been elevated to the second line. Mitchell has seven points (4g, 3a) in his last seven games.
– When the Avalanche were still the Nordiques, the eighth seeded and defending Stanley Cup Champion Rangers shocked them in the first round of the 1995 playoffs…
2013-14 Season Series:
Feb. 4 Rangers 5, Avalanche 1 at MSG
Apr. 3 Rangers vs. Avalanche at Colorado
Opponent Blog:
Mile High Hockey


text:
North Las Vegas, Nevada Estate Planning Lawyers and Law Firms
|» Step 1: Tell Us About Your Case
|» Step 2: Provide Contact Information & Submit
Start a Lawyer Search
Tell us about your case so that we can connect you with the right lawyers.
Whitehead & Burnett, Attorneys at Law
The attorneys of Whitehead & Burnett focus on business entity planning and formation, employment issues, estate planning, e-commerce, health law, real estate and business litigation in the Las Vegas area.
Address: Call for Appointment - Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: (702) 267-6500
Solomon Dwiggins & Freer, Ltd.
Address: 9060 West Cheyenne Avenue - Las Vegas, NV 89129
Phone: (702) 853-5483
Morris Estate Planning Attorneys
At Morris Estate Planning Attorneys, we specialize in Probate, Estate Tax, and Estate Planning matters. Each client receives highly individualize advice and attention to create a plan carefully designed to meet specific goals
Address: 3333 E. Serene, Ave., Suite 200 - Henderson, NV 89074
Phone: (702) 471-0990
Jeffrey Burr, Ltd.
Address: 2600 Paseo Verde Parkway - Henderson, NV 89074
Phone: (702) 433-4455
John G. Gubler, Ltd.
Proudly serving clients in Las Vegas and Clark County for more than 40 years
Address: 10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 170 - Las Vegas, NV 89144
Phone: (702) 666-8473


text:
WWE 2K14 Download for Xbox 360On: Xbox 360, PS3
The first wrestling game to be published by 2K Sports.
Review Verdict Read Review
7Out of 10Back to game info
Download courtesy of:
Download: WWE 2K14: Ultimate Warrior Pre-order Trailer
Category: HD Video
The Ultimate Warrior visits 2K's offices to explain why you should pre-order WWE 2K14.
Download File
File Size: 35.91 MB


text:
Transportation for any occasion
Boston Executive Car Service offers quality service at an affordable price. Learn more about our rates.
Monthly Special:
10% Discount For All New Clients
We offer convenient, reliable and luxurious transportation in the Greater Boston and MetroWest Area. Boston Executive Car Service boasts a modern fleet of Sedans, SUV and Limousines - guaranteed safe, clean and on time - everytime.
If you need a ride right away, call us at 617)719-9884 ,774-222-5757 now, we're available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. For more information on our range of transportation services, have a look around our website.
Found us on FACEBOOK www.facebook.com/BostonExecutiveCarService
Boston Executive Car Service is your one-stop transportation service in the Greater Boston and MetroWest Areas,to and from Boston Logan Airport as well as Connecticut, Main, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont Airports
Whether you need a single ride or are planning an elaborate event, Boston Executive Car Service makes transportation easy.
We provide Luxury Sedans, SUV's and VIP Sedans (MB S550) services to and
from Boston Logan Airport and hourly transportation in Boston and MetroWest Areas as well as point to point from:
Boston to Logan $55.00
Boston to Woods Hole, MA. $195.00
Boston to Worcester, MA. $155.00
Boston to Newport, RI. $220.00
Boston to Providence, RI. $169.00
Boston to Manchester, NH. $165.00
Boston to Hartford, CT. $350.00
Boston to New York City. $599.00
In order to better suit your needs, we now offer possibilities of reserving luxury transportation anywhere in the US as well as other countries.
Boston Executive Car Service is dedicated to making your airport transportation needs easy and convenient. We want you to travel in first class condition and understand that you depend on our reliable transportation service. We will do everything possible to make sure your limo ride is on time, all the time, with a professional, courteous driver. Being in the limousine transportation business for four decades, we know what is expected of a premium limousine service.
A modern fleet for reliable service
Our fleet consists of late model sedans, SUV's and VIP sedans. All our vehicles come equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) to ensure a direct route and a timely response. Sit back and enjoy the ride, because peace of mind is part of the deal!
Explore our fleet of modern vehicles and meet our team of qualified drivers.


text:
This course is designed to review professional standards, ethics and updates to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
St. Mary's Seminary
1000 E Maple Ave
Mundelein, IL 60060
Register online at www.lakecountynaifa.com
Remember Me
Forgot your password?
Haven't joined yet?
9/26/2016Understanding Leases
10/6/2016 » 10/8/2016Mastering Unique and Complex Property Appraisal - QE and CE
10/12/2016Common Appraisal Deficiencies and How to Prevent Them
10/13/2016 » 10/21/2016Basic Appraisal Procedures - QE and CE
10/19/201613.0A Pennsylvania Law
National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers - 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: 312-321-6830 Fax: 312-673-6652 Email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
An elderly woman was rushed to the hospital after fierce flames destroyed her home in Berks County.
Firefighters got the call around 3:45 p.m. Friday to respond to the fire in the 100 block of Gerald Avenue in Cumru Township.
"It was like an inferno, something out of a movie. Flames were all over the place," said Tony Urdaz, who lives across the street.
The fire quickly went to two alarms as extra manpower was summoned to the scene to fight the intense flames and smoke coming from the 1-1/2 story brick home.
The homeowner, identified by neighbors as Mary Martin, was inside at the time.
"I saw her holding onto the side door while the house was ablaze, so without thought I just ran over there to get her," said Robert Roman, who helped bring Martin to safety.
Witnesses said they could see Martin's hair on fire. Initial reports indicated she suffered smoke inhalation. She was treated by EMS on scene, then taken to the hospital.
All neighbors could do was watch in horror as years of memories went up in flames.
"Oh my gosh, the whole home was engulfed in flames all the windows were full of fire everywhere," said Tonie Roman, who walked outside her parents home to find the fire.
Fire crews fought to knock down the fire as smoke billowed over the house, but even their quick response wasn't enough to save it. According to officials, the home was a total loss.
A cause has not been determined, but it did not appear to be suspicious, said fire officials.
Martin's condition was unknown.