2 Letters

https://sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers



Feel free to share letters from this site, but accreditation to kiwifrontline.com would be appreciated.  That way, our voices and concerns will grow stronger.


Northland Age 19/3/20
WHY BOTHER VOTING?
Following local council elections, we now have even more mayors and councillors pushing for unelected Maori on councils or council boards, with any of 'our' spare land or resources divided up between their pet iwi.

These people never campaigned on their racial preferences. Multiple polls taken around the country have said ratepayers do not want unelected people speaking for them, deciding when council land goes, or what their rates are spent on.

In Auckland the ratepayers are now picking up the bill for marae maintenance. When I emailed the Auck land Council about this they replied that marae are an important hub for all Aucklanders. No, they are not!

It really disturbs me to think these people got into local government, or for that matter central government, under false pretences to push separatist policies and a racial agenda.

We also have the New Zealand Geographic Board, supposedly not a government department but accountable to the Minister for Land Information, so that really equates to the fact they are another tool of the left to push more Maorification of your town, district, suburb or street without your consent.

All too often we are seeing people in local and central office who campaigned without revealing their true intentions and taking advantage of your vote to push lefty/woke, or racist policies that you do not agree with, and certainly wouldn't have voted for if you knew the truth, if they had told the truth, when in fact they knew they wouldn't stand a chance in the election if they had told the truth!

Not only that, but these charlatans have forced elected councillors, voted for by you, out of making decisions, or even contributing to the debate because they do not follow their leader's racial dogma.

The people I talk about are morally bankrupt narcissists who infest nearly every council around the country, and the truth is most of your votes counted for nothing. You might as well not have bothered. Left-wing ideology in our governance is that we are here to be told how to live our lives. We get to pay the tax that they spend; notice they are keen to punish anyone avoiding tax, but don't care less where that money goes. Every day another million dollars to some socialist scheme with no checks, balances or targets to be met.

The socialist mantra that Labour, yes, and National, push is they know best, and how long is it before we don't get to vote? You may laugh, but look at what we have lost this year, and what they are looking to take off us in the future. If they ban free speech and allow private land to be fair game to Treaty troughers, everything will be fair game.

What will you do if the Treaty bus and its protest wing turn up at your block of land? If you complain about it, will the lefty/pinkos see that as hate speech and racism? Is my imagination running wild? I don't know, is it?

Have we actually got a democracy in New Zealand? Do politicians even care about your vote once they're in office? They think we are stupid, and if I'm honest I agree with that. The average New Zealander is as thick as a plank when it comes to ou r politics.

Look at Simon Bridges. One minute he is talking about abolishing the Waitangi Tribunal and getting rid of the Maori seats, and next minute he is talking up the new and reinvigorated Maori Party as their next partner in government. Hello, anyone out there?

Goodbye water, hello written constitution, with the ToW as the centerpiece, compulsory te reo in schools and funding to burn for anything Maori. This is not the New Zealand I want to live in or, bring my children up in.
REX ANDERSON
Lower Hutt

Northland Age 3/3/20 & Waitomo News 12/3/20
NOT TRUE
Tom Roa, Associate Professor at Waikato University, is reported as saying many things about the Rangiowahia affray that are not true and which he ought to know are not true.

First, there were no "atrocities" at Rangiowahia, an action planned by the humanitarian General Cameron to destroy the food supplies of the rebels in the strong fort at Paterangi and avoid a direct assault, with many casualties on both sides.

Second, Rangiowahia was British sovereign territory in the hands of rebels. It was entirely legitimate for government forces to act to recover it. Roa makes the false claim that they "invaded" it.

Third, almost all the women and children were allowed to escape safely to the home of Thomas Power before a shot was fired. Roa's claim that "numerous Maori were killed. including women, children and the elderly," is yet another falsehood.

Fourth, Roa states that "Several houses were burned down with villagers inside," which is also untrue. In fact the only significant action was at one whare, which Roa has claimed elsewhere was a "whare karakia," which was fashioned as a gunpit, containing about a dozen rebels armed with loaded muskets. One man, with his wife and child, escaped when invited to do so, but when Sergeant McHale entered to call for the surrender of the remainder, an old fool called Hoani Papita shot him at point-blank range. In the short, sharp action which followed, Hoani and his fellow rebels and five of the troops were killed.

But for that one incident, the capture of Rangiowahia would have been an almost bloodless and merciful action leading not long afterwards to peace being restored in the Waikato.
BRUCE MOON Nelson

DIVISIVE NONSENSE
Caroline Pukeroa-McKinney (Shape up or....., letters February 27th) touches on ‘Contra Proferentem’. This is a self-serving argument used by treatyists, and is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. The unfortunate reality for treatyists is that there is no ambiguity in Te Tiriti. The only ambiguity is that introduced by 1980s re-interpretations.

How can English and Maori Treaty versions be accepted in Aotearoa? – There is no such place! Aotearoa is not mentioned in the non-event 1835 Declaration of Independence or Te Tiriti.

Readers should ignore her Waitangi Tribunal validation as they are a racially stacked organisation and Ngapuhi elder David Rankin says “The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along.....”

Racism? As a colleague once wrote “Principled opposition to unearned racial privilege is not racism. Racism occurs where a group of prejudiced individuals get together to create a system of special privilege affording them unearned superior, separate or different rights to everyone else solely on the basis of group membership. I will leave it to readers to decide if NZ is a racist country, and if so, which group benefits from this racism”.

General consensus is that Maori arrived here around the 1300s, and with tribal pillage, plunder, slavery, cannibalism, feast and famine, in places and at times bitterly cold conditions, they did not live the idyllic lifestyle Pukeroa-McKinney portrays.

In the 1700s with leading nations exploring and extending their realms Maori and New Zealand could not stay isolated, so inevitably were discovered by others. In 1831 Ngapuhi chiefs wrote to King William IV of England begging for protection primarily from the French who Ngapuhi feared a reprisal after an earlier stoush in 1772. Maori were not invaded, the British were invited, then an agreement was signed......

She says Maori were trading internationally prior to Europeans arriving – love to see her evidence on this, apparently the only sail recorded in New Zealand before the 1800s was the double spritsail, a V-shaped sail lashed to spars on each side, which cannot sail to windward.

Pukeroa-McKinney accuses previous correspondents, who patriotically raised concerns about issues relating to biculturalism, of being racists, yet she clearly defines people by race ie “... one nation with two peoples, Maori and everyone else” - perhaps it is her that is ‘racist?.

Today many are ‘Maori’ as a result of a statute passed in the mid-seventies when definitions were changed from ancestry and blood quantum to ‘I feel Maori’.

It is laughable that Pukeroa-McKinney, whose preferred ancestors only ever discovered New Zealand, talks of ‘world views’. It seems the ‘Maori world view’ consists of despising colonisation and all it’s benefits, and the world owes them a living (especially colonists who are blamed for all Maori woes today), and that tribalism is superior to democracy – NZers would be wise to oppose this divisive nonsense.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Gisborne Herald 18/2/20
‘ALL’ MEANS ‘ALL’ IN TREATY
Re: Treaty supports freshwater right, February 15 column.

John Porter's lengthy piece is nothing but propaganda based on the fake “Treaty in English” of Hobson's snobbish secretary, JS Freeman, whose “Article Two” is very different from the genuine one.

Article second of the real Treaty, in the Ngapuhi dialect, says in essence that all the people of New Zealand — “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” — are guaranteed the possession of their lands, homes and ordinary possessions (taonga). There is not a word about “forests and fisheries”, and “all” means “all”.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson


‘ALL’ MEANS ‘ALL’ IN TREATY #2
In 1840 under English Common Law things like freshwater were managed/regulated by the Crown or democratically-elected officers.

The wise chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to cede sovereignty to the Queen of England and, in return, became British subjects in accordance with the law of the time, including Common Law. Therefore it follows that freshwater was vested in the Crown. Yes, the chiefs themselves vested “various resources” in the Crown by signing the Treaty.

What Article 2 in the valid Maori language Treaty says, is that “all” the people of New Zealand (not just Maori, but Maori included) are guaranteed legal ownership of their land (occupied or in usage at the time), houses and ordinary property (taonga). As a consequence, any Maori customary rights to “other” resources like freshwater were extinguished by the Treaty.

Further, water cannot be owned until it is captured in a vessel of some kind; it is uncaptured water that is the focus of Maori opportunists who, if successful in their bid for it, may clip the ticket each time a tap is turned on — NZers really need to think about this!
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Northland Age 18/2/20
EASILY CONNED
Most people don’t realise Queen Victoria did not have the right or power to grant Maori exclusive rights over her British subjects. This is elementary knowledge, as Britain never had racial laws.

All Treaty documents that have been used to install exclusive Maori rights have been false or unauthorised translations, such as, Hobson never authorised an English Treaty, and unauthorised translations of Hugh Kawharu. Kawharu was actually a sitting judge on the Waitangi Tribunal when he wrote what he called his “attempt at a reconstruction (note reconstruction) of the literal translation of the Maori text,” and this “reconstruction” is what was accepted by the 1987 Court of Appeal to establish there was a “Partnership between Maori and the Crown,” as well as the “5 Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

The Crown likewise accepted it for the purpose of this case. Amazing how easy it is to con the people.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 14/2/20
VICE REGAL DUTIES
The Governor General, Dame Patsy Reddy, in her Waitangi Day Speech, has suggested changing the national anthem to include both partners of the Treaty.

In her inaugural speech she had already misinterpreted the meaning of the Treaty by speaking of: ‘the unique partnership between Maori and the Crown’. In doing so she made her position as the Queen’s representative redundant.

She has no more legal or social standing than the head of the Otahuhu Chapter of Black Power.

None of the three clauses of the Treaty mentions partnership. The terms used are ‘sovereign’ and ‘subject.’ The fact is that a subject cannot be a partner of the Sovereign. This is a semantic anomaly.

No amount of subsequent political jiggery-pokery can alter this historical fact.

When queried at the time, about this dichotomy, her secretary refused to answer on her behalf.

Just because, when asked, the Prime Minister did not know the three clauses of the Treaty that her government promotes it does not mean that the rest of the country should remain in ignorance.
Check it out.
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.


PROTEST FORCED DECISION-MAKING
It has been acknowledged that Fletchers are the legitimate owners of Ihumatao having legally purchased the property and now finding themselves in a position where more than one iwi wants this lucrative property and the sale to be negated. If there was some question as to the legality of the sale - which there is not- then a legal remedy should be sought. It is not a matter for central or local government to resolve.

Once again the Treaty is being cited as a basis for argument - a situation which is happening time and time again over the last 180 years when legally purchased land is the basis of prolonged protest and subsequent return.

It is dangerous to create yet another precedent where protest and iwi demand and convenient Treaty interpretation forces the wrong result. On site protest is a type of bullying and occurs often in order to force political intervention in favour of iwi.

Whatever happens this way is going to cost the New Zealand taxpayer and ratepayer millions. Nowhere else in history has a dissatisfied purchaser managed to reap millions in so-called reparation and a national apology to boot.

Settlement on the basis of mana whenua has to stop.

We are fast becoming tenants in our own country.

I urge the Government and the Auckland City Council and the disputing iwi to recognise the principles of land transfer as set out in the relevant Statutes and to abide by them.
R STEPHENS, Papamoa Beach.

Northland Age 11/2/20
INFANTS AT RISK
The furore regarding the uplifting of at risk infants which continues ad nauseum along with the associated naval gazing and knee jerking is ludicrous. The prime concern and only consideration here, is the welfare and safe-being of at risk infants - the wider family and parents are of secondary importance as they are usually the root cause of the problem not the solution. To enable any infant to be uplifted, invariably a Court Order (Judges should be provided with full background /reports) is required and it is inconceivable that the Ministry for Children would ever act precipitously because of the flak involved. The natural first step is always to see if the child can initially be placed with other family members and if this cannot be safely negotiated because others are not fit to take the child then that in itself is a telling indictment. Indiscriminate breeding, physical abuse, alcohol, drug taking, violent temperaments, history of violence dysfunctional and varied relationships etc. are all major contributors to the upsurge of child related violence. it is not right for any Government Dept nor Kiwi taxpayers to wear the vitriolic diatribe resulting from other people’s failures.

Should the Ministry currently properly uplift at risk infants , there is always feigned and frenzied outrage while if a child is not removed and subsequently suffers physical harm or death, then all hell breaks loose – it is a ‘no win situation’ for the Ministry who would be better served just wiping its hands of the whole self -inflicted mess. Keep out of the bunfight and let the malcontents play Russian roulette with kids lives -is that what the do gooders want? If you just throw more money at those who are responsible or have culpability for events it will achieve nothing but more ongoing bitching and woe is me nonsense.

Families must front up and be counted by addressing issues before they reach the bottom of the cliff stage because lack of family support and care are often most telling features in the child tragedies. From the use of inappropriate name OrangaTamariki…bandied about it seems fair to conclude these children in at risk situations are usually part-maori.

Unbelievably up to five separate individual current investigations are underway and the cost involved will be horrendous. Children’s Commissioner Becroft looks ineffectual, and Minister for Children Tracy Martin as usual proffers nothing. The latest report commissioned by vested self -serving maori interests and just released by ex -Maori Party President Glavish and no doubt endorsed by ex- Maori Party co- leader Turia who are incidentally also Waitangi Tribunal complainants on the subject simply trotting out the same old hackneyed prattle.

None of the tormented bleating souls seem prepared to face the reality of the situation and place the blame squarely where it lies. Stop playing the aggrieved, try looking in the mirror and start sheeting home responsibility properly. Why not set up local voluntary groups comprising maori luminaries, maori wardens, the do gooders and so forth to hold miscreants to account and let them deal directly with those responsible for the criminal child abuse.

Public outrage in my opinion is confined to normal KIWIS being blamed for the crimes of others.
ROB PATERSON, Mount Maunganui

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 7/2/20
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
It seems B. Mikaere (The Weekend Sun, January 31, page 28) has missed the whole point of my letter although he seems to be highly involved in this Mission Street land issue and therefore biased.

Anyway…

Nowhere has B. Mikaere provided proof that this land Tauranga City Council bought legally off another person who happened to be selling it in Mission Street actually belonged to the Otamata trust in the past but was taken from them illegally.

I have absolutely no problem if that is the case to hand the land back if this can be proven and if it is then Tauranga Council should not have used $1.5million of ratepayers money on this fruitless exercise but Otamata trust should have been rightfully given back this land by the Crown and not at ratepayers expense.

With any land transaction you need legal proof of ownership to finalise a sale and I am amazed that B. Mikaere has not provided that.

It appears that B. Mikaere has some sort of influence over council members about his statements on his version of Maori history being the only one as surely at least one councillor should have challenged him about ratepayer funded land just being handed over without any protest or proof of ownership first? Would you? What would your lawyer advise? (abridged).
L ASKIN, Bethlehem

Northland Age 6/2/20
A RACE-BASED RORT
Fletchers legitimately own the Ihumatao private land to develop as they see fit. If compromises can be reached to induce a Fletchers sale the deal must be for full market value including future unrealised profits. Total could be as much as $100+million. Any compensation moneys must not and cannot come from Kiwi taxpayers nor ASC ratepayers. Providing non-recourse/non-repayable interest free Government loans to circumvent Ardern’s undertakings would be fraudulent rort on all Kiwis..

Winnie Peters says neigh a deal is not yet struck- hmmmm? Well that doesn’t sound like the claptrap spouting forth from the tooth fairy’s crew mouths which seems to suggest an announcement will be made at Waitangi-God only knows why.

Activists their supporters and toadies need to stump up with all funds from their own resources for any settlement –‘yeah right’ that will of course only happen when hell freezes over.Only proper solution nevertheless can only be that the activists front up or shut up and ship out and get off the land .

As for the recent visit to Ihumatao by and the audience with’ kingi’ Tuheitia Paki who meandered and trucked 40minutes up SH1 even though Mangere land not within his realm and then as usual Tainui stuck their noses into the cloudy race based mess it is damning to learn that neither will contribute anything of value, either money or common sense.

Kiwis have already quickly judged this fiasco for what it is mostly concluding it’s the usual race-based rort.

Oh, and how about local resident Maki iwi who were due to receive 8 hectares & 40 new homes which they won’t now get because of the SOUL misfits. Quite rightly they will feel gutted/aggreived so who will compensate them for their loss, pray tell. My guess is it will not be their fellow malcontents but that they will in fact get a big handout from Kiwi taxpayers.
ROB PATERSON, Mount Maunganui

Northland Age 30/1/20
ALICE IN WONDERLAND
The background to probably 80 per cent of the public’s gripe is that Kiwis are sick and tired of reading creative treatyist accounts and versions on the Treaty by so-called self-anointed modern-day revisionist historians and pseudo experts expounding tenuous theories, masquerading as proven facts, thereby challenging proven historical facts and inevitably the truth.

Rarely (if ever) can oral word of mouth pass-me-down accounts supplant eye witness accounts and authenticated documentary evidence, as it is notoriously unreliable, misleading, and often deceptively based. The Alice in Wonderland mentality and absurd accounts of events and the interpretation of words to give them their Humpty Dumpty and Madhatter meanings (words will mean what I want them to mean) defies rational belief, common sense, and fails proper scrutiny. It is all usually driven by self-serving agendas, selfinterest and the belief in unjust entitlements.

While the charlatans that promote the deceptions are duplicitous and reprehensible, the fawning toadies and village idiots that pay homage to it as the gospel are even more culpable. The sycophants usually have PC undisclosed race-based agendas, permitting the perpetrators to get away with their deceit. The ‘powers that be’ then promote legislation to give the deceptions statutory credence and legal fiction status, overlooking that if something is false, passing laws will not validate it.

This hypocrisy is a real and imminent danger to the wellbeing of all fair-minded Kiwis, who have no say in their fate, by way of binding referenda, for example. The legislators (elected) claim they have a mandate from the New Zealand electorate — they do not! — while the judiciary, fronted by activist judges, is more insidious because judges are not elected and are accountable to no one.

Lost in translation: Tiriti o Waitangi (Maori language version), in unequivocal, plain and simple language, is the only legitimate Treaty (500 words) with a preamble and 3 articles (benign agreement all Kiwis could accept ) prepared from Hobson/Busby’s final hubrEnglish draft (aka Littlewood Draft) that cross-translates perfectly with Te Tiriti, while the bogus Freeman version doesn’t. There’s no English Treaty with Hobson clearly stating that the Treaty signed at Waitangi on February 6, 1840, was the only Treaty.

Once signed the Treaty almost immediately became redundant, as sovereignty was ceded by all chiefs who signed, British citizenship was granted, and sale of Maori land rules were put in place, so all 3 Articles were satisfied. Absolutely no reference to any treaty principles, partnerships, nor fisheries, forests, rivers etc. in Te Tiriti or the Littlewood Draft, promising only what was contained in the 3 Articles.

And in fact it wasn’t made between nations. It’s not a treaty, simply an agreement between the British Crown and a group of disparate, warring tribes represented by 52 chiefs at Waitangi, eventually gaining 542 signatures ceding sovereignty. In reality, sovereignty was acquired by Hobson’s Acts of State (May 1840) and Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter, November 16, 1840.

Yes, while the Treaty was very fair, it never dealt with fairness or the modern day rewritten revised and fabricated stuff made to satisfy blatant self-interest and unjustified fatuous entitlement claims being made in 2020.

“Real truth exists (via facts), only falsehoods and lies have to be invented” — Georges Braque.

The analogy with Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 novels is not lost in relation to the treachery.
ROB PATERSON, Mount Maunganui


THERE WAS NO CROWN
Tiriti o Waitangi, Section 9 of the Education and Training Bill states, (1). For The main provisions of this Act that recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

But New Zealand did not have a Crown when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, in fact, New Zealand was under the dependency of New South Wales.

The Treaty of Waitangi only asked tangata Maori to give up their kawanatanga/governments to Queen Victoria. In return Queen Victoria gave this primitive race of people heading for extinction, the greatest wish of all, “They would become British subjects with the same rights as the people of England”.

Once the majority of tangata Maori had signed to the Treaty of Waitangi, a Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840, issued by “Victoria by the Grace of God”, under “The Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. This gave all the people of New Zealand one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed on the 3 May 1841. Our true Founding Document and first Constitution that should be celebrated on the 3 May every year.

Therefore, Section (9) of this Bill should read, “The main provisions of this Act that recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to Queen Victoria’s 1840 Royal Charter.
ROSS BAKER. Researcher, One New Zealand foundation Inc.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 17/1/20
COINCIDENCE?
I have been wondering why councillors had suddenly decided to gift the land in Mission Street over to Maori despite the fact Tauranga ratepayers had paid $1.5m for it in a legal sale by the previous owners without firstly council going through the correct legal channels (ie Waitangi Tribunal) to verify the claims that the land had been taken off Maori initially in the past and they had never been paid for it?

It is a huge sum for ratepayers to lose when there are many other urgent things council could have used this money on.

Then shortly after this land had been ‘gifted’ over to Maori, suddenly the Mount track was repaired at a far lesser cost than had previously been quoted after it had remained in limbo for a few years with help and blessings from Maori.

Was there a connection between the two? We won’t let you repair the Mount track unless You give us the land? Silly me!
L ASKIN, Bethlehem.


THE FAVOURED FEW
Against all evidence and public opinion Tauranga City Council has voted to give 11 Mission street to Otamataha Trust, which in my opinion is totally irresponsible.

Legally it’s wrong that seven councillors voted and given away without a public referendum or vote from the people of Tauranga on a property that rate payers have paid for! It’s nigh on stealing!

Another issue is that Maori Council now claim they should have a slice of the 5G spectrum because it is their Taonga and government is considering? A German physicist discovered radio waves in 1886, not Maori saying they should own a portion of 5G spectrum because this is a resource [Taonga], does that justify ownership?

What is happening to Democratic NZ? This is preferential treatment to a minority and consecutive governments buy into this behaviour?

No wonder there is no money left to build our SH2 road?

Maori contribute little to the NZ tax system. Most Maori tribes are classed as Charitable Trusts and with incomes now in the millions, they pay no tax. Maori authorities only pay 17 per cent tax whereas the rest of us pay 24 per cent.

Ask the question why then they should be allowed to make big demands on New Zealand’s resources, this is not equality?

No freedom of speech, if the majority speak against this behaviour; the call is racist; our sound arguments are not printed!
C HUMPHRIES, Katikati.

Northland Age 16/1/20
TIME’S UP
The apartheid Waitangi Tribunal is fully funded by the taxpayers and was set up to hear and make recommendations to Government of alleged past Treaty breaches by the government against Maori, but the majority of these claims had been fully and finally settled in the 1930’s/40’s.

Since its formation in 1975, it has helped advanced Maori and their assets to the tune of about $36 billion, in many cases by allowing claimants to distort, fabricate or omit evidence to favour their claim, a fact admitted by the Chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal, Chief judge Eddie Durie.

While the tribunal was set up to hear Maori grievances against the crown, it is now an apartheid, taxpayer funded Government organization being used to distort our history and steal assets and taxpayer’s funds that belong to all the people of New Zealand. Maori are no longer disadvantaged; therefore the tribunal can no longer hide behind, Section 19 (2) of the 1993 Human Rights Act.

It is time the apartheid Waitangi tribunal was abolished; it is well past its use by date.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui

Northland Age 9/1/20
TAONGA DEFINED
The Maori text which is the true Treaty says very clearly all the people of New Zealand while the words for Forests and Fisheries are not in the Maori Text. And yet, The Waitangi Tribunal is full of our country’s most fluent Maori speakers and they can’t even read the text properly.

The Government could end the confusion if they wished, but they would have to reverse almost every claim which involved forests and fisheries and immediately all claims for water, wind, radio waves, etc would be overturned as the word “Taonga” means “Property procured by the spear” and not “Treasure” as by the Waitangi Tribunal. But our Governments won’t change it as it would destroy all the treaty claims both Labour and National are hell bend on deceiving the people.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui

Hawkes Bay Today 9/1/20
HISTORY TWISTING
Re Buddy Mikaere’s article January 3 - ‘Treaty all about fair go’

His inference of Crown/Treaty skulduggery to grab Maori land is laughable, Article Two of the treaty was primarily to guarantee ownership of land and to protect Maori landsellers from opportunist European purchasers.

Only history twisters see the laws passed in 1860s as a means to gain Maori land, when in fact these statutes were to restore and ensure peace for all inhabitants in a turbulent era when two cultures came together. Since 1840 many Statutes have been passed with good intention to help Maori adapt to changing times.

The term “treaty principles” was first used by a politician years before several judges decided what they were.

Even though the controversial Waitangi Tribunal has already redefined key words in the treaty to justify the widest range of Maori grievance possible. It appears that the current list of ‘treaty principles’, or any that may be created in the future, are capable of justifying any tribal demand that may appear at any time, it is no wonder that grievance specialists like Mr Mikaere are jubilant about them.

His quip “ I tend to think the journey is not done...” should send shivers down the spines of patriotic Kiwis.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Northland Age 9/1/20
ERROR COMPOUNDED
Article December 28, in Wanganui’s local paper Wanganui now officially “Whanganui pronounced on T.V. and Radio as “Fonganui” as decreed by the semi-educated Geographic Board, Lands and information Hon Louise Upton and approved heartily by the politically correct amongst us it is still necessary for the truth to be told.

The name “Wanganui was spelt without the ‘H’ on the copy of the Treaty of Waitangi that chiefs in the area signed in 1840 in a copy of the signatures of the chiefs that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi under the “Chiefs of Wanganui”.

When Rev Henry Williams spoke to the chiefs at Wanganui before they signed the Treaty he would have made sure he used the correct pronunciation and spelling of Wanganui otherwise he would have lost all credibility.

Proessor Samuel Lee and Hongi Hika wrote an English to Maori dictionary in 1820 but this was in the Ngapuhi dialect and would have been different than the Wanganui or other southern tribes.

As the Wanganui Maoris chiefs were happy with the spelling in 1840 then who are we to change it many years later .The Waitaha people who lived here over 200 years before Maori called it and spelt it Wanganui. Wanganui meaning (Wa) is energy, nga is many nui is large.

It seems the mistake was in putting the “h” into the name of the river for the Board to suggest that consistency demand the name of the city be changed is to compound the error. Consistency would be for the name of the river to revert to its original historic spelling of Wanganui as the city.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui

Northland Age 7/1/20
A CULTURAL RITE
In regard to the recent spate of tribally-placed rahui up and down the country. it should be explained that a rahui is a cultural rite, and while relevant to those who adopt a Maori cultural lifestyle, only has legal status through a regulatory body when this body chooses to enforce it.

An iwi or hapu has no mandate to enforce a rahui on others, and indeed, nor should they have the right to do so, any more than a Catholic should require an atheist to attend Mass at Christmas.

Cultural respect cuts both ways; respect for those that wish to live their life by a certain culture, and those that wish to live by another culture. Surely that's what is meant when we claim to be an inclusive society.
GEOFF PARKER Kamo

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 3/1/20
CONSULTATION ON NAMING POLICY
The council is proposing a review of the naming policy for streets and public places in Tauranga after a ten year hiatus.

The council is already proposing a policy to encourage locally significant Maori names giving greater visibility of Mana Whenua’s connections to Tauranga’s places.

Why? At 18 per cent of the population are they considered more worthy than the rest of Tauranga’s population?

Maori were no more responsible for the urban and residential infrastructure of Tauranga than all other ethnic groups. Tribal Maori have no historical record for making streets and constructing public buildings.

It would seem to be a futile exercise to make a submission on the proposals as the decision to give preferential treatment to Maori appears to have already been decided.

The Treaty made all New Zealanders equal subjects of the Crown but it seems in Orwellian terms; “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others”.
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.


11 MISSION STREET RORT
So, Tauranga Council with obscene haste almost before the inauguration ink was dry have rescinded their September 24, 2019, decision reneging on Council’s 2006 and subsequent promises to transfer 11 Mission Street to The Elms Foundation and then unbelievably gifted it to Otamataha Trust, against all the weight of evidence, the concrete facts and public opinion.

Those people I have spoken to today are incensed about this decision and with some candidates’ failure to fully disclose their race-based agendas during the elections.

The initial purchase price of $825,000 with interest and holding costs has currently ballooned out to about $1.5 million and councillors who voted for this aberration The Elms Foundation, who were complicit in the outcome and Otamataha Trust, can have a whip around to fund the $1.5 million public loss and repay it to the misled TCC Ratepayers.

Voting was seven for (Mayor Powell, Deputy Baldock, Clout, Morris, Abrie, Salisbury and Hughes) and three voting against (Robson, Hollis and Grainger) with Kiddie abstaining. The lack of transparency, honesty, accountability and proper consultation by Elected Members and Council staff as usual defies belief.

Henceforth no TCC ratepayer funding should be provided to The Elms.
S PATERSON, Ohauiti.


TAKE COMFORT FROM SUPPORT
Stand firm Andrew Hollis, do not let anyone intimidate you.

You are entitled to your views, just as they are entitled to theirs.

Take comfort in the fact that many thousands of New Zealanders if not hundreds of thousands support your views. You will probably be aware of this now because of the huge amount of support you have received since this argument raised its head.

We elected you to council because of your clear views on what was needed to move local projects ahead and make this council run efficiently. Also, because of the many professional skills you posses and the experience you have, which is needed to get these things done.
M HILLS, Hairini.