Jan - March 16

Northland Age 31/3/16
Labour MP Kelvin Davis fails to present any evidence to support his allegation of unfair treatment of Maori by Corrections staff. The allegation, like the accusation of "unconscious bias" against Maori by police, is largely an untruth from the Maori Party that is treated as a fact after widespread repetition.

Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell raised the issue three years ((go when he told Parliament that "for the 3495 theft apprehensions recorded as Caucasian there were 588 prosecutions and for Maori, for the 5660 apprehensions recorded,1173 resulted in prosecution". The prosecution rates for non-Maori were 16.8 per cent versus 20.7 per cent for Maori, which did support Flavell's argument, but only by a slender margin of 3.9 per cent. The data came from police statistics for 2011, and looked at prosecution vs total apprehension numbers for 10- to 16-year-olds.

However, with 5660 thefts by Maori recorded, compared with 3495 non-Maori, not only were there more thefts by Maori recorded, but there were proportionally many more since Maori only make up 16 percent of the population.

A question both MPs should answer—should an offender with more non-Maori ancestry than Maori be classified as a Maori offender? If offenders were reclassified on the basis that an offender required at least 51 percent Maori ancestry to be regarded as Maori, offending by Maori would pale into insignificance. Then we would simply be having a debate about the high rate of youth offending without trying to claim that police, courts, and Corrections are picking on Maori.

I was very pleased to read Reuben Chapple's letter exposing MP Chris Finlayson's insult, calling taxpayers "KKK" when the former rightly object to seeing their money handed over, behind closed doors, to very dubious claims of land loss almost 170 years ago, to British colonists.

To date over $3 billion has disappeared into the bank accounts of ever-more-demanding tribes with no clear explanation to the public as to what so-called "claims" are being settled.

All "claims" ought to be debated in an open court with lawyers representing tribes—which they should pay for out of their gains—and lawyers protecting taxpayers hard-earned money.

Finlayson seems to be oblivious of the fact that tribal chiefs -prior to Governor Hobson's arrival in 1840 —had gone to NSW and had contracts in place to sell large tracts of New Zealand to overseas buyers. When Hobson was told of this, he cancelled the contracts and gave the land back to Maori. The contracts are there and can be read today, as can the hundreds of contracts between Maori and settlers for the sale to the latter, of Maori-owned land. These contracts can be viewed on the Victoria University website.

Finlayson informs us that there are still many "claims" to be settled. On what grounds? 'the public of New Zealand has the right to know in minute detail, the basic facts of the "claims" and the right to debate them in public.

Finlayson must be one of the most detested men in Parliament, as he has said there are those who have asked him to die. He will eventually, of course, but it would be simpler if he was demoted or resigned before squandering billions more taxpayers' money.

The Northern Advocate 28/3/16
Labour’s Maori Affairs spokesman Kelvin Davis decries TVNZ’s survey questionnaire regarding attitudes towards “Maori should not receive any special treatment” as being “racist and offensive”.

Mr Davis seems to have become engulfed in the morass of political correctness, where words don’t mean what they really mean but are instead adapted to fit a specific agenda.

There should be no confusion over the meaning of racism. Dictionary after dictionary provides similar definitions, with a common denominator of racism being either one group of people being persecuted because of their ethnicity or alternatively, receiving favourable (special) treatment because of their race. So that is racism.

The Treaty of Waitangi is not a racist document as it espouses equal rights for all New Zealand citizens. It is the misinterpretations by those who stand to gain that have distorted a history-making document of unity into becoming one of divisiveness.

The concept of Maori receiving special treatment is indeed racist and offensive, but only to the majority who value the principles of democracy above exclusive favours being granted because of one's race.

Mr Davis appears to have swallowed the oxymoronic doctrine that those who wish everyone to have equal rights are the racists. Political correctness can make fools out of otherwise intelligent people.

Wanganui Chronicle 28/3/16
The NZ citizen is faced with changes to the RMA and the control of freshwater without the Government informing the general public about the proposed changes.

If government and ministries upheld their duty of care to the citizens of New Zealand, all changes to Acts should reasonably be inserted into the main regional papers every two weeks for three months prior to the opening of submissions to any select committee. The information should include the heading, the number and the subset of “what the Act reads at the moment” and the “proposed change”.

The proposed changes will write into law further tribal control over land, water and local government infrastructure without any elected responsibility. (Abridged.)
M J. A

Southland Times 28/3/16 Also Bay of Plenty Times 28/3/16 Southland Times 31/3/16
John Key has misread the nation on his flag proposal, just as he is misreading the majority of the population on proposals to give more value and racial bias to Maori over and above other citizens.

The flag referenda manipulated the nation's thoughts away from the real issues of TTPA, changes to the RMA and the proposals to give management of freshwater to unelected maori representation.

The nation's rising anger against multiculturalism, immigration, race-based agendas in Government and institutions, the Waitangi Tribunal, political manipulation of the media, crazy tax laws that have multinational corporations paying minimal taxes to the IRD, ridiculous tax exemptions for hugely profitable charitable organisations, and finally the 60 billion dollar debt National has racked up during their tenure which will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren.

We, in New Zealand do NOT live in a democracy, it is the lobbyists who run this country to the detriment of millions of fair minded, hardworking kiwis. Political capital and expediency does not equate with good governance.

Christchurch Press 26/3/16
John Key’s post-flag referendum claim that it was worthwhile because we debated issues relating to nationhood and what it is to be a New Zealander is bunkum.

The debate was about changing the flag then choosing the preferred option. That was it.

The debate about nationhood and what it is to be a New Zealander is embedded in other much more serious debates such as sovereignty, Treaty of Waitangi issues, TPPA and more.

The flag referendum was nothing more than a popularist smokescreen under which Key’s anti-democratic government clandestinely negotiated the TPPA and wound back the welfare state while spending billions on corporate welfare.

Bay of Plenty Times 26/3/16
National came into office saying it would remove red tape and overhaul the Resource Management Act so that we people could get on with our business more efficiently without the huge compliance costs. What happened? This year is incredible in terms of what we, and especially farms and orchards, are being hit with. It’s going to put so many out of business because we cannot survive the compliance costs.

First, we have had a HAIL tagged to our titles saying our land is contaminated. It is not.

The work-safe compliance is coming in with a vengeance and from April 1 no one is allowed on our properties without an induction and being signed in — and remember people that means work safe people as well so make sure you charge them a $200 fee to enter. Then there will be a GAP book and hygiene compliance book too.

We will be sued for everything and anything.

National said it was increasing jobs and this is how it’s done — and we pay. (Abridged).

NZ Herald 26/3/16
Once more Dame Susan Devoy in her recent article In the Herald shows she is too ethnically biased to fill the role on the Human Rights Commission to which she was appointed.

Her defence of Rangjnui Walker saying 'We need New Zealanders to talk about racial relations", only accentuates the hypocritical attitude of one who through most of his Iife showed a flrm commitment to Maori privilege and exclusivity and a disdainful attitude to most things Pakeha.

Her astounding observation that 'There is sometimes a fine line between ignorance and intelligence." is a gem.

Dame Susan, you are there to represent all New Zealanders.

Northland Age 24/3/16
Anahera Herbert-Graves describes in the Age for March 22, a number of old and erroneous theories of race but does not seem to realise that science has moved on a long way in the 150 years since the examples she quotes were aired.

As commentator Robert Wright wrote in The Atlantic Magazine for November 2013: "People", meaning all of us, magnify their grievances and do the reverse with their rivals ... you forget your sins and remember your grievances.... We're not aware of the Information [our] biases exclude ...

“The world's gravest conflicts are not over ethical principles or disputed values but over disputed facts.... We seem designed to twist moral discourse to selfish or tribal ends.

"The intense tribalism we are seeing, domestically and internationally, does suggest that we may he approaching a point of true planetary peril.”

Anehera Herbert-Graves finished her blog (Northland Age, March 22) with a stinging sentence: "My advice is that we also ought to work with our Pakeha aIlies, Iike those from Network Waitangi, who are very able and willing to confront the culture from which racism came."

This group makes much of what it claims is a contradiction between Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which they say confirms Maori authority and sovereignty, and the official English text, which states that Maori gave their sovereignty to the Queen. They are silent on the fact that the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, which means that the intent and meaning of the treaty is clear in the English. They are also silent on the Busby February 4 document, also known as the Littlewood treaty, that has only four minor differences from Te Tiriti, one being the date.

Network Waitangi is an organisation that asserts that a "dual or parallel exercise of power and governance was agreed to by the rangatira of the independent state of New Zealand".

The irony of all this is that it is the biculturalists such as Ms Herbert-Graves and Network Waitangi who are defining people by race, and undermining the democratic principle that all people are equal (abridged)

The New Zealand Herald 24/3/16
Mt Hobson is one of the jewels of Auckland’s parks. For some 40 to 50 years, in the spring, the daffodils on the northern slopes formed a beautiful field of remembrance for the casualties of World War II. The grass elsewhere on the mountain is kept in check by a small herd of cattle which also earns a grazing fee for the council.

On the mountain yesterday morning, I was told local iwi had forbidden the daffodils to be replenished by a team of volunteers, many of them schoolchildren. The bulbs were to be provided by the city. The iwi does not want the daffodils on the mountain and has had the commemorative plaque removed.

The iwi has also banned the cattle from the mountain. The grass is now long and unkempt, posing a problem of costly future maintenance.

It is hard to comprehend the thinking behind such daft demands. Local residents must vehemently protest. What will happen to our other volcanic cones?
A P,

Wairarapa Times-Age 24/3/16
I read with interest the article on the Ka Rewa Centre at Lakeview School (March 14).

While I certainly appreciate the need for a school to be in touch with the community it serves, and sadly, often having to act as a social services as well as education provider, I am intrigued about the centre “following Maori precepts and principles of health, welfare and well-being”.

I wonder where these precepts and principles differ from modern New Zealand, or indeed universal, principles and practice. If these Maori principles are superior to the latter, perhaps we should all follow them. If they are not, we are doing these children a grave disservice.

Waikato Times 23/3/16
As an aged war pensioner, I have staked a personal claim in our country and I have a growing concern for many aspects of present governance.

I believe New Zealanders are those permanent residents who regard themselves as primarily New Zealanders and make no claims for preferential treatment on the grounds of ethnicity.

Many citizens are unaware of the money, land and positions of power granted to Maori by the government at the recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal who handle Maori claims. These grants were initiated by Chris Finlayson, as Minister of Treaty Settlements, and previously the lawyer responsible for Ngai Tahu's extensive settlements. As a List MP, he is unelected. Ngai Tahu now has virtual control of the South Island.

The scant media reportage of these transactions may be the result of Government's covert reticence or media apathy. Winston Peters' claims that whanau being granted official status is "tribalism' and, as such, separate development or apartheid and should not be countenanced in New Zealand.

Wanganui Chronicle 23/3/16
What the Treaty of Waitangi truly is or means could have been sorted out over 20 years ago if our collective historians (not just Claudia Orange) had provided the public with the correct in-depth information. "Interpretation" of the treaty is an utterly futile undertaking until such time as the significance of the Littlewood documents (found 1988) is scientifically addressed.

Dr Michael Bassett said (National Business Review, March 2005): "What you have been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it."

Successive governments have not treated their electors with the respect or regard to gaining a majority consensus over treaty issues. That has resulted in tribal elite, institutionalised Maori driving politicians into creating and enacting government acts and policies that enrich and enhance one culture over other cultures, and that carries the label of racism.

Southland Times 23/3/16
When I trawl through the unpublished letters to the editor submitted by both ordinary citizens and erudite, professional people, it is clear to me that a cloak of silence has been thrown over institutions, journalists, newspapers, TV and radio.

This cloak covers 50 years of legal battles funded by the public purse (that’s you and me) to the benefit of one selective race. This has been executed on the basis of misdirected legal interpretation of a document (Freemans ‘‘royal style’’ composite) that has no validity in our New Zealand history. All this, for the benefit of one selected culture.

This silence denies the reading, listening and thinking public the true facts of our history.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the only legally binding historical document. This treaty between Maori and the English Crown was drafted by Governor Hobson on February 4, 1840, and translated into Maori. Hobson’s authenticated draft (Littlewood draft) came to light in 1992. The law and government acts created in the 1970s based wholly on a bogus English version does not justly reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Justice Antonin Scalia, US Supreme Court, quote ‘‘championed the meaning of words as they were written and openly mocked the notion of living documents as nothing more than an excuse for those with vested interests to improve their own ideological or financial position’’. Unquote.

NZ Herald 23/3/16
I note with interest that the Maori Fisheries Trust, To Ohu Kaimoana, has filed proceedings against the Government over the proposed 620,000km no-take zone northeast of New Zealand because it would extinguish customary and commercial fishing rights. Is this the same trust that has leased New Zealand fishing rights to Chinese, Korean and other fishing companies while their own tribespeople still require education and work?

The Northern Advocate 23/3/16
Currently there are a series of hui, runanga and meetings being held around Tai Tokerau at which the ramifications of the September 2015 Waitangi Tribunal Report on the Ngapuhi Treaty Mandate process are being discussed.

At present there are three parties engaged in formal discussions, Te Kotahitanga, Tuhoronuku, and the Crown.

These parties have agreed there must be input from hapu groups as recommended by the tribunal, hence the current round of meetings.

This may be seen as a good thing, as it reflects a basic but curiously little known fact about the actual signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

The Crown did not sign with Ngapuhi, it in fact signed with hapu rangitira. This was necessary because there was no one leader of “Ngapuhi” in 1840, just as there is no one leader of "Ngapuhi" at the present time.

The two major groupings involved in the mandating dispute, Te Kotahitanga and Tuhoronuku, are both well established and well organised. Neither will evaporate in the foreseeable future. Te Kotahitangi asserts that it is a group that stands up for hapu rangitiratanga, or self de-termination, and Tuhoronuku is known to be an offshoot of the Kaikohe based Te Runanga A Iwi 0 Ngapuhi, which stands for a centralised model of iwi governance.

The reality is that some hapu will never join in with Tuhoronuku, and vice versa other hapu will not go with Te Kotahitanga. Yet the sum of all hapu make up what we call Ngapuhi.

What these three indisputable facts show us, is that whether intentionally or not, the Waitangi Tribunal's determinations have brought about a situation which even with the best of intentions can never be fully resolved.

A cynic would call the tri-bunal's well-intentioned judgments a master stroke in the art of divide and conquer, others might simply see that its well-intentioned efforts to try to please everyone will, in fact, bring about an outcome which is unsatisfactory to all.

Bay of Plenty Times 23/3/16
The NZ citizen is faced with changes to the RMA and the control of fresh water without the Government physically and publicly informing the general public about the proposed changes.

If Government members and their ministries upheld their “duty of care” to the collective citizens of New Zealand, all changes to Acts should reasonably be inserted into the main regional papers every two weeks for three months before the opening of submissions to any Select Committee.

The information should include the heading, the number and the subset of “what the Act reads at the moment” and the “proposed change”.

Only then will you have an informed public who is given its right to respond.

The proposed changes will write into law, further tribal control over land, water and Local Government infrastructure without any elected responsibility.
Pyes Pa

Taranaki Daily News 23/3/16
I have just watched a programme on the anniversary of the Land Wars in Waitara and the comments made.

When I was growing up in the schooling system in the '50s and '60s, we were never taught New Zealand history. We never knew there was supposed to be a difference between our Maori, Swiss, Dutch, Indian, Chinese, Irish, or Scottish neighbours. As far as we knew we were all Kiwis, all one people, because we were all born in New Zealand so we were all the same. There are so many more nationalities here now and the majority of them are also Kiwis having been born in NZ.

I guess New Zealand history is now taught in school which is good because it needs to be told. I wish it had been all those years ago because maybe with that knowledge things would be a lot different today. But please, can we have a national day for all New Zealand, no matter creed, colour or race. And make it a name that represents all of New Zealand, not just one race.
New Plymouth

Bay of Plenty Times 22/3/16
Why on earth would the Bay of Plenty Polytech want to have its name changed to the unattractive and meaningless ‘Toi Oho Mai Institute of Technology” — what a mouthful.

The saying goes “Don‘t look a gift horse in the mouth” but I would lead this one straight back to the stable.

I fear the real reason for the so-called ‘gift’ is another attempt to Maorify all place names.

If local iwi want to make a gift to the Bay of Plenty Polytech, why not a few thousand dollars from the $38 million they have been given in settlements to assist students there who are s t r uggli ng financially? That would be a real gift.

The Northern Advocate 22/3/16  Also in Northland Age 22/3/16
It appears that central government is considering wiping a nationwide $65 million rates debt, on unused Maori land (Stuff 10/3/16).

If other freehold landholders do not pay their rates councils will go through the debt collection process which could force the sale of the property, so why does this not apply to Maori?

Apparently a council is prevented by law from forcing the sale of freehold Maori land to recover unpaid rates, this is preferential treatment and disadvantages everyone else as a result.

In a colour blind society all land owners should be treated equally for rating purposes. i.e. there should be no racial discrimination against those who are not of Maori descent.

Wanganui Chronicle 22/3/16
Re Letter from Robert Allen and comments from the mayor regarding the "H": Ms Main needs to be reminded who caused this confusion in the first place. She did, with the support of her clones and Ken Mair and his supporters. The process in changing the name of Wanganui was an abysmal misuse of democracy that has backfired on her, with Horizons thankfully following the wishes of the majority of the Wanganui ratepayers.

Now we have Virginia Lake being renamed and given the name of a lake in South Taranaki. More confusion?

Try booking a seat online with Air New Zealand under Wanganui, more confusion for local and international travellers. Put in Wanganui and you are told to put in an valid destination (Wanganui is a valid destination with people having the choice of both spellings).

Well done, Horizons, for not being dragged into undemocratic politics to appease local iwi and the mayor. (Abridged)
St John's Hill

Waikato Times Weekend 19/3/16
For some time I have considered that the statutory rules concerning the payment of rates on Maori land is simply racism in favour of Maori. I was appalled to read recently in the Waikato Times (March 10) of a proposal to write off the $65 million in currently outstanding rates on Maori land.

I can think of no reasonable rationale that would justify either this proposal, or the fact that there are differing rating rules for Maori land and other land. No owners of other land get the preferential treatment accorded to Maori land. Why should there be any consideration of such land being unused in any practical or economic way, and thereby being entitled to relief? Why should owners of Maori land be treated preferentially, and disadvantage everyone else as a result?

All landowners should be treated alike, be expected to pay their way, and have the identical grounds for any potential relief. They should also all be liable to the same consequences for nonpayment, including particularly the possible compulsory sale to recover those unpaid rates.

Bay of Plenty Times 19/3/16
Is the suggested new name of Toi Oho Mai Institute of Technology which is being gifted to the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic — really a gift at all?

Quite cynically, I feel it is merely a method of forcing a name change under the guise of generosity.

There is already a Wananga in Tauranga who would surely be delighted to use this gifted name, thus it would still have its place in our education system.

This suggested new name for the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic would in no way represent the majority of students who study there.

The current name of “Bay of Plenty Polytechnic” is plain and simple and if it ain’t broke — don’t fix it! Let the status quo remain!

Tony Fellingham (Letters, 15 March) makes some very valid points and assessments about improving the access to the Mount and enhancing the visitor experience. Access to top of the Mount should be a realistic goal for everyone, not just the athletic community.

It is a tragedy but most of us realise that since the unnecessary vesting (gifting) of the fee simple of the Mount in the Mauao Trust by virtue of the Mayan Reserves Vesting Act 2008 (Reprinted 2014) that this is a forlorn hope.

While TCC will, on behalf of ratepayers/ residents, continue to maintain and nurture the Mount by meeting the total costs involved (including the costs of the Mauao joint management committee), locals will effectively have no say in how the Mount operates or develops in the future.

That is a sad commentary on what has happened with the Mount but it is the reality of the situation.
Mount Maunganui

Weekend Herald 19/3/16 (A quick word section)
Well said, Mike Hosking. In the1980s the lawyer Prime Minister said of Treaty claims: -It'll all be sorted in 10 years and you'll be wondering what all the fuss was about."
R K.

Waikato Times 18/3/16
Is the O’Connor article published on March 4 on the armed conflict around the Waikato in 1863-64 intended to mislead or is it based on ignorance and wishful thinking?

If it is intended to get redress, that has already occurred in the Waikato Maniopoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946, and again in 1995 in the WaikatoTainui $170-million settlement, and again in a series of top-ups to that settlement, and in further smaller settlements, not to mention the Waikato River "raupatu" settlement.

Notice how O'Connor talks up the allegation that authorities "knew the invasion was illegal" offering an un-detailed assertion by a missionary as the only evidence.

Notice how he talks down the report of Waikato malcontents planning to drive (pakeha) out of Auckland as "idle bravado after a rum drinking session".

O'Connor overlooks historian James Cowan's two-volume work The New Zealand Wars: A History of the Maori Campaigns and the Pioneering Period in favour of the "revised" approach by James Belich that pitches Maori as victims battling the white coloniser.

O'Connor is somewhat naive to claim that because most Waikato chiefs had not signed the Treaty they were not British subjects and were entitled to carry on as they wished.

Sovereignty is gained by cession, conquest, and occupation. The conflict in the North, in Taranaki, Waikato, and on the East Coast, formed the conquest of New Zealand, a fact that writers like O'Connor have difficulty accepting.

Dominion Post 18/3/16 Also Waikato Time 18/3/16
New Zealand citizens are faced with changes to the RMA and the control of fresh water without the Government physically and publicly informing the general public about the proposed changes.

If Government members and their ministries upheld their `duty of care' to the collective citizens of New Zealand, all changes to acts should reasonably be inserted into the main regional papers every two weeks for three months prior to the opening of submissions to any select committee. The information should include the heading, the number and the subset of 'what the Act reads at the moment' and the 'proposed change'.

Only then will you have an informed public who is given their democratic right to respond. The proposed changes will write into law further tribal control over land, water and local government infrastructure without any elected responsibility.

Taranaki Daily News 18/3/16
Your reporting and quotes from the Mayor on colonisation is very biased. The harm done to local Maori is emphasised with respect to the impact of settlers. It does not give a balanced view that if settlers and new law systems were not introduced Maori, might is right, tribal warfare, would have continued and Taranaki Maori would have continued to be slaughtered by Waikato tribes and inter iwi conflicts within Taranaki.

I am frustrated that mainstream media continue to push the Maori hard done by line rather than give a balanced view of the benefits Maori have received.

They would not be in their original Taranaki local areas if it was not for the European Settlement and British Law Enforcement, they would either be dead, or banished South by Waikato invaders, incidentally, giving grief to those in the South where they had to retreat to.

I am waiting for at least one group of Maori to give thanks for saving them from what otherwise would have been self-imposed, barbaric extinction.
New Plymouth

Northland Age 17/3/16
Labour's Maori Affairs spokesman Kelvin Davis decries TVNZ's survey questionnaire regarding attitudes towards "Maori should not receive any special treatment" as being "racist and offensive". Mr Davis seems to have become engulfed in the morass of political correctness, where words don't mean what they really mean but are instead 'adapted' to fit a specific agenda.

There should be no confusion over the meaning of racism. Dictionary after dictionary provides similar definitions, with a common denominator of racism being either one group of people being persecuted because of their ethnicity or alternatively, receiving favourable (special) treatment because of their race. So that is racism.

The Treaty of Waitangi is not a racist document as it espouses equal rights for all New Zealand citizens. It is the misinterpretations by those who stand to gain that have distorted a history-making document of unity into becoming one of divisiveness.

The concept of Maori receiving special treatment is indeed racist and offensive, but only to the majority who value the principles of democracy above exclusive favours being granted because of one's race. Mr Davis appears to have swallowed the oxymoronic doctrine that those who wish everyone to have equal rights are the racists. Political correctness can make fools out of otherwise intelligent people.

NZ Herald 17/3/16 (Short & Sweet section)
There is one brilliant way of cutting down the number of Maori in prison. Stop committing the crimes.
M. B

Hawkes Bay Today 17/3/16 (Text Us section)
■ If the Maori people have $0.5 billion in Treaty settlement money as Ngahiwi Tomoana boasted, then why don't they build their own kura on their own marae?

NZ Herald 16/3/16 (Short & Sweet section)
An orca washes up on the beach and is buried rather than dragged out to sea to benefit the marine ecosystem. An autopsy is not permitted because of Maori cultural beliefs to the detriment of science. Come on.

Northland Age 15/3/16
In the "Nelson Mail" for 2nd March, John and Hillary Mitchell discuss tribal interests in Awaroa dating back to 1853 but human occupation of the area dates back to a long time before that, so just who may have "interests" does need further examination.

In "Song of Waitaha" Barry Brailsford speaks of three groups of immigrants: Uru Kehu, with pale or freckled skin, blue eyes and fair or red hair, who came from the East; Maoriori, tall, dark-skinned, big-boned with dark eyes and black hair who came from the west; and, Kiritea, small, fair-skinned, with dark hair and green eyes. These descriptions from very old sources are as accurate as we are likely to get about the indigenous people of New Zealand yet not inconsistent with other accounts.

In their two canoes, "Uru Ao" and "Arai Te Uru", after a wide sweep through the Tasman Sea, they travelled eastwards through the swirling tidal streams ("the octopus") near Whakarerea, now Separation Point, to land on the sands of Tahunanui. The people of "Arai Te Uru", henceforth calling themselves the Waitaha, planted gardens with the seeds and kumara tubers they had brought in their canoes. The Boulder Bank was named "Te Taurapa o Te Uru Ao" - the sacred sternpost of Uru Ao and the Wakapuaka dunes named likewise for Arai Te Uru. Information obtained by WJ Elvy, who collected Maori lore in Marlborough extensively about 100 years ago, substantiate this account.

The crew of "Uru Ao", now the Rapuwai, travelled north towards Whakarerea, beached their canoe and decided that they were home. Surprised by the changing seasons of our higher latitudes, they hastened to build their first village - Waitapu - looking out on golden sands and clear blue water - and undoubtedly Awaroa. Soon snow left a cloak of white upon the distant hills.

As Elvy reported: "Rapu-wai [coming in] the Uruao canoe ... were giants eight feet tall, big powerful men but clumsy withal ... no match for the agile Maori ... being unskilled in the use of arms. ... Myth or not, many skeletons of abnormal size have been uncovered in the sand dune burials in the district." - clearly consistent with Brailsford's account of Maoriori.

Sixty-seven generations ago these events are said to have happened - around 850AD, said Elvy.

Leaving aside the much-embellished story of Kupe who didn't stay, the next to arrive were Toi and Whatonga, about 1100. With no women in their canoes, they took wives from the "tangata whenua" from whom North Island tribes, Ngatiapa and Rangitane and also Ngatikuia have claimed descent.

The arrival of the "Great Fleet" canoes with their culture of aggressive warfare was devastating for the peaceful Waitaha and Rapuwai. The former, generously sending food over the Strait to Ngatimamoe, were repaid when the letter crossed the Strait, slaughtered them, helped themselves to the food supplies and proceeded to conquer the rest of the South Island. They, in turn, were conquered by the Ngai Tahu, by-passing the Nelson area. It was another North Island tribe, Tumatakokori, who conquered the lands of Golden and Tasman Bay and it was they who confronted Tasman in 1642.

Long dominant in the area, Tumatakokori were assaulted by Ngai Tahu, Ngati Kuia and Ngati Apa, being finally exterminated as a tribe by Ngai Tahu and Ngati Apa in a battle in the Paparoa Ranges about 1810, with Ngati Apa assuming control in north-west Nelson. The brief dominance of Ngati Apa ceased when they were almost destroyed around 1830 by the amalgam of tribes led by Te Rauparaha - Ngati Toa, Ngati Tama, Ngati Koata, Ngati Rarua and Te Atiawa.

In the next twist to this tale, Te Rauparaha sold the whole of the South Island north of 43º latitude to the New Zealand Company, the deed of 25th October 1839 specifically including the Nelson district. By the great benevolence of the Crown after the chiefs had ceded sovereignty in 1840, nearly all of this was returned to the tribes.

With the establishment of Pax Britannica after the Wairau Massacre on 17th June 1843, the Lands Commissioners systematically purchased from the Natives of Motueka and Whakapuaka and the Ngaitawa Natives, excepting their pas, cultivations and burial places, their lands at Whakatu (Nelson) Waimea, Moutere, Riwaka. and Taitapu (Massacre Bay), now Golden Bay, in deeds dated 14th and 15th August 1844.

It must be quite clear from the outline above that, in common with most of New Zealand, the Nelson area was subjected to continual and brutal conquest of the weaker by more powerful tribes right up to a few years before 1840. It is the most recent of these, the allies of Te Rauparaha, whom Mitchell and Mitchell now assert have not received their entitlements from the Crown. From the very extensive records collated by Jackson, it is quite evident that government officials made strenuous efforts to deal honourably with tribal claimants, often faced with conflicting or very dubious claims. As Commissioner Alexander Mackay reported on 15th May 1871, Native reserves in the province of Nelson amounted to 226¾ acres for each of them.

If a Royal Commission with extraordinary powers (and certainly not the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal) were to go thoroughly through all the records, it would probably find similar numbers of "unders and overs" and little else. It would be far, far better, for the past to be let lie, yet this very day, 7th March 2016, we have Marama Fox, claiming in the "Wairarapa Times Age" "Over the past 160 years ... 95% of our land was lost either by force or stealth." This blatant lie by a Member of Parliament serves only to create racial hatred, and illustrates the dire peril which we face in New Zealand today.

Southland Times 15/3/16
The NZ citizen is faced with changes to the Resource Management Act and the control of fresh water without the Government physically and publicly informing the general public about the proposed changes.

If Government members and their ministries upheld their ‘‘duty of care’’ to the collective citizens of New Zealand, all changes to Acts should reasonably be inserted into the main regional papers every two weeks for three months prior to the opening of submissions to any Select Committee.

The information should include the heading, the number and the subset of ‘‘what the Act reads at the moment’’ and the ‘‘proposed change’’.

Only then will you have an informed public who is given their democratic right to respond.

The proposed changes will write into law, further tribal control over land, water and local Government infrastructure without any elected responsibility.

Wanganui Chronicle 15/3/16
I was amused to read of mayor Main's complaint to Horizons over their apparent lack of action in updating the road signs from Wanganui to "Whanganui". Her reason was that it "is very confusing for visitors." What? Let us see firm evidence of this. I have not heard or seen evidence of visitors not being able to find our fair city.

The only confusion is with mail addressed to Whanganui ending up in Whangarei (yep, it happens).

Methinks it is more a case of the minority "special" people getting on her case. That's those who totally ignored a majority decision — not once, but twice in an open, fair and transparent referendum process — to keep the "H" out of Wanganui.

It is good to see that Horizons have voted against adding the "H" to Manawatu-Wanganui and would not formally use the "H" in reference to our city. At least here is a council that respects the majority results of a referendum. Well done, Horizons.
Durie Hill

The New Zealand Herald 14/3/16
What the Treaty truly is or means could have been sorted out over 20 years ago if our collective historians had provided the public with the correct, in-depth information.

“Interpretation” of the treaty is an utterly futile undertaking until such times as the Littlewood documents’ (found 1988) significance is scientifically addressed.

Dr Michael Bassett stated ( National Business Review, March 2005) “what you have been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it”.

Successive governments have not treated their electors with the respect or regard to gaining a majority consensus over treaty issues. That has resulted in tribal elite, institutionalised Maori driving politicians into creating and enacting government acts and policies that enrich and enhance one culture over others and that carries the label of racism.

Waikato Times Weekend 12/3/16
Water is being targeted by corporate iwi as the next public resource to control. They say it is their right under the Treaty of Waitangi. But it is just another money grab and our political leaders are allowing them to get away with it.

As Ngapuhi leader David Rankin says, ‘‘Prior to the arrival of Europeans in New Zealand, Maori never owned water. There is no cultural basis or historical precedent for the claim. Neither is it a Treaty right. This is just a case of opportunism, and on the basis of the foreshore and seabed issue, Maori have learned that if we keep pushing for the right to something, eventually, a weak Government will give in and hand it over to us.’’

If you believe that water is a public good resource that must not be owned by anyone, then please have your say http://www.mfe.govt.nz/consultation/next-steps-fresh-water

Your submission can address any issues relating to the proposals. The questions in the discussion document are intended as prompts and to help you organise your responses. Your submission does not have to address every question.

We need to send the government a strong message that claims for racebased rights akin to ownership must be rejected.

The Christchurch Press 12/3/16
It’s not so hard really for Ngai Tahu to reach a total of $1 billion in assets, for which it is currently being hailed (Mar 10).

Not having to pay tax on its profits would put any company ahead of its competitors, and since Ngai Tahu, as narrated on its website, rolls 80 per cent of its untaxed profit each year into new investments, instead of distributing it to Maori groups, it must be way ahead of the game.

But this also means that genuine Maori beneficiaries are missing out, and they are the ones the community should be concerned about, instead of handing out spurious awards.

Wairarapa Times-Age 12/3/16
The article by Marama Fox (March 7) provides an all too apt example of the concern she raises, that angst may be fuelled by misinformation, with the ridiculous claim that for Maori “95 per cent of our land was lost either by force or stealth”.

Land sales were from the first desired by Maori. Land was sold by Te Atiawa in Wellington, in the Marlborough Sounds and at New Plymouth, all before 1840.

One reason why Governor Fitzroy became unpopular with Maori around 1844 was that he did not have sufficient funds to buy all the land on offer.

Across the country, the great majority of land sales were by willing, often eager, vendors. Not by force or stealth.

As for the proportion, how can it be calculated that 5 per cent remain in Maori hands? How can it be determined from land registries that Smith and Jones have British ancestors only while O’Regan, Walker and Love have some Maori forebear?

Much of the land that is classified as in general ownership has Maori owners, given the current definition of who can be Maori. And why on earth should it matter?

NZ Herald 12/3/16 Also in BoP Times 12/3/16
Let us not speak ill of the dead but let's not let nostalgia blind us to reality. In many years of reportage of the activities and opinions of Dr Ranginui Walker there have been few words from him of approval or even acceptance of most things Pakeha. lt was almost as if the considerable part of his non-Maori heritage was an embarrassment to him.

I cannot see that Professor PS Spoonley's comments in the Herald of an "inclusive and equitable society in the 21st century" would meet the wishes of Dr Walker. who was a strong exponent of Maori privilege and exclusivity.
B J,

Taranaki Daily News 10/3/16
Further to the front page feature "What’s In A Name?"on Saturday, March 5, it is true that in 1985 the New Zealand Geographic Board approved the change back to Mount Taranaki. Controversy then raged and a year later, as I understand it, the Minister of Maori Affairs, Koro Wetere, announced that the names of both Mount Egmont and Mount Taranaki would be the correct terminology for the future. I believe this to still be the case today.
New Plymouth

Northern Advocate 10/3/16   Also Northland Age 10/3/16
Through your columns I would like to inform readers about the Government's latest proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act, the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill.

The Government states that the overarching purpose of the bill is to create a resource management system that achieves the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in an efficient and equitable way. However, it would also significantly advance a shift in the constitutional relationship between local authorities and Maori.

It is clear that the proposed "iwi participation agreements" would strengthen the power that tribal groups have over local government and the country's natural resources, including fresh water. Such provisions would have a serious impact, not only on the democratic rights of citizens who are not members of local iwi, but also on the ability of councils to act in the best interest of all their citizens.

An excerpt from law firm Franks Ogilvie's detailed report gives the following advice: "The changes give a major role to some unelected people at the expense of others. They are poorly detailed. They contain few of the transparency and other safeguards evolved from long constitutional experience".

Submissions close March 14, for further details, and submission guides visit Democracy Action website http://www.democracyaction.org.nz/rla

Rotorua Daily Post 10/3/16
Nothing wrong with our current flag, so why change it? It has over a century of history and it shows who we are. This nation was built — mostly — by the British. Our language, political, legal and education systems come from Britain. In spite of a massive and ongoing influx of Asian immigrants most New Zealanders are still of AngloCeltic ancestry. Our “Britishness” is a major attraction to migrants, especially Asians from third-world police states.

As a New Zealander of Maori heritage, I would have good reason to dislike the Union Jack — but I do not. I see myself as a beneficiary, not a victim, of British colonialism. I grew up in a prosperous democratic nation that provided me with free education and free healthcare.

If something is tasteless, tired, and old, it is our national anthem. It stank when I learned it at primary school and it was made to drone on twice as long by the addition of Maori. By all means keep the tune, but change the woeful lyrics. And leave our bloody flag alone!
C.C. M

Northland Age 10/3/16
Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson recently smeared those questioning Treaty of Waitangi settlements as" the KKK element". Finlayson takes refuge in accusations of racial bigotry because his treatyist agenda is threatened by hard questions he's unable to answer.

This 'poacher turned gamekeeper' was a Treaty negotiator for Ngai Tahu before entering Parliament as an unelected list MP. No wonder he reflexively lines up with the poachers.

There are a number of elephants in the room.

First, the Maori of today are not the Maori of 1840. More than 170 years of racial mixing has given the lie to the existence of a unique race called Maori. There are only New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent, most of whom have more of the blood of the colonisers than of the colonised. Nobody who is less than haIf-Maori can claim on balance to be disadvantaged by alleged historical events.

Second, why have tribes that already received full and final settlements legislated for in the 1940s by Act of Parliament (Tainui, Taranaki, Ngai Tahu) been been allowed to double-dip?

Third, the Treaty was with tribes, not with a collective Maori. Most signed it, a substantial minority didn't. Why are non-signatories (Tainui, Tuhoe, Tuwharetoa) now receiving large settlements for 'Treaty breaches?' These are all legitimate concerns.

Waikato Times 9/3/16
So we’re congratulating ourselves on buying a South Island beach for the use of all New Zealanders. Doesn’t anybody ask the question ‘‘who is the person who owned it, and how did he come to win a piece of New Zealand that by common rights should have been ours already?’’ Certainly not the TV current affairs programmes. Why wasn’t the beach donated to the rest of New Zealand as a patriotic duty? Why could only the elite wealthy tender for it?

In the past Helen Clark and Labour placed the foreshore and seabed in public ownership. This was reversed by National to gather in the Maori vote and provide another asset sale, placing iconic parts of New Zealand in private ownership.

Why doesn't Labour go into the next election promising to put public ownership of the foreshore back in place? Or are they also in the pocket of the wealthy elite? We are losing our children's rights because we don't care enough.

Dominion Post 9/3/16
Water is a precious, public resource. It is vital to all New Zealanders for a mix of recreational, ecological and commercial reasons. The Government intends to "reform" freshwater management and has set a roadshow programme for public meetings.

The list of centres is, frankly, "underwhelming" - only Wellington, Palmerston North, Rotorua, Timaru, Christchurch, Auckland, Nelson, Napier and Invercargill. Cities such as Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt, Hamilton, Tauranga, New Plymouth and Dunedin have been shunned, along with regional centres such as Masterton, Blenheim and all three West Coast towns to name a few.

Questions about ownership and future management are crucial. The prime minister has blithely uttered that freshwater belongs to no-one. Meanwhile, corporate dairy, grape and other interests want the public's water for private profit. Ecological and recreational considerations are left languishing. In the face of the token consultation, questions emerge about the Government's sincerity and possible ulterior motives.

Meanwhile, ponder on John F Kennedy's words: "Each generation must deal anew with the raiders with the scramble to use public resources for private profit and with the tendency to prefer short run profits to long run necessities."
Co-Chairman, Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand

Wairarapa Times-Age 8/3/16
I understand there is to be a freshwater hui at Masterton Town Hall at 1pm on Thursday, March 10.

It is essential as many people as possible attend this meeting to become informed on the government’s plans re the ownership of New Zealand freshwater resources.

If you would like to find out more before the hui (one of several around the country) I suggest you read the newsletter of the NZ Centre For Political Research — an independent group of New Zealanders who keep the welfare of all Kiwis in mind; not just one group who, being resident in NZ for the past 1800 years or so, forget that all these resources were here, unowned by anyone for millennia, and that they survived much better without human kaitiaki (guardians).

One may well ask what the arrival of Maori contributed to the generation of resources such as air, minerals, land and water — the answer is, no more than the rest of us.

Wanganui Chronicle 8/3/16
Sorry, Potonga (letters, March 2), but I still believe we should relate what we write to the facts.

How about your claim that “Maori laughed when they first heard about resurrection and eternal life”? Now I am an atheist and have no belief in any of that, and I do not believe that such superstition was a great gift. But the question I wish to consider is whether Maori did, in fact, scoff at the idea.

This was to many superstitious Maori the major message coming from missionaries and came to underpin their extraordinary cultural revolution. Early accounts are full of their delight in the idea. There is Rangi in 1824, on his deathbed, “I have prayed to God and Jesus Christ, and my heart feels full of light.”

At that time Christian Maori were a small minority. There was later a considerable upsurge in numbers, a shift to Christianity in the years around 1840, so by 1845 it was estimated that about 43,000 attended Anglican services regularly, 16,000 attended Methodist services, and 5100 were associated with the Catholic mission. These estimates are probably a bit high, but they do show that many, probably a majority, had adopted the new religion that Potonga says they laughed at.

Great good was done by the new religion with its philosophy of universal humanity, which I do believe in. Epiha Putini was to say in 1853, “If missionaries had not come to the land, great would have been our darkness and death. You came and told us the name of God — that stopped our fighting.”

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 7/3/16
Here is an irrefutable fact – straight after the signing of the Treaty, Hobson said “The Treaty,which forms the base of all my proceeding,s was signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840… This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.

Those were the exact words used by Hobson, the person who co-drafted the Treaty arranged for the translation into Maori by Henry Williams and its transcription onto parchment. He then attended the signing by the 52 Maori chiefs at Waitangi on February 6, 1840, and signed the Tiriti o Waitangi as the representative of Queen Victoria.

It doesn't get any better than that:the evidence of an eyewitness, the creator of the Treaty, a party and signatory thereto. He finished off by saying “He iwi taki tatou – we are now one nation.”

Hey Mr Dey and all other treatyists/separatists/apologists, I believe that is game set and match?
R P,

Waikato Times 7/3/16   Also Sunlive 7/3/16
It appears that the disproportionate number of tangata whenua able to attend hikoi and protests is through the generosity of the taxpayer by way of Winz and the Ministry of Social Development. It begs the question: What kind of checks and balances are carried out by government departments before the ridiculously high incidence of gangs' welfare dependency is attained.

Waikato Times 5/3/16
I read Monday’s opinion column by David Wallace ( Waikato Times, February 29) on the Maungatautari project losing its way with much sadness. My partner and I have very fond memories of the trek over the mountain and of our stay and dinner at Out in the Styx.

However, the situation should not be a surprise to anyone. Some of the Maori at Maungatautari are not interested in practising genuine kaitiakitanga. For them, as with their separatist fellow travellers elsewhere in New Zealand, kaitiakitanga is a pre-emptive right.

Wanganui Chronicle 5/3/16
The more astute readers kill have deduced that I have little affinity with some of the lowlifes in our fine country. However, I have discovered a man who, despite his actions, is worthy of my respect. This is the chap who adorned Gerry Brownlee with the brown gunk. Sure, it was a premeditated act, driven by his personal grief, but a criminal offence nonetheless. He is rightly charged with assault, appears in court where he pleads guilty and has no qualms about facing his punishment. He accepts responsibility for his actions.

A few weeks prior, another "protester" took it upon herself to throw her favourite toy at Steven Joyce — another premeditated act of assault, unless she just happened to have it in her handbag for periods of boredom. She was not charged with assault, became the focus of anyone who wanted to have a bitch about anything, and returned home a hero in the eyes of the idiots who found her actions laudable. Why were these two similar assaults treated differently?

After hours of in-depth contemplation, there is only one logical answer —the decision to prosecute or not was made on the basis of "appearance". The chap in Christchurch was shown as a member of the lower socioeconomic community and was white. The offender at Waitangi was given huge publicity, stressing the fact that she was a nurse and that her motivation for her crime was "possible loss of Maori sovereignty" under TPP. That she had a smidgen of Maori blood in her was certainly a bonus. Only one conclusion can be drawn— as long as you have a drop of native blood in you and you protest at Waitangi on Waitangi Day, you are above the law. This immunity status has occurred in the past and quite frankly, it stinks. (Abridged.)

The proposed bill on water appar-ently has some parts that will make water available for private owner-ship. How can that be when water is for everyone free? You can't sell what is not yours to start with. This needs public consultation before any decisim is even thought about.

NZ Herald 4/3/16
Christopher Finlayson is complaining about alleged KKK-type abuse he is receiving in the context of Waitangi settlements. I understand that he reacts very unfavourably when anyone disagrees with his actions. He should release a representative collection so Joe Public can assess the veracity of his claims. We never seem to hear anything about the benefits that Western civilisation has brought to New Zealand, for which there should be a quid pro quo. Likewise, have there ever been any intertribal claims such as arising from the Musket Wars? (I thought not.)
P. D. P

Published in the Otago Daily Times, (Date unknown)
Dear Sir,
The article "A Treaty For Our Times" (O.D.T 6th February ), speaks of "apologies" to Maori and "economic redress" with obvious reference to the entrenched propaganda that Maori land was misappropriated or stolen by the "wicked white man" during the time that N.Z was being colonized / civilised.

There was never any theft of Maori land.

Moreover, to Maori of the time loss of largely unused land was more significant as a loss
of Mana than anything else.

Only later, and as a result of European colonisation, technology and Herculean hard work did land begin to assume its economic potential and value.

While the intrinsic aesthetic, spiritual, and ecological value of land for all peoples is
obvious, it only acquired economic value in New Zealand, through the advent of
colonisation / settlement / civilisation.

The purely economic value of unmodified land to primitive societies rested soley upon
what naturally occurring resources a hunter / gatherer could glean from it. Its modern
economic value depends entirely upon what it can produce under skilled human
stewardship, as in agriculture, horticulture, and all other forms of farming.

Similarly the economic value of natural raw materials in the earth, be they minerals, oil,
gold, timber or whatever else, is relative to the knowledge and technology required to
locate, recognise, extract and utilise them. Natural resources of any kind do not acquire
economic value until human beings transform them into useful commodities by dint of
their intelligence and industry.

Fabricated land grievances would not be such an effective weapon of the part-Maori activists if it was understood that loss of land per sec was not such an economic disadvantage to them as they claim. Obviously, economic advantage cannot accrue from land until it is managed to economic ends. Similarly, economic disadvantage can only result from land lost or sold to the extent that it was, or would have been economically worked. To this very day a significant proportion of Maori land is under-utilised in the economic sense, or is leased to others to manage to their economic benefit. In cases where Maori land was eventually worked by them in post-colonial times to their
own economic advantage, this too only became possible by virtue of social / economic
circumstances resulting from European colonisation / civilisation.

A Sundry letter
"The evil that men do lives long after them...." Mark Antony's speech over Caesar's body would seem appropriate to Messrs Lange, Palmer and Cooke after they successfully foisted the false version of the Treaty upon the Nation in the Seventies, a purely political rort which resulted in concepts and terminology not envisaged until that time. Invalid concepts which have now become so ingrained in the nation's psyche that they are
being accepted as legitimate in government departments, legal institutions, university lecture rooms and even promoted as school curricula, and yet not one political party or single politician has so far had the intelligence, fortitude and integrity to try to rescind these corruptions. So the Nation pays and radical, Maori, Treaty-revisionists gleefully review their
exclusive and favoured status and count their millions accrued from dubious Treaty settlements.

It is impossible to conceive that Britain would acknowledge a corrupted version of Magna Carta or the U.S.A. a distortion of The Declaration of Independence or The Bill of Rights. Why have successive governments permitted this corruption over the past forty years?

There is enough archival evidence, with authentication of the Littlewood Treaty Final Draft, to prove exactly what the Chiefs agreed to at Waitangi. Not 'Forests and Fisheries,' preservation of the Maori language, ownership of all fauna and flora nor wind and water. Our 'Founding Document' deserves to be verified, and a few million spent to do so would serve the New Zealand public far better than John Key's $26 million on a flag change.
B J,

Northland Age 3/3/16   Also Sunlive 7/3/16
New Zealand is drifting towards two nations, with a newly-created tribal elite of unlimited greed calling the shots and everyone else increasingly becoming second-class citizen's in the land that was built by the sweat and toil of the pioneers. Please note the words tribal elite', as it is not Maori or part-Maori who are driving this separatist agenda but a very small and elite clique of agitators, most of whom have far more European blood in them than Maori.

The Treaty settlements have been enriching the tribal elite. And have these greedy grabbers of our tax dollars and our national resources ever said thank you? Instead, that all-time bludger, the Ngai Tahu tribe, upon getting an undeserved top-up of $68 million on top of their original Treaty settlement of $170 million, has challenged the amount, claiming that it should be more.

The two mainstream political parties seem to regard Maori not as human beings but as voting fodder, whose votes can be bought at election time by ever- increasing handouts to the tribal leaders who allegedly control the votes of their tribes. So long as we have governments that refuse to say no to these ever-more imaginative demands, the situation will only go from had to worse.

The llaw4aII Party is the only party that is prepared to work body and soul for the equal treatment of all citizens without special privileges, rights and funding for any particular racial group.

Anahera Herbert-Graves (Northland Age March 1) is an inventor of fairytales. Goodness knows what she thinks she means by" te rangatiratanga of Te Tiriti o Waitangi" and "ka wanatanga laws," but it is a fair bet that they are not meanings derived from the Treaty of Waitangi.

Despite all the talk, all that was actually agreed by the Treaty was that the chiefs ceded sovereignty and all Maori became fully-entitled British subjects.

If Moana Jackson has any other "deeply-held understanding about what was promised" it is high time for him to correct it. We do have very good grounds for thinking that the report which he part-authored is an 'unrealistic discourse'. It belongs in the wastepaper basket, along with the much-vaunted 1835 declaration of independence, and should be put there promptly.

The agenda of those promoting a flag change to get rid of the Union Jack is to move New Zealand out of the 'Anglosphere' and recalibrate it as a 'Pacific nation.'

Cutting us adrift from the Westminster tradition of the rule of law, democratically-elected, limited government, secure private property rights, religious tolerance and pluralism, and individual rights and freedoms, is not something to be done lightly.

Changing the flag is simply priming the pump: the end game is a constitutional republic with the Treaty of Waitangi (or rather the Treaty of Wellington, aka the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, and its bogus 'principles' and 'partnership') written into its charter. Take a look at the Treaty of Waitangi 1840. The word s 'principies' and 'partnership' simply do no appear. Nor do the words of the chiefs on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere suggest that this was what they thought the Treaty meant or implied.

Changing the flag is thus the first step to the racist Maori Party's goal of constitutionally embedding a permanent, self-anointed part-Maori aristocracy (with ever-declining amounts of Maori blood) into the fabric of our nation. Voters should think very carefully about whether this is what they want.

Northland Advocate 2/3/16
A re-run of a very “folksy” tale from Mr Brandt ( Advocate, February)

Early Maori quickly recognised that European boats were much more seaworthy than Maori canoes but their attempts to copy them failed. As a result, in the Far North and the far south, Maori commissioned British boat-builders to build ships for them. Yes, British subjects set up the Deptford shipyard at Horeke and the “Sir George Murray” was apparently designed by a retired Royal Navy lieutenant.

Mr Brandt’s story about the seizure of this ship in Sydney in 1830 is more-or-less correct, though those who did the seizing would have been very surprised to have been called Australians at that time in history.

Mr Brandt’s flag story is mostly bunkum and readers should refer to eye-witness Hugel’s account in King’s Penguin History, page 153.

Yes, Hobson flew the Union Jack and would not permit any other flags to be flown but that was quite reasonable and understandable in the circumstances. What Hone Heke thought when he signed the treaty is anyone’s guess but it is clear that all the assembled chiefs were left in no doubt about what the treaty said. Mr Brandt is merely speculating.

Yes, you can certainly bet that our NZ history has been rewritten for today’s school children, much of it a monstrous perversion of the truth.

It is worth recalling George Orwell’s observation on history propaganda and rewriting history “the most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history”.

Artistic licence and imagery may be fine for poetry but not history.

Bay of Plenty Times 2/3/16
After being closed for nearly four years because of the Rena I was looking forward to getting back to fishing Astrolabe Reef.

The Motiti Rohe Moana Trust on behalf of Nga Hapu o te Moutere o Motiti has applied to the Minister of Primary Industries for a two-year closure within three nautical miles of Astrolabe Reef.

This raises questions:

As the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust have been refused a customary marine title by Minister Finlayson do they have a mandate to make this request?

After four years of closure do we need another two? There appears to be no scientific basis to the request.

Why are two other important fishing spots included?

The application makes it clear that this is a stop-gap to when the creation of a Mataitai Reserve will give Maori the ability to close the area to all fishing but still allow Maori customary fishing.

Submissions must be made by March 14 by post to Ministry of Primary Industries or email FMSubmissions@ mpi.govt.nz. Further details www.mpi.govt.nz. (Abridged)
Welcome Bay

Hawkes Bay Today 1/3/16
Like Horiana Robin, I’d like to encourage cordial race relations in Hawke’s Bay.

As she says correctly, equal rights were guaranteed to everyone by the Treaty of Waitangi — no more, no less, to anybody, Maori or otherwise.

However, she is misleadingly wrong in stating that the socalled “Declaration of Independence of 1835 declared this nation a sovereignty”.

It was a brainchild of Busby, primarily to fend off the French, signed only by chiefs from the extreme north and the rest will not even have heard of it. The signatories never met together again nor conducted an item of business and within a couple of years many of them were fighting each other in tribal warfare.

Their “declaration” was a paper tiger if ever there was one and her “Maori nation” is a myth of her own making. And the Treaty of Waitangi never created her “duality”.

In Hobson’s words on February 6, 1840, “he iwi tahi tatou” — we are one nation now. Sadly, racists of all stripes today have forgotten this.

The Northern Advocate 1/3/16
Hone Heke’s 1845 rebellion against Crown governance had nothing to do with “breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi” as Derek Brandt wrote (27/2/16).

When the Governor relocated New Zealand’s capital from Kororareka to Auckland, most of the ships that had formerly made landfall at the Bay of Islands now tied up at Auckland.

Heke was angered by the loss of most of his formerly lucrative customs and berthage revenues and also the loss of money from supplying ship girls to sex-starved sailors.

Even more infuriating perhaps was the mana of hosting the Governor had now gone to Ngapuhi’s traditional enemies, Ngati Whatua.

However, I absolutely agree with Mr Brandt that New Zealand’s true history is not being taught in schools today, but instead a pro-Maori anticoloniser version which will create divisions in our society.
Kamo Whangarei

Bay of Plenty Times 1/3/16
Tommy Wilson ( Opinion, February 22) is correct in his assumption that an inability to read and write set many of our young men on the slippery path to penal servitude.

All the many tools and pieces of equipment come with comprehensive instructions in English and often in several other world recognised languages. A man or woman who is unable to read and understand a simple instruction book is immediately relegated down the list of employment qualifications.

It is never likely that most of these instructions will ever appear in Maori for reasons of cost and difficulty in translation. This leaves Maori speakers with limited fluency in English at a real disadvantage in the employment market.

Educators must concentrate on ensuring that literacy in English together with basic numeracy is acquired by all young people. This is a major weapon in the battle to keep young people gainfully employed and out of prison.

Northland Age 1/3/16
A few months ago the Wanganui District Council wanted the spelling of Wanganui changed to put the 'H' in it, pushed by local iwi, so the residents were asked to put in suhmissions. The final outcome, put out by the Geographic Board, was 351 for the 'h' and 299 against the 'h'.

I sent my submission against putting the the in the spelling to all Wanganui district councillors, the Geographic Board and the Minister of Lands, giving some evidence that Wanganui never had the in the spelling in 1840 as the chiefs in Wanganui signed the Treaty under 'Chiefs of Wanganui, without the in it.

My submission was rejected by the three that I have mentioned. I received a letter from Jill Remnant, from the Geographic Board, saying that “The board did not agree with the objections so it was not able to make the final decision". I replied back, and asked why my evidence was rejected. I never got a reply back.

The name Wanganui is not a Maori name, as it belongs to the Waitaha people, who were here over 300 years before the people called Maori arrived. There is a sign erected by DOC and the NZ Historic Places Trust near an ancient site close to the Wanganui river called Waitaha Pa. It says that the pa was occupied by Maori people possibly around 200 or more years ago. Well the Waitaha people weren't Maori.

I went into the Geographic Board website on the submissions and found all the submissions for putting the 'H' in Wanganui, as well as some against the 'H' were based on hearsay and not on facts. So the name of Wanganui with the 'H' in the spelling is falsely written.

Wanganui Chronicle 27/2/16
Professor Paul Moon claims government needs to "give more money for the Maori language, to ensure it doesn't disappear".

The Maori Language Commission has received $112 million from the public purse for the current financial year. Moon says that is not nearly enough money for the initiatives set. I understand that $1.6 billion (2012)13 year) annually goes into Maori initiatives. Why doesn't the public purse cease race based funding?

Do New Zealand citizens know that this country has only two "officially legislated languages:Maor and Sign language?

Thousands of overseas students pay large amounts of money to come to learn English, and English is not a legislated official language in our own country. How outrageous is that?

Speak to your parliamentary representative and en•courage that provision is made for English to be legislated as an "official" language in New Zealand. (Abridged.)
M J. A

Hawkes Bay Today 27/2/16 (Text 2 Editor section)
■ Excellent letter, Mr Braithwaite, re kura. Hekla Parata needs to go. Is our Government too lazy to have honest meetings with school boards? John Key sits on the bench—no comment. This kura will fall.

■ Horiana Robin's ongoing attacks on Havelock North are very tiresome I've lived in the Bay 62 years and this is the first time I've heard of Havelock North being *racist'. "Good story bro" This old chestnut seems to always be dragged up when there is opposition to anything Maori. Please give it a rest and stick to the facts!

■ Horiana Robin: your letter (February 18) shows how little understanding you have of the position of those opposed to the kura. Your position seems to be that we should promote the rights of Maori at all costs, including trampling over the rights of everyone else. How does that enhance and add value to the community"?

■ Why has Lawrence Yule been so quiet on the kura situation In Havelock North? As mayor, I thought he would support the community and talk with the Government to put forward the views of the community. Please can you tell us what you are doing?

■ Hekia Parata Is not listening to the people. Craig Foss is not interested and it Is about to happen at the kura site. No choice folks, we must march onto the site in protest and stay there, like at Bastion Point. Thoughts please.

Bay of Plenty Times 27/2/16
Re Tommy Wilson (Opinion, February 22). In my opinion, Wilson is being naive if he thinks the high number of Maori men in jail is due to the fact some cannot read or write. The reasons they are in jail are because they have shown no respect for law and order and commit crimes such as drug-dealing, violent assault, and robbery.

Most Maori lead decent hard-working lives and many achieve high status. However, there is a strong criminal element which has little to do with reading and writing but which the police are continually trying to control and protect the public from.

The family background is the main cause of young people turning to lives of crime.

Parental abuse, drugs and alcoholism being daily events, a total lack of interest in a child's welfare and education. No home support for homework or encouragement to take books out of the library and read - just having the TV on all day. Young solo mothers unable to cope and parents are allowing children to just drop out of school and not complete their education.

A loving, supportive family is the first step towards cutting down on Maori committing crime.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 26/2/16
Re: In response to Peter Dey's letters in Western BOP media. The Waitangi Tribunal is a racist rort, set up by government, for purely political reasons, to appease a very vocal minority of part-Maori Treaty revisionists. Check the members' affiliations.
A tribunal who rubber-stamp every application for Maori claims without any verification required. No claim is refused. Racist? Yes, because it only considers the injustices claimed by 14 per cent of the population. The remaining 86 per cent of us have not been provided by, government, recourse to the injustices wrought on early settlers, such as the multi-sales by Maori of land that they never owned and the slaughter of settlers and devastation of their land by rebel factions. And, Mr Dey, they were rebels, against the Laws of the Land that their forebears had agreed to. Don't use the excuse of the naïveté of the Maori signatories.

You still have not provided a single valid instance of your claimed breaches of the Treaty. Just your same old waffle.

It is ridiculously anachronistic to compare present day concepts to those pertaining 175 years ago. ‘Breach of Contract?' Bah! Humbug!

This month Peter Dey has sent Letters to the Editor in the Western BOP about the Treaty of Waitangi and the ‘Littlewood' draft.

But Dey does shoot himself in the foot. We know the ‘Littlewood' draft is not official. But the official English text is a ‘royal style' composite version cobbled together by Freeman.

The historical facts are:

• Maori asked Wikatoria (Queen Victoria) to protect them from being annihilated from waring, murderous invading tribes and potentially invading French or Portugeuses settlement.

• Governor Hobson was sent to bring agreement between Maori and the Crown.

• Hobson after much note taking created the true ‘English draft' now known (and authenticated) as the ‘Littlewood' draft, signed by him on 4th Feb 1840.

• That draft was given to Rev Williams and his son to translate into Maori.

• Rev Williams translation was named Te Tiriti o Waitangi and eventually signed by 545 Rangatira throughout the country.

• Fast forward to the 1960s/1970s when radical Maori became political activists resulting in Prime Minister Lange, legal mind Geoffrey Palmer and Robin Cooke at law created the ‘official' Treaty of Waitangi from the discredited Freemans ‘so called' English version.

• The consequential and intervening Acts and Institutionalized amnesia that followed has seen 50 years of young minds (some now middle aged adults) educated to an untruthful history of New Zealand.
Pyes Pa.

Waikato Times 26/2/16
Professor Paul Moon claims government needs to ‘‘give more money for the Maori language, to ensure it doesn’t disappear’’. The Maori Language Commission has received $11.2 million from the public purse for the current financial year. Moon says that is not nearly enough money for the initiatives set.

Taxpayers spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on te reo. I understand that $1.6 billion (2012-13 year) annually goes into Maori initiatives. Why doesn’t the public purse, which is manipulated by our parliamentary elected representatives, cease their race-based funding?

Do New Zealand citizens know that this country has only two officially legislated languages? Maori and sign language. We are the country that thousands of overseas students pay large amounts of money to come to learn English, and English is not a legislated official language in our own country. How outrageous is that?

Speak to your parliamentary representative and encourage - no, demand - that provision is made for English to be legislated as an official language in New Zealand ASAP.

Daily Post Rotorua 26/2/16
Perhaps I can assist Jonathan Temm to understand why some ratepayers have voiced concern at the way in which ‘democracy’ was used to establish the Te Arawa Partnership deal.

Every three years the ratepayers of Rotorua vote for individuals who they believe will ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of everyone, not just one specific group in society.

To then put unelected individuals on to the two main decision making committees of council with full voting rights and at considerable cost to the ratepayers was certainly not known at the time of the last election.

Had this been known I would venture that the voting patterns would have been different and that would have been a true example of democracy at work.

Wairarapa Times Age 25/2/16
MP Marama Fox’s article ( Times-Age, February 15) is dangerously separatist and divisive. She belatedly acknowledges recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi in the TPP but then complains that it depends on the interpretation of ‘treaty rights’ by the government of the day. Many would feel that is the interpretation of so- called ‘treaty rights’ by Maori activists that is of much greater concern. After all it was the government of the day in the 1980s, courtesy of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, that introduced the completely nebulous and ill-defined concept of the ‘principles of the treaty’. These principles ( sic) were subsequently strangely defined by the court of appeal under Sir Robin (later Lord) Cooke. As for the government ignoring the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal, even the normally sympathetic Treaty negotiations minister, Mr Finlayson, has described some findings of the tribunal as ‘bizarre’ and outside its brief.

Then we have the nonsense of the ‘ mana’ of the Treaty, although at least we were spared the ‘ Treaty is a living document’ fantasy. The Treaty of Waitangi was a document of its time and, as is often the case, the most straightforward interpretation is the obvious one. Article 1: Maori ceded sovereignty to the British crown. Article 2: Maori could keep their then current processions (land, weapons, etc — not as yet unthought of things like radio waves) as much as a protection against each other as against the crown, Article 3; (remarkably, unusually and generously) Maori were given the rights of British citizens. And by no stretch of the imagination can the Treaty be described as a ‘partnership’ for the joint government/administration of New Zealand. It seems to me that many Maori activists ignore article 1, take all the benefits of article 3 and interpret article 2 as it suits them at the time. There is no way that this can be said to entitle Maori to have a separate voice in the foreign policy of New Zealand. Of course Ms Fox makes the mistake of assuming that all Maori have the same view on such matters, and arrogantly asserts that her views represent them all, talking about the 'will of Maoridom', whatever that means. Does Ms Fox know that only just over half (55 per cent) of those eligible choose the Maori electoral role, despite extensive propaganda, and a lot of those don't vote for the Maori party. The really sad thing is that none of this nonsense does anything to assist those Maori who find themselves at the bottom of the heap statistically.

Bay of Plenty Times 25/2/16
Tommy Wilson believes every available resource should be poured into preventing Maori illiteracy preferably before the age of 9 and before they fall through the cracks into the penal system. His reason being that they would then be able to complete a benefit application, get a rent subsidy and learn to drive. That sums it up really. Peter Sharples always opined that there was no need for Maori to spend their funds on any service which the state provides (albeit not used). However, one would think that interest alone on the $600 million John Key gave Ngapuhi at last year’s Waitangi bunfight would enable some intervention in achieving a future for their families.

And with funds amounting to billions of dollars of Treaty settlements and apologies there is no excuse for any Maori to live in poverty or to lack the facility for education and employment support given the financial backup now available to them.

Also Tommy, our national holiday was never meant to be a forum of protest when tauiwi including several prime ministers, the Queen and other dignitaries are insulted, demeaned and disrespected. Kingi Taurua said that John Key would not be welcome if the TPP went ahead and by not attending Key rightly avoided yet another range of insults in what has become the norm for our national holiday. John Key did not consult any New Zealanders let alone Maori and we should express our views together as a nation not as a Maori demand of the right of consultation.
Mount Maunganui

Northland Age 25/2/16 (Also Northern Advocate 26/2/16)
Juliet Golightly’s claimed fiscal benefits of treaty settlements implies tax income for the government but ignores the fact that recipients trade as tax-exempt charities. This means treaty settlements bring no fiscal benefit to the taxpayer.

She counts a lack of armed resistance by dissident tribes a fiscal benefit. Does this imply that she regards treaty settlement payments as a kind of payment for peace of the sort demanded by gangs in stand-over tactics?

Golightly compares the $3.1-billion paid to date in financial redress with the South Canterbury Finance bailout of $1.7-billion. But she ignores an annual total “for Maori” payment of around $1.2-billion that includes funding for the Maori language, Te Puni Kokiri, Whanau Ora, and administration of Vote Treaty Negotiations, among other spending.

On top of that is funding for the parallel system of social service provision administered by around 180 tribal authorities that totals a further $1.7-billion each year.

A more accurate comparison of for-Maori spending is with core crown expenditure of around $80-billion, not total GDP of $230-billion.

The New Zealand Herald 25/2/16 (Short and Sweet section)
It is time to ditch the fearsome and threatening powhiri war-dance used to “welcome” visitors and give the poi-dancing girls a chance. Think Hawaii and the hula.

Wanganui Chronicle 24/2/16
Any understanding of the development of Maori culture in the centuries before the coming of the European is best found in knowledge of the facts. Polynesians had lost all contact with the interlinked civilisations of Eurasia around 3500 years ago, taking with them the beliefs and knowledge of that time. They did not take part in, or know of, the many advances over the several millennia, in philosophy, in religion, in knowledge and science, in technology and new tools. They lacked writing, metals and the wheel.

Here is an answer to the question raised by Cushela Robson (Letters, February 16) of what might have been, in the reality of what actually did happen. She said that "I wonder what makes you think that Maori — left to themselves, or exposed to other cultures but in control of their own destiny — would not have continued to evolve like any other race?"

In isolation, any group of people (call them a race or whatever you wish) will fail to share the advances of the mass of humanity. Thus, Maori remained tribal and superstitious, settling disagreement by battle rather than within a system of law, retaining old beliefs in atua and lacking good healthcare.

Many chiefs saw the advantages of the new alternative and asked for, joined in, and celebrated the central authority that steadily brought modern civilisation to them. That brought change, and many advances, including the international trade, shipping, farming, the English language and new religious constructs listed by Robson.

The Treaty of Waitangi said that we are one people. We should refuse the bogus framework of the reconstructed version that would separate us by race.

The New Zealand Herald 24/2/16
On February 22, a white man throws an objectionable mess at a Cabinet minister and is promptly arrested. On February 6, a part-Maori woman throws an objection-able object at a Cabinet minister and is not arrested. Spot the difference? A dry-cleaning bill.

Bay of Plenty Times 24/2/16
Re Peter Dey. There is one Tiriti o Waitangi (Maori version) and there is no English treaty.

There are, of course, English drafts the final Hobson draft was i r r ef utably what has become known as t he Littlewood Draft that essentially cross translates word for word with the Maori treaty.

I, for one, am only interested in the historical accuracy of the treaty and other than that it holds no real interest for me as only an historical relic that has had its day. The overriding importance of the Littlewood Draft is that it confirmed the correct English translation of the Maori treaty.

What is of real concern is that treaty supporters and separatists try to interpret what is not contained in the treaty to suit their special agendas and self interests.

Talk of principles, obligations and partnerships are post-1975 legal and political fictions divorced from reality. (Abridged)

Peter Dey is correct that Governor William Hobson could not speak Maori, but is wrong when he states that “unfortunately the treaty could not be translated directly into Maori” ( Opinion, February 18).

Henry Williams and his son Edward were totally fluent in the Maori language and they translated Busby’s final draft overnight on February 4, 1840.

If the Littlewood Treaty is not the correct treaty, then why did my local library have it, word for word, on display for several weeks?

The heading on the display stated correctly that it is “James Busby’s final English draft written on the 4th of February 1840” — and right beside it, was the “Rev. Henry William’s translation into Maori from Busby’s final draft”.

I read right through the display, as no doubt many have over the last few weeks, and throughout the whole document, not a single mention of forests and fisheries!

Northland Age 23/2/16
A very folksy tale from Mr Brandt (Re-writing history, letter February 16). The early Maori quickly recognised that European boats were much more seaworthy than Maori canoes, but their attempts to copy them failed. As a result, both in the Far North and the far south, Maori commissioned British boat-builders to build ships for them. Yes, British subjects set up the Deptford shipyard at Horeke, and the Sir George Murray was apparently designed by a retired Royal Navy lieutenant. Mr Brandt's story about the seizure of this ship in Sydney in 1830 is more or less correct, though those who did the seizing would have been very surprised to have been called Australians at that time.

Mr Brandt's flag story is mostly bunkum, and readers should refer to eyewitness Hugel's account in 'King's Penguin history' page 153. Again, Mr Brandt's account of the Treaty signing is offbeam and readers need to refer to Colenso's account for the best record by one who was there — easily obtainable online.

Yes, Hobson flew the Union Jack and would not permit any other flags to be flown, but that was quite reasonable and understandable in the circumstances. What Hone Heke thought when he signed the Treaty is anyone's guess but it is clear that all the assembled chiefs were left in no doubt about what the Treaty said Mr Brandt is merely speculating.

You can certainly bet that our New Zealand history has been rewritten for today's school children much of it a monstrous perversion of the truth. It is worth recalling George Orwell's observation on history, propaganda and re-writing history: "The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history". Artistic licence and imagery may be fine for poetry, but not history.

Hone Heke's 1845 rebellion against Crown governance had nothing to do with breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, as Derek Brandt wrote (letters February 16).

When the Governor relocated New Zealand's capital from Kororareka to Auckland, most of the ships that had formerly made landfall at the Bay of Islands now tied up at Auckland.

Heke was angered by the loss of most of his formerly lucrative customs and berthage revenues, and also the loss of money from supplying ship girls to sex-starved sailors.

Even more infuriating perhaps was the mana of hosting the Governor had now gone to Ngapuhi's traditional enemies, Ngati Whatua.

However, I absolutely agree with Mr Brandt that New Zealand's true history is not being taught in schools today, but instead a divisive pro-Maori anti-coloniser version. Misinformation is never a foundation for harmony and unity.

April this year (2016) will mark the 400th anniversary of the death of William Shakespeare.
Just five years earlier, the King James Bible was published in England. Millions of people around the world today continue to enjoy the works of Shakespeare and take comfort and advice from that Bible's words. They can do this because those works were written in English 400 years ago, and understood today.

Less than half that time in the past, Royal Navy Captain William Hobson was charged to obtain cession of New Zealand to the British Queen, given the "free intelligent consent of the natives, expressed according to their established usages," to whom he was to "frankly and unreservedly explain ... the reasons which should urge them to acquiesce." Those words are clear to us today. As an experienced naval officer, Hobson was accustomed to giving orders to men of little education —often lives depended on it. He will therefore have understood exactly how he was to proceed.

After several days spent in producing preliminary drafts, Hobson succeeded, on February 4,1840, in producing a final draft in English of a document of cession which stated clearly and precisely the conditions to be agreed.

Missionaries everywhere knew full well that to convey their message to native peoples it was necessary to explain it in the language of those people. It was essential for them to learn that language. Seventeen years resident in New Zealand, Henry Williams was very competent in the Ngapuhi dialect of the Maori language, and his son, Edward, was considered a scholar "without peer.

They were therefore an ideal pair to translate Hobson's draft to a document in Maori to present to the chiefs for their acceptance. This they did on the night of February 4-5. Just one word, a minor change, was altered the following morning when it was reviewed by Busby and others.

Later that day both documents were presented to a memorable meeting of chiefs and European settlers. Nobody expressed doubts about their saying the same thing. When shown both in 2000, Ngapuhi elder Gorham Rankin declared that the meaning of both was the same.

The recorded words of chiefs at Waitangi and elsewhere later show beyond reasonable doubt that they understood that by signing they would cede sovereignty to the Queen. They signed.In return, all Maori became fully-entitled British subj ects, a magnificent gift, and the possession of their property of all the people of New Zealand was guaranteed.

That is all— clear and unequivocal, as when it was written 176 years ago. Yet many people today claim the contrary, amongst them Geoffrey Palmer, who went on about "Delphic utterances" and stated that the Treaty "is so vague that that is its primary problem". That is utter nonsense, and in my view, given his prominence, culpably wrong. It gives an excuse to those people who have twisted the Treaty beyond recognition for material gain; millions in taxpayer assets being given to them for bogus reasons which fly in the face of what the Treaty truly said. Something is rotten in the state of New Zealand.

Wairarapa Times-Age 22/2/16
Gianina Schwaneke is entitled to her “Opinion” ( Times-Age, 16/2/16) but she should get her facts right before expressing them. Her “1935 [sic] Declaration of Independence” has not “long been considered one of New Zealand’s founding documents”. It was a worthless piece of paper dragged out of the past by today’s racists seeking political advantage from it.

The same sort of people also deny that by Article First of the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen.

But at Waitangi the Treaty and Hobson’s final draft in English of February 4 were both read out next day and nobody claimed that what they said was different. The chiefs who spoke made it quite clear that they knew that by signing they would become subordinate to the Queen. They signed.

Schwaneke’s claim about Article Second grossly distorts the truth.

In 1840, “tino rangatiratanga” meant “ownership”, “taonga” meant “ordinary property” and, most importantly, its guarantees were made to all the people of New Zealand. Her statement that it granted Maori “full sovereignty over their taonga or treasures” is utter nonsense and the people of Wairarapa are fools if they believe it. At least my Wairarapa-born son-in-law does not do so.

The New Zealand Herald 22/2/16 (Short and Sweet section)
Catherine Delahunty says the Freshwater Consultation Document failed to recognise the Treaty of Waitangi and had relegated iwi and hapu rights as a “right to have a say”. Surely tribal Maori would have a “right to a say” as New Zealanders rather than a breakaway entity?

Wanganui Chronicle 20/2/16
In the late 1950s, when I did compulsory military training, I well remember a sergeant stating, "A volunteer is worth 10 conscripts", and "know your enemy".

I always read Potonga Neilson's letters.

Growing up in Wanganui my best mate was a Maori and later he was my best man. At school there were numerous Maori kids. No racial overtones. Tensions sporting competition, yes.

Upon leaving school, Maori tended to go to the freezing works big money, nice clothes to impress the chicks and money for good times (eight months of the year) — whereas Pakeha tended to do apprenticeships.

Potonga's claims about exploitation need to be analysed.

Maori used the oldest profession in the world to get muskets from the American whalers provisioning in Taranaki before sailing back to the United States.

I am of the belief that Maori were saved from extinction by the arrival of the European. My tamariki and mokopuna will never taste moa — they, and I, have to settle for KFC. After the last Treaty settlement (in 2017) let's hope we can all be Kiwis and climb back to at least number two in the OECD.

Bay of Plenty Times 20/2/16
Peter Dey (Letters, February 13 ) seems confused. It was Maori rebels who did not honour the Treaty by taking up treasonous arms against the legal sovereignty of the Queen, however, I won't hold my breath waiting for redress.

Further "principles" and "partnership" have nothing to do with the Treaty of Waitangi 1840, and everything to do with what we might call the Treaty of Wellington (aka the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986). This is the point of entry to our national discourse for all the Maori grievance industry baloney. [Abridged)

On the subject of a donation to walk around The Mount I say a very firm 'no'. Why would we not adhere to the four original conditions as laid out, and agreed to, in 2008? What begins as voluntary, very soon becomes mandatory.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 19/2/16
Peter Dey – your command of language would do credit to a fourth form pupils I have taught. Your logic would not. You considered me simple-minded because I do not accept your facts. A fact, Mr Dey is an incontrovertible truth. Your writing is noted for unsubstantiated opinions expressed as facts.

Can you produce one fact confirming occasions where, how and when our governments, including Maori members, did not honour the Treaty and when and by whom the phrase ‘Principles of the Treaty' was first coined? There was certainly no mention of them in 19th Century. Please don't include the Land War's phantasies and land grabs but read the true Treaty and accurately documented history.

Mr Dey, wishful thinking, personal acrimony and meaningless generalisations are your forte. Truth, logic and history are not.

Maori activists are running their grievance programme on a false basis. There is only one Treaty of Waitangi. That is the document signed by Governor Hobson on behalf of the Queen of England and about 550 Maori leaders on behalf of Maori throughout New Zealand. It was agreed that Maori would give their sovereignty to the Queen in return for British citizenship.

The only version of the Treaty was written in Maori. No mention of co governance racism/or differentiation on the basis of race, just one equal law for all citizens. It was drafted in English before being translated to Maori. The English draft is known as the Littlewood draft and it is accurate.

The Treaty was a very good deal for Maori. They were stone aged, waring, cannibals with a life expectancy of less than half of what it is today. The minutes of the conference of some 200 Maori leaders held at Kohimarama in 1870 shows what was done on their behalf was very much to their liking.

Letter writer Peter Dey suggests that working Maori have not been more disadvantaged since the grievance industry was born in 1975. How does he explain the latest statistics that show Maori fill over 50 per cent of the available beds in our prisons while Maori are only 15 per cent of our population?

In spite of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money that has gone into corporate Maori over the last 40 years, it is Maori who fill the largest percentage of all negative statistics in the justice, education, health and welfare ministries.

The law changes and government acts created, from 1975 up to the present, favouring Maori have proven to be in my opinion, the downfall of the ordinary New Zealand citizen.

Some educated radical Maori, with the assistance of universities, culturally-biased education, politicians and the legal system have created a racial divide that is a blot on this fair land.
Pyes Pa.

Northland Age 18/2/16
"In the Kingdom of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King. And he that does not know his own history is at the mercy of every lying windbag." — outgoing Governor-General, Lord Bledisloe in his 1922 farewell address.

New Zealand is increasingly referred to in the public square as Aotearoa, or Aotearoa New Zealand. This appears on our passports, the letterheads and signage of government departments, our new bank notes, and has even been used on postage stamps, in larger print than our country's real name.

Fellow author Bruce Moon describes Aotearoa as"a quite recent upstart with scant justification, if any at all, to be used as our country's name".This fiction deserves to be mercilessly deconstructed…..

The basis of the full letter can be read HERE

The Wellingtonian 18/2/16
History attributes the immortal words by Winston Churchill -"Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few" - as a gesture of British gratitude for the valiant efforts of RAF pilots in World War II. But now a school of contemporary thought reckons the implementation of those words perfectly describes the unfettered feeding frenzy at the Waitangi treaty settlement trough. If the cap fits, wear it.

Bay of Plenty Times 18/2/16
Peter Dey suggests that working Maori have not been more disadvantaged since the grievance industry was born in 1975. How does he explain the latest statistics that show Maori fill more than 50 per cent of the available beds in our prisons while Maori are only 15 per cent of our population?

In spite of the billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money that has gone into corporate Maori, during the past 40 years, it is Maori who fill the largest percentage of all negative statistics in the Justice, Education, Health and Welfare ministries. The law changes and Government acts created and actioned in 1975 have proven to be in my opinion, the downfall of the ordinary New Zealand citizen.

Some educated radical Maori, with the assistance of universities, culturally biased education, politicians and the legal system have created a racial divide that is a blot on this fair land.
Pyes Pa

Bay of Plenty Times 17/2/16
I fully agree with your correspondent P Burrell who challenges Peter Dey’s opinion on treaty matters.

To further complicate Mr Dey, I wonder if he has read The Littlewood Treaty by Martin Doutre?

Every expert on the treaty knows that the final English draft had gone missing in 1840. When this Littlewood treaty was discovered 150 years later in the home of solicitor Henry Littlewood, Claudia Orange referred to the lost final draft as “this could be the one that was never located”.

The handwriting is proved by NZ’s leading handwriting expert Dr Phil Parkinson of the National Archives to be that of James Busby and the paper is watermarked W Tucker 1833 and is known to be from Police Magistrate James Clendon’s private stock of paper and no other.

In 2000, the late Ngapuhi chief Graham Rankin said: “The official English text on the treaty being used today is radically different from the Maori version in both wording and meaning, but the Littlewood treaty wording is exactly the same as the Maori version.”

How embarrassing for the gravy- t r ai n advocates t hi s inconvenient truth must be, with no mention at all of forests and fisheries.

NZ Herald 16/2/16
Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court was a champion in defining the written US Constitution and the rule of law.

He was adamant that all must look to the meaning of the words of the Constitution as they were written. He openly mocked the notion of a "living" document — one that evolved with changing times — as an excuse for those with vested interests to improve their own ideological position.

How interesting this is when considering our own Treaty of Waitangi, where most of the population are completely baffled every week, if not every day, with the concept of those who wish to reinterpret the words of the Treaty for their own questionable purposes.

The Northern Advocate 16/2/16
Councillor Stuart Bell’s boycotting of committees with racebased, appointed members ( Advocate, February 12) is praiseworthy.

His stance supports best government based on equality of citizens. It is also totally justified under the Treaty Of Waitangi which guaranteed Maori the rights and privileges of British subjects in return for granting sovereignty to the Crown. Equality, not preference.

The article incorrectly infers that legislation “demands” Maori input in council decisionmaking. Instead the Local Government Act (2002) imposes "an obligation to consider what steps the council can reasonably take to encourage and assist Maori to participate in local affairs. These provisions do not confer special rights and privileges on Maori that are not accorded to other tauiwi (other members of the public)." Can the council let us know what other races or groups have "advisers" on council committees?

Lastly, Julianne Chetham's comments are an insult to all ratepayers. Having some Maori blood does not mean you see the world exactly the same. If Ms Chetham's contribution is likely to be at such a "high level" (as she suggests), why did she not stand for election as other New Zealanders have to do?

Her attitudes and sense of entitlement must surely start alarm bells ringing, especially as democracy has proven, worldwide, to be superior to tribalism in providing peace and prosperity.

Stand strong Councillor Bell. (abridged)

Bay of Plenty Times 16/2/16
Peter Dey’s letters spell out his opinion of the Treaty of Waitangi versions and also the principles of the Treaty, but that is all they are, his opinions.

People such as Dame Claudia Orange and others have written their views on the subject claiming they are correct and others have written a contrary view they claim to be correct.

After 176 years since the signing, and bearing in mind Maori did not have a written language, it is impossible to state what was meant in the wording at that particular time.

Our Government/Opposition parties have debated the subject at length and still cannot agree, so I think Mr Dey is oversimplifying the problem.

Also, it is hard to argue that the ordinary Maori are benefiting from Treaty settlements when one looks at the statistics for unemployment, education, etc, and then sees the various iwi hierarchy to see just who is benefiting and to what extent.

Regardless of what was meant or what was written, one should bear in mind the words “He iwi tahi tatou” (“we are now one people”) and all Pakeha and part- Pakeha ( part- Maori) should get on with making New Zealand a better place to live in.

From where I sit, it is difficult for me to contemplate removing the Union Jack from our flag, without thinking it is time to also retire the Treaty to history and write a constitution that all migrants, Maori, European, Asian, Pasifica and all the rest can all be proud of.

Rotorua Daily Post 16/2/16
Obviously Jonathan Temm (Letters, February 6) has little use for a dictionary. He must adore mayor Stephanie Chadwick who has little use for democracy.

I voted for mayor Chadwick. I believed her when she said that she would curtail council unnecessary expenditure, and fill the empty shops. Curtail council expenditure! What a joke. Another joke is filling the empty shops.

What democratic procedure did mayor Chadwick use to change our name to Rotorua Lakes? No debate, pushed through even though some councillors were absent on holiday.

Then there is the Te Arawa Partnership. She very nearly pushed that through until she was stopped and forced to accept public submissions.

Did I have any say in the millions of dollars being spent on the cycle path, the children’s health centre in the public library, the demolition of the City Focus, what else? I am a very senior citizen with a very good memory Jonathan, and I may be a sore loser, but my hope is that I will be around when democracy returns to Rotorua.

Northern Age 16/2/16
Hone Harawira must have a different understanding of tuku in ko to tuatahi of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck), who in his book The Coming of the Maori writes tuku (to cede) and included lands which were ceded. A translation of the text in Maori in An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, copied from the first sheet of the Treaty dated February6, 1840, and 'neither spelling nor punctuations has been altered' also has cede for tuku.
Doubtless Bay

So Ms Herbert-Graves is at it again, claiming that Waitangi Day was the most enjoyable since 2008. She must have enjoyed seeing some racist woman throwing a sex toy at a cabinet minister and shouting that they/we "raped our land". What a vision of New Zealand to show to the world. What a monstrous lie!

Before 1840 the tribes eagerly sold two-thirds of our country . Nearly all was returned to them by British benevolence, so they sold most of it again, sometimes several times over.

Ms Herbert-Graves flogs again Busby's worthless "declaration" by a group of northern chiefs who never met again after the first time — a paper tiger if ever there was one.

Her "rangitiratanga" are another figment of her imagination. By the Treaty, all Maori, including the slaves of other Maori, became fully-entitled British subjects in return for the chiefs' cession of sovereignty to the Queen. That is all, but what a great gift they received.

The very mixed race people of which she seems to be one are fortunate to have the same democratic rights as everybody else — no more, no less. If she wants something else, I advise her to be careful what she wishes for.

The Northern Advocate 15/2/16
Your writer, Tim Howard, neatly misinterpreted my recent opinion piece to accuse me of saying Maori owe us. Respect is a mutual duty, and recognition of goodwill, travelling between the races at present, can only produce further goodwill in the future.

Tim then would say the compensation paid in settlements is miserly and compares it to the cost of a frigate or the bail-out of the investors in South Canterbury Finance. In 50 years or sooner the frigate will be a heap of rust and the investors will have enjoyed their returns and be dead. But the land returned in settlements will remain forever priceless.

By encouraging now and into the future, a culture of obligation based on guilt for past wrongs is the way of perpetuating winners and losers, divisions, disunity, anger and loss for everyone. The Treaty is a document of such obligation.

To be never-ending. Is that what you want to encourage Tim?

Why were hui arranged right through NZ for consultation with Maori about the seabed and foreshore, why is the same happening now about NZ’s freshwater? Why are the rest of us ignored by the Government in matters we all have a vital and equal interest in?

Isis is a great example of a rising up of embittered people who through poetry and song, over centuries, have kept alive their belief that they are owed. What a future.

Wairarapa Times-Age 15/2/16

Our national day! What a ridiculous title that is. There is no celebrating. What happens in Waitangi is a disgrace to us all. It seems to dampen our spirits rather than raise them.

The outrageous behaviour is shown on our news and news around the world. Yes, we are a democratic country and we can and should protest, but what happens at Waitangi is not something that many people are proud of. We seem to have lost our way at Waitangi and what comes through is anger, posturing and an absence of unity.

There are so many wonderful Maori doing great things in New Zealand — they must be embarrassed by the goings-on in Waitangi. They rarely get recognition, though, only bad behaviour is newsworthy.

Perhaps now that reporters get charged to go on the marae, they should decline to report on Waitangi and we could all be spared the embarrassing spectacle.

It is such a bad example for Maori youth. They see that it is all right to abuse verbally and physically our elected politicians. Where is the respect? Our young learn how to behave by example. The example for our young at Waitangi is appalling. There is no mana here. Nothing to be proud of.

Why can’t we celebrate a more encompassing New Zealand Day? We are now a nation of many cultures. Why can’t we celebrate a day where we all join in, rather than the hateful day that Waitangi has morphed into. And you know something is wrong when you dread watching the news that night.

We are so much better than this.

Our politicians are not blameless in this matter either. They are elected and paid by us to provide leadership and good governance. In the matter of Waitangi they have failed on both counts. To allow a few to make them jump through hoops and dictate to our elected officials what is permissible and what is not, is weak and insipid.

Sunday Star Times 14/2/16
David Seymour (‘‘Time to take Waitangi on the road’’, Focus, February 7) does not seem to realise that the example of Te Hemara is a cautionary tale and not simply evidence of ‘‘remarkable trading relationships’’.

Te Hemara made his living selling land to which he often had no claim and no connection. He claimed 120,000 acres across the North Island, sold tribally owned lands until there was nothing left and took the money. These land sales left the Nga Whetu iwi in devastating poverty. His own tribe ‘‘who were left with no tribal land and no money, felt only animosity towards him’’.

The irony of someone of Ngapuhi descent struggling to understand why local Maori are protesting a trade agreement is not lost on any Kiwi who knows anything of Ngapuhi access to an unfettered international trade for muskets and the resulting slaughters during the Musket Wars.

Seymour is making an overly simplistic argument. Mark Eades, Christchurch Seymour’s novel suggestion has much merit. Why not rotate the celebrations following the signing venues of the original Treaty document? The Te Aroha and the Ngati Tuwharetoa tribes refused to sign the Treaty. Many might not know this.

Many ‘‘Treaty Sheets’’ were taken around Aotearoa; 500 Maori chiefs signed our founding document.

Protesters will be far less likely to travel to other destinations, and if Parliament implements Seymour’s suggestion in time for Waitangi Day 2017, Prime Minister John Key can attend the new location without any fear of intimidation, and hopefully he won’t have a sex toy thrown at him!
B C,

Dominion Post 13/2/15
The New Zealand flag should represent the genealogical roots of as much of the country as possible, without being too complicated. If a survey of the population was taken, I believe it would indicate that the majority, including Maori, would have some genealogical roots in either England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales.

The current flag with its Union Jack shows our heritage in an appropriate manner. Those who disparage the connection should remember that the British have given us our universally used language, written and spoken, have translated and formed a written language for Maori and, have through the Magna Carta, given us a political democracy second to none in the world. Keep our flag and honour its significance.

Northern Advocate 13/2/16
I would like to enlighten Tim Howard (February 5) on a few things. Firstly, a well-researched list of Treaty settlements clearly shows they now stand at $3.1 billion.

2. Tim infers that settlements tribes are getting are a shadow of what they should be receiving. The initial payments must have been enough at the time because these people continued to sell raw land for some decades. The land grew in value as settlers invested capital and labour, developing farms, building roads, towns, industry, schools, hospitals. Are non-Maori property owners compensated for the increased value of properties they once owned?

3. The South Canterbury Finance bailout was a one-off payment of $1.75 billion (Tim's figure) to investors of ALL ethnicities while funding for Maori is repeated every year and is at least $1.16 billion, and is on top of other funding distributed through health, housing, social develop. meat, and education.

4. "The 1835 Declaration had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand" said historian Michael King, a view supported by fellow historians.

5. Article One of the Maori-language Treaty (signed by approximately 500 chiefs) clearly states the ceding of sovereignty to the Queen of England forever —end of story.

6. Captain Hobsons words, "We are now one people', after the signing of the Treaty ended any notions of a warm fuzzies "host" and "guest" scenario.

Unfortunately, Tim's view is entrenched throughout our education institutions and government departments.

Misinformation is never a foundation for harmony and unity.

Wanganui Chronicle 13/2/16
Another Waitangi Day celebrating, not the original Te Tiriti o Waitangi signed by 545 rangitira, but a reconstructed racially-biased document created by legal argument.

This new document is a travesty perpetrated against the original signatories that has cleverly created a multi-milliondollar business for unprincipled white liberalists, lawyers, radical Maori and institutionalised racism. The results of the Lange government, Geoffrey Palmer, Robin Cooke at law, the Treaty of Waitangi Act and the Waitangi Tribunal have not benefited main stream, hardworking Maori.

Waikato Times 12/2/16
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General (1987) NZLR 641 emphasised that there were two core Treaty of Waitangi principles. These were ‘‘partnership’’ and ‘‘active protection’’.

Both the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have determined the principle of partnership includes the obligation on both parties to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith.

The actions of Ngapuhi trustees in setting limits on what the Prime Minister may say at Te Tii marae would appear to be an egregrious breach of the Treaty of Waitangi principles.

WAKE UP TO THE TRUTH (Also in the Dominion Post 12/2/16)
Another Waitangi Day celebrating not the original Te Tiriti o Waitangi signed by 545 rangitira, but a reconstructed racially biased document created by legal argument. This new document is a travesty perpetrated against the original signatories that has cleverly created a multimillion dollar business for unprincipled white liberalists, lawyers, radical Maori and institutionalised racism.

The consequential results of the Lange government, Geoffrey Palmer, Robin Cooke at law, the Treaty of Waitangi Act and the Waitangi Tribunal have not benefited mainstream, hardworking Maori.

It is time for all citizens of New Zealand to wake up to the truth of our history.

Southland Times 12/2/16
In my opinion, Prime Ministers should not play a role in the Waitangi celebrations.

This should be the role of the Governor General as it was in the beginning at the founding of our great nation.

Waitangi is not a political forum and should not be used as such at Waitangi celebrations.

I’m sure leaders of all parties and their MPs would all be welcome to attend if they chose to do so.

Hopefully then the ceremonies could remain at the Te Tii Marae and in the grounds of the Treaty House as they always have been.

No need for the ‘‘rent a crowd’’ mobsters who turn up every year because there would be nothing to protest about.

Take politics out of our Waitangi celebrations and it should be a calm and dignified fun family day for all to enjoy, ancestors, family and friends alike.

Taranaki Daily News 12/2/16
New Zealand became a selfgoverning country on 26 September 1926 when it was declared to be a "Self-governing Dominion" Prior to this the Constriction Act of 30 June 1852 of the British Parliament allowed "self government" in New Zealand.

The 1926 day was " Dominion Day" and celebrated as such until it was abolished by the government of the day when Waitangi Day was declared to be the National Day.

This despite the fact that New Zealand was simply a colony both before and after the Treaty of Waitangi.

The treaty was a contract between the British Crown [British government] and Maori chiefs.

It was designed to protect tine various Maori tribes from the unscrupulous and aggressive Europeans, and the equally unscrupulous and arrogant other Maori tribes.

In addition all Maori were granted all the rights and privileges, and responsibilities of British citizens, and their precious belongings protected.

In return the chiefs gave the Queen absolute authority. The Treaty did not create a nation. New Zealand remained a colony of Britain.

Dominion status was not complete independence and the British still held some authority in the country. Complete independence came in 1949 when New Zealand accepted the Statute of Westminster by which it became a completely independent nation in the British Commonwealth of Nations. This date really marks the start of the nation "New Zealand"

The reasons for the Labour government’s move to move the day from Dominion Day to Waitangi Day are obscure, but the change was illogical, unwarranted, and incorrect. Dominion Day, being celebrated in all towns in the country, was enjoyed by all Kiwis – a truly national day. Waitangi Day, being restricted to one locality is available to only a fewhardly a day for the nation.
New Plymouth

Hawkes Bay Today 12/2/16 (Text Us section)
■ Jamie White was on the Paul Henry Show programme recently. He stated that the Treaty of Waitangi was between NZ Maori and the British Crown. Since the Crown's representative is the Governor General, he is the person who should be attending the meeting at Waitangi while the prime minister should be a guest — and treated with respect.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive (Tauranga) 12/2/16
I am wondering how many of the raucous protesters in Auckland and elsewhere, have actually read the 6000-page TPPA?

I think I can safely bet none have, including the nurse Josie Butler who threw a dildo at Minister Stephen Joyce on Waitangi Day. This ridiculous woman claimed it was to draw attention to the “atrocity that is the TPPA”.

Atrocity? That word is defined in the dictionary as “cruelty, monstrosity, brutality, obscenity”.

Whereas in fact, the TPP Agreement is a document signed by 12 key economies from Asia, the Pacific and the Americas, forming a new trading bloc that makes it easier for goods and services to be traded between these nations. Without being part of this agreement, New Zealand exports would be blocked by huge tariffs to other countries costing jobs and hurting the New Zealand economy.

Incidentally, there is not a single Clause in the TPPA that will impact the Crown's obligations to Maori.

In fact the TPPA includes a special provision preserving the pre-eminence of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Ms Butler's insulting behaviour to a Minister of the Crown has been shown globally. So much for New Zealand's image overseas.

As for her statement, she is worried what the TPPA “will mean for her patients” – pleeeeease!
M B,

Northland Age 11/2/16
Our government says no one owns the water, yet is planning to pass the buck so that local councils give control of our fresh water to part-Maori tribalists, i.e. special rights based on diluted, racist genes.

Under the Tiriti o Waitangi, every New Zealand citizen has the same rights. That includes access to fresh water. What may be done is the government will invite the public to make submissions about giving iwi fresh water rights over all New Zealanders, via local councils, i.e. It will appear as if the public are being given a chance to have a say. But make no mistake: the decision has already been made. The submission process will be a farce that will allow the racist National government to assert that it has consulted widely. But the racist Maori Party has made it clear: if they don't get their way —control of New Zealand's fresh water—that unabashed and thoroughly racist party will withdraw its support for the Resource Management Amendment Bill.

Article two of the Treaty says: The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. Nowhere does it mention, rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore. These became the commons — the property of the Crown, held in trust for all the people of New Zealand.

Something that cannot nor should not have its control given away to one racist group. New Zealand should have one law for all.

Waikato Times 11/2/16
Dr Nick Smith qualifies the changes to the RMA: ‘‘The bill is a compromise with the Maori Party and they have strongly advocated for better processes for iwi to be involved in council plan-making. Councils will need to engage with local iwi on how they will involve them in their resource management processes. The objective is to ensure iwi are consulted on issues that are important to them.’’

Specifically, he added: ‘‘There were eight changes that were in the proposals that were put up in 2013 that were not in the bill as a consequence of their advocacy.’’

Maori Party’s press release – they explain that they ‘‘worked with Iwi Leaders’ Group to negotiate changes to the proposed bill … that will require councils to engage with iwi on how to better include them in resource management. Iwi Participation Agreements will require councils to engage with iwi during their planning processes to ensure they are involved in resource management decisions at the front end."

The changes look more like a sell-out. This is just the starting point. The spokesperson for the Iwi Leaders Group, Rahui Papa said of the bill, that it was "a positive first step in advancing our objectives of better environmental outcomes and improving Maori participation in resource management processes." Note the words "first step". Iwi really want much, much more ... frightening.

Is the Treaty of Waitangi our founding document? New Zealand was proclaimed a British colony a month earlier in Sydney. When Hobson came to New Zealand on February 1, 1840, it was not the Treaty he read out, but the proclamation of sovereignty. He did not have a treaty. That was concocted on the spot by locals. Hobson had been instructed to obtain the natives’ consent but only after the proclamation which carried the weight of British law. The proclamation was the main thing – the Treaty was an afterthought, dreamed up on the spur of the moment.

Some 600 chiefs put their mark to the Treaty (48 actually signed their name) but none in the South Island, because the British said it had been claimed by Cook in 1769 and that was sufficient. Cook also planted the flag in the North Island, too -the most well known at Mercury Bay. It seems perhaps even the proclamation was unnecessary.

The Treaty was not taken everywhere in New Zealand. Isolated areas were too remote to venture, but the governor considered Maori acceptance had been sufficiently canvassed to declare sovereignty a fait accompli. In the 1863 insurrection, Waikato rebels claimed they had never signed the Treaty. In fact, 44 Waikato chiefs had signed, making Waikato's legitimate Kiwi citizens for all time.

Otago Daily Times 10/2/16
Janine Hayward and Jacinta Ruru are professors but they have very little idea about our history. (ODT, 8/2/16) Ms Hayward claims falsely that there are "two parallel histories of New Zealand". The one true history is an account of what actually happened but sadly there is much false material current today, that propagated by the "education4peace" unit within the University of Otago being only one example.

Ms Ruru claims that the Maori meaning of "ownership" differs from the British meaning. The great cannibal Maori chief, Hongi Hika, stated that meaning very precisely in 1820: possessions procured by the spear, that is, by force of arms. (See Lee and Kendall's dictionary, 1820). Anything else is a fairy tale. Tikanga sanctioned cannibalism, slavery and female infanticide - Ms Ruru to note the latter - great to have in our common law! The Supreme Court seems to think so.

There may be economic and political issues to talk about as Ms Hayward says, abolition of Maori seats in Parliament being an example, but none of this is as she says "still important for the Treaty". The Treaty was a "done deal" in 1840 by which the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen and all Maoris became fully entitled British subjects - end of story.

Southland Times 10/2/16
Well done, John Key. Just when I thought you were going to be diplomatic and buckle to pressure you came out of your corner swinging.

For way too many years decent Kiwis have cringed in front of their TV sets as lawless lowlifes have seized the limelight of Waitangi celebrations to try and project themselves as the saviour for the downtrodden underdog.

These people are just out-and out thugs.

Respect is and should be a two way street. Just as the Government has given respect to tribal protocol the tribe – all the tribe – should respect the Government representative who attends the ceremony.

Lets forget Waitangi and call it New Zealand Day and celebrate it with a three-day mardi gras in Auckland or Wellington and totally ignore any connection to the treaty ever existing. Food for thought?

I get fed up with the annual upheaval by a northern tribe who use the Waitangi Day celebration to show their contempt for those MPs present.

I’m pleased that John Key didn’t go. Labour were left in the pouring rain for an hour, while the greeting was extended to the Green Party.

Why would the Crown go to Waitangi to be abused on a day of celebration of the birth of our nationhood?

And to listen to Maori protesters claiming that Maori have lost their sovereignty. The truth is that Maori ceded (gave away) their sovereignty in favour of gaining British citizen rights when signing the Maori copy of the Treaty.

It is long overdue that we rotated our annual celebration around the tribes, moving location each year.

Hawkes Bay Today 10/2/16
I have no affiliation with any school in Havelock North. This issue is not about race. I have taught in a primary school with a very successful Maori immersion kura operating as an entity within it.

This issue for me is one of fairness. I would suggest that the most effective way to put the message of crowding in the Havelock schools to Hekia Parata would be to set her out on playground duty at Te Mata school.

Whilst the “bums on seats” statistics may match her “selective” policy, most certainly, despite magnificent efforts by the staff and board of trustees to make play in every respect a good experience for the pupils, there is no doubt the physical reality of 620 plus children out in a restricted amount of ground, would challenge the minister.

I believe she has sold out the many young families in the Brookvale area. She is disingenuous when she suggests any child can enrol in the new school. Yes, they can, as long as they wish to learn exclusively in Maori.

There is a great deal of pro Havelock kura comment from Horiana Robin. Why would she not be encouraging this proposed “cradle to grave” establishment within her own very handy domain at Mangateretere? There are adequate grounds, local marae, a fast approach by bus from Hastings, much basic infrastructure in place, many unused classrooms, and a philosophy of Maori language implementation.

Do the Maori immersion educational philosophies of the Hastings group not agree with the philosophies of the Mangateretere group?

Is there friction among the providers?
Havelock North

Wanganui Chronicle 10/2/16
On behalf of my fellow bigots, I ask the following question:

Why is it that when some people go to university, particularly those that study the nonproductive subjects such as political science or ancient history, for example, they get this holierthan-thou attitude towards the rest of the populace?

Steve Baron’s opinion piece ( January 21) was a typical demonstration of this sort of thinking where, if one doesn’t go to university, one’s thoughts and opinions are worthless. It would also appear that one is a bigot and has had no education whatsoever.

To quote Steve Baron: “They are usually the uninformed, close-minded, uneducated, and of an older generation”. I will put my hand up, sir. I am guilty of being old. What a bugger! But, as sure as hell I am not uninformed, close-minded or uneducated.

Mr Baron makes the point that Maori may indeed have more pakeha blood in their veins due to intermarriage, but if a person relates to their Maori heritage in preference, that is their right — no different to a New Zealander choosing to relate to an Irish heritage.

Well, there is a difference; it’s called the dollar!

Where else in the world can I claim an advantage because of my race, colour, or creed?

The only other places around the world where this occurs are usually war zones.

Like my fellow citizens and workers who did not go to university, we learned and contributed to society in a practical way and did not spend our valuable time pontificating about possible fairy tales in Disneyland.

I have to agree with everything that D Partner wrote in the January 30

Very well put, I thought — but then, obviously, I am a bigot.

Bay of Plenty Times 10/2/16
Another Waitangi day celebrating, not the original Te Tiriti o Waitangi signed by 545 Rangitira but a reconstructed, racially biased document created by legal argument.

This new document is a travesty perpetrated against the original signatories that has cleverly created a multi-million dollar business for unprincipled white liberalists, lawyers, radical Maori and institutionalised racism. The consequential results of the Lange government, Geoffrey Palmer, Robin Cooke at law, the Treaty of Waitangi Act and the Waitangi Tribunal have not benefited mainstream, hardworking Maori.

It is time for all citizens of New Zealand to wake up to the truth of our history.
Pyes Pa

At least Tommy Wilson has the honesty to admit he has not read the Trans-Pacific Partnership  (TPP) document and neither, I am sure, have the raucous crowds protesting against it.

One does not have to plough through the 6000 pages of the document for it is easy to search out important details that affect New Zealand.

Twelve key economies from Asia, the Pacific, and the Americas will form a new trading bloc that makes it easier for goods and services to be traded between these nations.

Without being part of the agreement, New Zealand exports would be blocked by huge tariffs to other countries costing jobs and hurting our economy.

There is not a single clause in the TPP that will impact the Crown‘s obligations to Maori. In fact, the TPP includes a special provision preserving the preeminence of the Treaty of Waitangi. So what are these crowds protesting about?

The saying goes: “Ignorance is bliss” but not in this case. (Abridged)

The Daily Post Rotorua 10/2/16
Jonathan Temm’s letter (February 6) exploited the supposed elasticity of the term ‘democracy’ to offer a sycophantic assessment of the process used to get the Te Arawa Partnership Plan approved. He avoided any reference to the principles of democracy and some awkward facts about the policy process.

Advocacy for the TAPP was provided by politicised officials who prevented any consideration of our democratic governance model at the ‘public consultations’. So we boycotted them and mobilised mass objections at the hearings. But we, and the wider majority we represented, were ignored, wilfully misrepresented and vilified. An ugly process.

Temm’s avoided mentioning the actual outcomes. The TAPP gave disproportionate and unelected power to one community of interest, on three policy-making committees of council. It reminds us that tribalism and co-governance promise special benefits to the members of one community of interest. Democratic processes seek to reconcile all communities of interest. There was no attempt at reconciliation.

Legal advice from the most authoritative source in New Zealand that the TAPP was illegal was dismissed using local advice that matched political preferences. Moral objections were ridiculed. The TAPP was rammed through on the numbers.

Temm’s partisan advice would mean accepting a moral and legal outrage, forever compromising the quality of our local government. We believe it wiser to use the ballot box to restore democracy, the rule of law, financial responsibility and policy making power to elected representatives.
Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers

Northern Advocate 10/2/16
Re "Six Institutions Investigated" and three more under scrutiny. All wananga involving $25.6 million, "35 tertiary providers have wide-spread or serious educational delivery issues". How many more millions is that going to be?

Te Whare Wananga 0 Awanuiarangi awarded NZ Warrior players and staff qualifications after doing one day of an 18-week course. Really? My first reaction is fury at the ease with which certain people without con-science can access public money, vast amounts. Secondly, just how or when can they, will they, pay it back? Thirdly the government is just too easy with spending other people's money irresponsibly.

How thoroughly do they check the ability of institutions which apply for these monies, to meet their commitments? Where are the contractual obligations enforced? Why aren't they shut down the moment they fail to meet deadlines for information and reporting?

This is a business oriented government but with taxpayers' money invested in PC selected educational institutions they flamboyantly disregard applying accountability on any sound business basis. Hekia Parata should resign now.

Northland Age 9/2/16
Who the hell does Selwyn Clarke think he is, that he's above the law of New Zealand? What an insult to many other war veterans, who abide by the laws set down by the New Zealand government. I agree with the stopping of Selwyn's war pension, or any other benefit for anybody who believe they are above our court justice system.

One would think that if there is a problem then the court is the place to have the matter heard and resolved. Going by your front page headlines, Mr Clarke 's veteran's pension has been stopped for the reason that he has breached his bail conditions, e.g that he did not face up to his responsibilities to appear in court on the required day, so now faces a warrant for arrest.

This person, aged 88 years, is acting like an eight-year old spoiled child, and I say shame on him for begging at the Kaitaia Market, and receiving hand-outs from Ngati Kahu, when others of all ages requiring a helping hand with health needs. I say shame on our elected Northland Member of Parliament, Winston Peters, and Te Runanga-a-Iwi Ngati Kahu chief executive Anahera Herbert-Graves, supporting this man Selwyn Clarke who defied the police to leave the scene, so was charged with trespass, then refused to appear in court as part of his bail conditions, and now wants the public or the taxpayers to support him for his illegal actions.

Come on Selwyn, be a man and face up to your responsibilities. You owe it to yourself, and are lucky to receive a war veteran's pension. I take it it was the Korean War you fought in by your age. Just remember thousands of New Zealanders who lost their lives in New Zealand's short history. Be thankful that you were one of the Iucky ones to return and live another day. By all means, Selwyn, protest within the laws of the country, but you and your buddies went too far by stopping health workers carrying out their duties to care for the sick, so you lost my support and respect, and I hope many others.

If you take the view that under the treaty you never acceded your sovereignty, therefore not coming under the jurisdiction of the Crown, then the Crown is under no obligation to pay you a war pension, superior or any other benefits, hospital treatment or anything else. The time is long overdue that the treaty of 1840 was put to rest and we all grow up, as we are now living in 2016. Injustice has been around for thousands of years, and will continue with the loss of millions of lives.
Diggers' Valley

The Southland Times 9/2/16
A system of Government for the whole population not just were a 15 per cent minority try to rule.

One would think that your blood line would determined which race you could claim as a right. However, if you have a few millilitres of Maori blood you can claim to have Maori birthright. Even so they are still a minority group. Closing in on two hundred years of white man’s rule in this country, even badly at times, they remain the elected government elected by the majority.

These groups seem hell-bent, year-after year to insult the heads of government on Waitangi Day because they claim it to be theirs. And not only that but are also fighting among themselves. I believe it was the Kirk Government who brought in New Zealand Day but to appease Maori leaders who claim to be so strong on their protocol it was decided it should be called Waitangi Day.

To invite the Prime Minster only so they could preach their opinions but deny him right of reply is not only un-democratic but an insult to him along with the other 85% of the population. Democracy? Get real

The New Zealand Herald 9/2/16 (Short & Sweet section)
Seeing as it is Waitangi weekend, I thought it may be prudent to remember what was said “We are now one people”. Nowhere was it said “We are now partners”

Bay of Plenty Times 8/2/16
Before t he recent reinterpretation and officially legislated acceptance of J. S. Freeman’s version, the Treaty of Waitangi, signed and accepted by the Chiefs, had three articles:

FIRST: That the Chiefs accepted entire sovereignty of the Queen of England forever.

SECOND: The tribes, chiefs and all men in New Zealand (this included non-Maori) were guaranteed all their rights in their land, villages and other property with the Queen retaining the right to purchase any land they wished to sell, at their price.

THIRD: The Crown will protect them and secure to them all the rights and privileges of the people of England.

Where, Willy Jackson, as you stated on radio, are the guaranteed subsequent consultations with the Crown and any mention of Treaty principles? (Abridged)

Sunday Star Times 7/2/16
Jonathan S. Milne’s editorial (‘‘A new name for New Zealand – 4real’’, January 31) mentions certain names which have been banned by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Rightly so. A name like 4real would be surreal. English place names are now known by their Maori names as well now, such as Mt Cook is also Aoraki (not Aorangi), Mt Egmont/ Taranaki, Wanganui becomes Whanganui.

But wait! Wanganui is not a Maori word, I am informed. It is a Waitaha word.

Aotearoa does not mean the Land of the Long White Cloud. I was told by an old Maori friend that it simply means ‘‘Long White Cloud’’. Quite possibly some Pakeha inserted ‘‘The Land of’’.

Milne suggests that we should change the name of New Zealand to Aotearoa, but I suggest that before we go off half-cocked about our future, we should sort out our history first.
K G. M

RENAMING NEW ZEALAND as Aotearoa would be a radical step that defies the history of our country, as early Maori applied that title to the North Island only.

In his book, The Treaty of Waitangi: An Explanation (published as recently as 1923), Sir Apirana Ngata spelled this out in no uncertain terms.

Quote: ‘‘The laws made by Parliament affect all the people living on the face of this land, the land properly delineated and known as Aotearoa, the South Island and adjacent islands.’’

So the South Island was seen as a distinctly separate entity from Aotearoa in the eyes of early Maori.

Those wishing to change history should research the original terminology as opposed to the versions that exist in the muchaltered te reo of today.

Sir Apirana’s excellent book should be mandatory reading in all New Zealand schools – but then again, perhaps it contains too many inconvenient facts.

Aotearoa never included the South Island, nor was Stewart Island.

There is little sense in changing the present name to one that has no historical basis.

Hawkes Bay Today 6/2/16
Do we not all have the same educational needs for our future employment in our society, regardless of our ethnicity? I have trouble justifying the proposed kura which provides education to only a select portion of the community. What about the promise to cater for the need s of the rest of ow chil dren and the situation of the over crowding in the Havelock North primary schools? Why is Craig Foss afraid to answer directly? This all seems rather mysterious, unjust, unfair and totally racist.
Havelock North

NZ Herald 6/2/16
John Key said he wouldn’t attend Te Tii Marae and the Waitangi celebrations because he is being effectively gagged by Ngapuhi. The Prime Minister should appreciate now how Aucklanders feel in being effectively gagged by his Government through its removal of the normal statutory right of appeal over Unitary Plan changes.

Mr Key wants respect for his right to speak out to explain his position and so do we. We want restored our full right of appeal to the Environment Court over the Unitary Plan in which changes made by the Auckland Council infringe our private property rights. We work hard to purchase our homes and property and both ownership and the local environment should be treated with the utmost respect. Anything less is dictatorship. The Prime Minister must amend the law and restore our property rights forthwith.

Bay of Plenty Times 6/2/16
Closed door negotiations are certainly working for Maori as John Bishop points out. Despite Government denying settlements of water/river owner-ship, the Water Forum continues to be another instrument gifting our nation's heritage and its control to a small portion of our population who turn out to be our masters in negotiating payback on a huge scale.

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 also has enabled ground rent charges of huge proportions and the National Government by its actions has gifted iwi the ability to turn so-called cultural heritage into a massive profit-making machine, because at some stage some itinerant iwi parked a canoe there.

Ground rents in Auckland are horrendous. Not satisfied with billions of dollars of Treaty pay-outs iwi are now going for rents or access payments on every gifted land, river, beach, national park and have (without authority) also fenced off large areas of beach in NZ.

They also have been given the ability to stall all major works in NZ until some cultural disagreement turns into profit. (The pipe-line at Bethlehem being a case in point and also Tauranga harbour dredging) This government has created a monster and as Winston Peters recently pointed out, and before him Don Brash, we are turning into country of two sovereignties where local and central government defer to Maori on all matters.

It is time to annul the Coastal and Marine legislation, abandon the Water Forum and the Waitangi Tribunal and return our country to all New Zealanders before we become tenants in our own land.
Mount Maunganui

Fifty-seven years ago I arrived in Opua on a Blue Star Conference liner, one of the first large vessels to visit the port after the war. As it was only a few days before Christmas there were already many holidaymakers in the area.

We were greeted by hundreds of local residents and people on vacation, which was a great surprise. However, due to the season we spent over two weeks in Opua and on non-working days conducted many tours of our vesseL During this time, we were royally entertained by many of the locals and enjoyed hospitality from all New Zealand's varied citizens.

In particular we were taken to the Treaty grounds at Waitangi and proudly shown the document in question, many other artefacts and heard some great tales of the earlier days. Preparations for Waitangi were already in hand and we were left in no doubt, that it was to be a much enjoyed great occasion. There was no doubt left in our minds, that the Treaty was a welding together of all New Zealand's peoples to form one country and one people.

What has now happened, is a very sad lass of this mans and it is now well past the time, for us all to take a very good look at ourselves and really became one nation.

Christchurch Press 6/2/16
Here we go again. Every so-called National Day we have a squabble which sometimes escalates into a fight, about some issue or other. This year the excuse is the TPPA. This is not the way to conduct a National Day. When I lived in Singapore, I was amazed at the outpouring of pride and happiness on their national day. How about we shift our National Day to something less contentious? We could keep Waitangi Day as our agreed `dissension day' when all the current issues get thrashed out.
St Shirley

Weekend Sun / Sunlive (Tauranga) 5/2/16
Labour leader Andrew Little, has announced a multi-billion dollar ‘three years free tertiary studies' for all Kiwis. Yet another ‘off the shelf' political promise.

Better that he, as a hopeful government leader, set up a Royal Commission to research and promote the true history of the first cultures to reach NZ. This task is now made very easy by the internationally accepted method of DNA testing.

The facts are out there, and they are not what has been taught through the education system over the past 40 years.

We have thousands of new entrants into the education system at this time and they will all be taught the untruthful history that Polynesian Maori were the first inhabitants of NZ.
M J A,

Matakana Island Panepane Point's (200 hectares) debacle has nothing to do with cultural significance, or grievance claims, merely tribal interests yen to own land! Only on tribal radar in 2012 and was never on Waitangi claim's shopping list.

Presumably, Panepane Point has Local Authority Reserve status that benefits all Kiwis, not just vested tribal interests whose agenda is control of both sides of Tauranga Harbour entrance, which is certainly not in the long term public interest.

Transfer of this land is a farce, and while on the subject, there is no reason to think this strategic land will not be required for Port of Tauranga purposes in the future.

Every Western Bay citizen should be appalled and outraged, and must remain vigilant with a view to opposing these land grabs and always questioning why the public don't get any say from the outset.

The public excluded council meeting on December 17, 2015, was a no-no. Western Bay of Plenty District Council must be held accountable for its actions because not being transparent, accountable or honest about these matters.

Full historical details of the the Panepane Point purchase circa 1923 must be published by council.
R P,

There is much speculation about the future status of our country's freshwater. There is also much to be concerned with on the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act. This has been clarified by Winston Peter's state-of-the-nation speech last week.

Under the new bill, every council in NZ will be required by law to involve iwi authorities in participating in the creation of policy plans – which also includes water management plans.
Mr Peters confirmed that the tribes ultimately want ownership of all Crown-owned river and lake beds and the water column contained within. They will own all the freshwater in our country and they will sell it back to us for a profit – hence their demand for a fund of $1 billion to include economic mechanisms!

Maori have been working on this race-based legislation since 2007 and are proceeding cautiously so as not to awaken us from our slumber.

The most enlightening statement of all from Mr Peters is this comment: “The proposed changes to the RMA are a signal flare to the entire country that this is taking us down the track of separatism. We are no longer one people. We are moving towards two separate groups with separate rights. “The Treaty is being used to expand the separate rights of Maori.”
I find this extremely sad!

Bay of Plenty Times 5/2/16
Which article of the Treaty of Waitangi promised Maori subsequent rights of consultation above those afforded all other subjects of the Crown?

In matters of local, regional or national decision-making, why should they receive preferment over the RSA, Rotary, the NZRU, or similar communityminded groups?

Surely the lawfully elected members of the particular bodies can make decisions for the the whole community in a truly democratic manner.

Let those who wish to advance the opinions of a particular group stand for election in the normal way.

In writing to “Grey Power”, to allay fears that the National Government were considering giving some control of the Nation’s water to Maori, Simon Bridges ignores the fact that though our hair may be grey, most of us do not lack the wit to view all politicians’ words with the cynicism they deserve and the mention of iwi involvement by National causes many of us grave concern. (Abridged)

Wanganui Chronicle 5/2/16
It's about time Waitangi Day as a holiday was scrapped. Both sides no longer honour the treaty; we are no longer one nation, one people. When Britain obtained sovereignty over all the land, politicians want us separated.

Our government will allow the Maori sovereignty flag to fly on the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and our district council will probably also fly the sovereignty flag on the council building, both breaking the intent of the treaty. And now we have Waitangi Day being mondayised, which makes a farce of the whole thing.

We do have an independence day, which we should be celebrating on May 3. It's the day New Zealand became an independent British Colony, when we came under one flag, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Northland Age 4/2/16
I feel Winston Peters' new term, 'brownmail' describing the influence of the Maori Party over National can also be used at a local level.

In the Far North we are currently pandering to two locals whose activist title appears to give them some sort of freedom to act outside of the laws that apply to the rest of us. Selwyn Clark had his pension suspended because the law says you lose your benefits if you dont go to court as requested, end of story. If Mr Clark chooses not to go to court that's his decision, but he needs to accept there will consequences. How can he expect the overall governing system which provides his benefits to ignore rules within other parts of the same system?

Mr Clarke was in the Army, and he would know that big organisations only function through everyone following the same set of rules. There's talk his pension will be reinstated without him going to court, which I personally consider a poor decision for our country as a whole.

The identity of the man who released his dog to attack a small terrier called Jack, and whose owner was injured trying to rescue her dog is common knowledge. Jack had got on to his property, and his actions were well out of order. If neighbours are too scared to speak up about the man, fair enough. But the FNDC not taking any action is pathetic, and needs to be explained by them.

Wanganui Chronicle 4/2/16
Why is it that the whole country is put to shame on February 6 each year by a group of Maori radicals in Waitangi?

I see they are using the TPP as this year’s excuse to cause embarrassment and bring shame on the rest of New Zealand by showing a total disrespect to our Prime Minister and other dignitaries who are delusional enough to think they are doing the right thing by going to Waitangi.

Enough of this farce. Waitangi Day is not a national day of celebration — it is one of embarrassment and cringe. It is time our national day was renamed New Zealand Day and the official celebrations moved to Government House in Wellington.

I am, after all, a New Zealander, not a Waitangi-ite or whatever they are called up there.
Durie Hill

The New Zealand Herald (Short & Sweet section) 4/2/16
When are New Zealanders going to learn we are one people of different ethnicities with one democratically elected Government that we authorised to make decisions on our behalf. I descend from a country with historic grievances but we moved on.
Mount Maunganui.

The New Zealand Herald 4/2/16
I am absolutely appalled at the arrogance of the Far North Maori who think that they can dictate to John Key. Like him or not, he is our Prime Minister and as such is entitled to the courtesy and respect of the position that he holds. It is the position, not the person, that is entitled to be at the Waitangi Day “celebrations”.

I am not sure that the word celebration is relevant any more. Every year there is discord. Everyone is out for what makes them feel important, and to hell with the fact that the most important person there is the Prime Minister of New Zealand, regardless of who he is.

Frankly, I believe it is time that we left the Maori to their Waitangi Day thing, and celebrated the day with peace and enjoyment. I am sure there are lots of other events on that day that would welcome the Prime Minister to officiate. Time to leave the taxpayer-funded navy ships and the like out of Waitangi and let the rest of New Zealand enjoy the day.

Wairarapa Times Age (Text section) 4/2/16
why is it when something controversial comes along ie: TPPA, Maori always have to hijack and make it all about them, ie Treaty etc. 90% of them wouldn't even know what it's about

The New Zealand Herald 3/2/16
It was great to see several expert treatises on the TPP agreement published in Monday’s Herald. The document comprising 6000 pages is the equivalent of a "Basis for Decision" in a complex business situation. Before the nuts and bolts are tightened there will be many amendments and escape rat holes to be considered and hopefully our politicians will spin the major issues in a manner comprehensible to the people who elect them.

There is a very disturbing matter that needs immediate attention. It was raised in several places: discrimination in favour of Maori. This language implies Maori are somehow inferior and require special attention. They are not, they don't, and coming from politicians it is demeaning. The majority of Maori people are happily and successfully participating in the 21st century multi-layered society. For the rest, mana will only grow from education and new employment opportunities in the regions decimated by the market reforms of the 1980s.

The other concern is the suggestion that the trade minister will be having discussions with individual iwi after those with an iwi management group. Where is the Maori Party in this debate? Should they not be the ones to address these issues with iwi? They are after all supposedly the democratically elected representatives of Maori whereas the hundred or so iwi will have self-serving agendas that are not likely to issue dividends to members any time soon. We must promote the real issues not a divisive society.

The Northern Advocate 3/2/16
From time to time a mayor/ chairperson is faced with dealing with an impasse or tie when an agenda item is put to the vote.

Recently our mayor, after having cast a deliberative vote which brought the total vote to a tie, decided that use of the casting vote was in order. As I understand it this casting vote was used to affirm the motion. My past experience on different organisations and businesses is that the chairperson's casting vote should be used to preserve the "status quo". This allows opportunity for the subject to be further researched by councillors and to be re-submitted at a later date.

On the subject of Maori representation on council, I believe there is no mana in this way of dealing with the issue. Far greater status will be accorded to the person who champions their own merits and gets voted onto council for those merits, anything less is pseudo representation. This kind of representation in my opinion is not conducive to building a great nation, it is more likely to split it, after 175 years-plus, it is time to stop picking at the wounds and move on.

I am in agreement with ex councillor Robin Lieffering that we should be one people and this subject should be open for intelligent discussion. (abridged)

Taranaki Daily News 3/2/16
After Hobson witnessed the last signature to the treaty, his superior, Governor Gipps of New South Wales (NSW), extended the boundaries of NSW to cover all of the islands of NZ and we became a dependency of NSW and were ruled by this state exactly the same as the island now known as Tasmania.

At this point the treaty was ratified and laid to rest.

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, ratified on 03-05-1841 - the true founding date of our real founding document - is the document that split us from NSW, gave us English law only, our own courts to administer English law only and, eventually, our own flag which is older than Australia’s.

There cannot be a breach of the treaty, there can only be a breach of the laws of New Zealand that should be heard by Her Majesty’s Courts established by our true founding document, the above Royal Charter Letters Patent, and not the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal which denies the right of participation or appeal by nonMaori.

Our Founding Day should be 3rd of May when the Royal Charter was ratified.
Palmerston North

Wanganui Chronicle 2/2/16
Steve Baron — “Bigots do Maori a disservice” ( January 21):

Well, the bigots being defined as fanatics, racists, sectarians and zealots are clearly on the pro-Maori brigade side of things, comprising separatists, treatyists, apologists — call them what you will — and yes, they certainly do Maori a disservice.

So, according to Mr Baron, any Kiwi that criticises rorts and rip-offs and race-based privileges is usually uninformed, closed-minded, uneducated and of an older generation. Well, I think apart from the age thing, that more correctly describes Mr Baron and his ilk!

Maori were never Treaty [of Waitangi] partners, there were never any treaty principles — those Maori chiefs who signed the treaty in 1840 and later attended the 1860 Kohimaramara Conference knew full well they were ceding sovereignty in return for British citizenship, etc.

Describing Maori uprisings as land wars is wrong, as they were essentially tribal rebellions.

Separatists, please remain cloistered in your little cliques and leave the real world to real people with real solutions free from cultural, PC garbage. Incidentally, Maori are now technically a statutory race created by t he 1982 Maori Affair s Amendment Act — perhaps more correctly called part-Maori because no full-blooded or 50 per centers exist, so in effect everyone in New Zealand is non-Maori — problem solved.
The New Zealand Herald 1/2/16 (Short & Sweet section)
Maybe ratepayers’ and iwi money wasted on the beam of light over Rangitoto at the weekend should have been beamed into health, education, housing and transport.
B T,

Bay of Plenty Times 1/2/16
I see in the news ( Local News, January 29) that Maori say there is “cultural sensitivity around human waste in their rohe (tribal area)”.

Since, according to Treaty claims, all of New Zealand was in a rohe belonging to one iwi or another and out as far as the 200-mile limit offshore, it does raise some interesting logistical questions about how and where bodily functions were managed.

Tommy Wilson’s letter (January 29) gave me cause to smile when he stated that European indigenous culture was cultureless and colour-free.

Europeans no longer feel the need to daub themselves with woad, wave claymores and spears, and make threatening gestures to visitors.

Millions of tourists visit Europe every year to take in this so-called colourless culture, and hundreds of thousands risk their lives to try to enter illegally to live the culture and partake of its benefits.

Everyone, Tommy Wilson included, is living a culture based on the European model here in New Zealand. The alternative does not bear thinking about. (Abridged.)

Sunday Star Times 31/1/16
So John Key will not go to Waitangi if Ngapuhi don’t want him. If Ngapuhi do want him then I would like to see them treat him with respect by not imposing Titewhai Harawira on him.

Year after year our prime minister has to be escorted by Harawira. It is both an insult to the prime minister and demeaning to the Office.

Harawira, her daughter Hinewhare and other members of her family were convicted and jailed for assaulting Charles Matthews, a committed mental health patient, at Carrington Hospital in 1988.

Evidence from Dr McGeorge read: ‘‘The patient had massive injuries to both eyes and to his jaw to the extent that his eyes were virtually closed, his jaw was misshapen and swollen and I felt that he had suffered considerable injuries’’.

The judge described the assault as ‘‘a vicious and violent attack upon this helpless and pathetic man … this merciless beating of a patient by those who were entrusted with his care was inexcusable and reprehensible in the extreme.’’

Our prime minister should not have to be arm-in-arm with anyone who could treat another human being this way.

Wanganui Chronicle 30/1/16
My relationship with Wanganui began in the late 1950s and culminated in my retirement here three years ago. I am now wondering if it is time to move on. Like army towns, Wanganui has a larger than normal Maori population and appears to be morphing into a town of pro-Maori bigots. I use that term in its purest form and in retaliation for the comments by Steve Baron in the Chronicle on January 21, as the word applies both ways.

I have always had the greatest respect for Maori as a race, despite my occasional comments about bloodlines. However, that respect is slowly being eroded by do-gooders, self-serving activists, political point-scorers (both local body and parliamentary) and media outlets that seem to endorse the theory that Maori would have been better off if the European had never arrived in NZ.

Yep, I can imagine a civilisation similar to that found in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, with paramount chief Iti at the helm! Since the honkey arrived both races have committed all sorts of misdemeanours, but surely it is time to move on. The Treaty of Waitangi is one of the worst documents in history and can be assigned any meaning or intention. A favourite loophole (for those that can't find one to suit) is the fact that not every chief signed.

Is it not time to bury the Treaty and move forward instead of backwards? The involvement of iwi in many decision-making processes now extends beyond any reasonable expectation. For example, is it reasonable for the discovery of a finger bone on a building site to stop work even though there is no proof that the finger belonged to a Maori? Too much discretionary power in too many hands.

Finally, I have to challenge the Chronicle about its seemingly partisan approach to reporting. Was the front-page headline on January 12, "Iwi top priority", justified by the story that followed, or was it deliberately meant to be provocative? If the latter, it certainly achieved its purpose and drove the wedge between Maori and non-Maori a bit deeper.

Wairarapa Times-Age 30/1/16
Your editorial on ‘cultural disparity’ makes two common but flawed assumptions.

Firstly that you can classify people as Maori or Pakeha regardless of their individual background, beliefs, ideology, achievements, etc. In other contexts such stereotyping would be considered racist.

The second is that Maori culture is somehow struck in a 19th century (or stone-age to use your terminology) time warp and would not have changed or developed over time. Just think of the changes in so-called European values that have taken place during the past 200 years, not least including changes brought about by revolutions in technology and communications.

You then go on to make the non sequitur link to ‘Maori populating prisons and failing at school’. This is insulting to all those of Maori descent who have been academically successful and law abiding. Perhaps you should look at welfare dependency and treaty entitlement syndrome as more likely causes of these problems. (Abridged)

Wanganui Chronicle 29/1/16
After Governor Hobson witnessed the last signature to the Treaty of Waitangi, his superior, Governor Gipps of New South Wales (NSW), extended the boundaries of NSW to cover all of the islands of New Zealand and we became a dependency of NSW and ruled by this state in exactly the same way as the island now known as Tasmania.

At this point, the treaty was ratified and laid to rest — inquiries about the treaty to be directed to the government of New South Wales. Queen Victoria's Royal Charter of November 16, 1840, ratified on May 3,1841 (the true founding date of our real founding document) is the document that split us from NSW. It gave us English law only, our own courts to administer English law only and, eventually, our own flag, which is older than Australia's.

There cannot be a breach of the treaty, there can only be a breach of the laws of New Zealand that should be heard by Her Majesty's Courts, established by our true founding document, the above Royal Charter Letters Patent, and not the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal, which denies the right of participation or appeal by non-Maori. Our founding day should be May 3, when the Royal Charter was ratified.
Palmerston North

Weekend Sun (Tauranga) 29/1/16
To quote Donald Trump recently, when he said, “What the hell's going on?” and judging from her expression dressed in that feather cloak, Oprah Winfrey look as if she was thinking, “Where am I? Can this be a modern country, or am I in the jungle in one of the Pacific Islands?

As an immigrant myself, I too thought I was coming to a modern well-run country, but now I see it is going backwards, with Auckland property owners having to ask previous immigrants permission to alter their properties on the pretext of sacred sites, which were often only their rubbish dumps in an earlier period.

The thought that in this present day one must consult with a bunch of natives and sometimes even several bunches of them and pay of the privileges of their “consultations”, beggars belief.

But with a Prime Minister more interested in himself, flags and pandas, this backward movement should not surprise us. After all, many of the inhabitants here have no idea of what it was like to see planes dropping bombs or landing craft on beaches.

Western Bays of Many District Councillors have decided to give Panepane Point a strategic piece of land and ratepayer asset at the entrance to Tauranga Harbour back to tribal interests under some treaty grievance.

The Council meeting held on December 17, 2015 Councillors at the request of the mayor supported by the two Te Puke Councillors excluded the public in relation to the transfer of ownership of Panepane Point some 200 hectare which has navigational aids positioned
on it to assist with shipping.

In the interests of transparency, why was the discussion not held in open meeting so the ideologies of the mayor and Councillors could be fully understood by us ratepayers and where the income from Panepane Point will go?

Council has initiate a process under an Act of Parliament which ratepayer assets will be given away willy nilly to tribal interests because they want them.

Forget the public consultation process, the decision has been made by Council which provides for the transfer of ownership based on the I want philosophy of tribal requests of local Iwi.

Can we expect in future that Western Bay Council will start giving assets willy nilly?
M L,
Te Puke

Hawkes Bay Today 29/1/16
I would like to comment on the letter which was submitted by Horiana Robin concerning the matter of being, educating and speaking Maori. She is partially correct in her statement that the English language of today is not uniquely English, although her comment concerning its Germanic/Dutch origins is questionable. Modern English is a mixture of languages and has developed through that introduced by invaders such as the Romans, Vikings, Danes and French. Many other words came from wars fought by the British in places such as South Africa and India and even more came into use through to need to communicate during trade negotiations with other countries. Even the New Zealand Maori language has changed dramatically over the last 150 years. This is due to two basic factors, firstly the limited number of consonants in the Maori alphabet and secondly, the need to communicate globally which means many other words needed to be included in the Maori lexicon. Many English language words are now part of the Maori language but use a Maori pronunciation. I guess when the new kura (school) opens the pupils will travel in a pahi (bus) write in a puka puka (book) with a pene (pen). Horiana's feelings concerning her culture are admirable, but, the question must still be asked, is it of any practical benefit to the country?

Waikato Times & Weekend Sun 29/1/16
When I served in the Royal New Zealand Navy in the 1940s and 50s, we trained in seamanship, musketry, naval history and protocols and our specialised, technical qualifications and defence roles.

We learned how to man a warship. We spent no time in learning sea shanties or dancing the horn pipe. Any other cultural activities were completely unofficial and voluntary.

It is with some surprise that I now find that the navy and all the Defence Forces have official Maori cultural advisers. Surely this is the promotion of ethnic, cultural exclusivity.

Now most media reports on our forces, at home or overseas, feature a haka. T'would be a brave non-Maori who did not join in. Cultural overkill.

Bay of Plenty Times 28/1/16
I can well understand Tommy Wilson's pride in his niece becoming head girl at Bethlehem College but cannot help wondering why, under her charming photo, he reels off a string of possible tribal heritage but no mention of her very obvious European ancestors who have given her her blonde good looks. I have noticed time and time again, that part-Maori cite their tribal links but absolutely totally ignore the fact that they have European or other ethinicity. Wonder why this is so. They should be just as proud of the latter as they are of any Maori connections.

I read your article of the TPP controversy at Ratana Pa (Nation, January 25) with great
interest and I was delighted to read the comments by Rahui Papa of Tainui who said to John Key — "Closed door negotiations don't work for Maori. I implore you to take the pulse of the people and debate with all those across the country."

This is obviously a man who appreciates transparency and democracy, as he wishes open debate with all New Zealanders across the country.

The definition of democracy is that all citizens must be equal with no regard to race, gender or religion. Therefore I am now quite happily assured that whenever there is to be any discussion or decision at local or regional council level with tribes about the freshwater issue, that it will be held in an open, transparent, and democractic manner at which we will all be welcome to attend.

The general consensus is that no one can own or control water. Councillors, whether local or regional, are paid by us, to represent us all, we are in effect your employers, and as such you must heed our opinions and act accordingly.
Pyes Pa

The Northern Advocate 26/1/16
Correspondent John Rawson commented, “We are told, and I accept, that the Treaty is the only written document forming the basis of this country’s constitution.”

Well, Mr Rawson, although I agree completely with your TPPA comments you may be pleased to discover that you have been seriously misinformed regarding the above.

Thanks to researcher Ross Baker of the One New Zealand Foundation, our first constitutional document has been unearthed after being concealed for 176 years.

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter was issued on November 16, 1840, sub-titled “Constitutional Charter of New Zealand”.

This was the day that our nation was founded.

Prior to that date NZ had been governed under the jurisdiction of New South Wales, and it was this charter that gave NZ the right to become an independent British Colony with its own governor and its own government.

The Treaty of Waitangi’s sole purpose, signed on February 6, 1840, was to gain sovereignty for Queen Victoria over all of New Zealand’s people, for only then could this new constitution be implemented.

So the Treaty, although an important stepping stone, did not even feature in the new constitution as all NZers were then considered to be united as one under British law and the Queen did not have the authority to grant so-called special rights to any one sector of NZ citizens.

So now we have another document, along with the “Littlewood” final English draft of the Treaty, that is an inconvenient truth.

However, truth must never be allowed to interfere with the sanitised, politically correct views churned out by New Zealand’s historical propaganda machine.

By the way, has anyone noticed that the preamble to the Treaty seems to have vanished?

You know, the bit where Maori unreservedly agree to accept the Queen’s sovereignty.

Hawkes Bay Today 26/1/16
The quality of a politician hinges on their ability to respond to a question without providing an answer as ably demonstrated by Craig Foss — 'Foss rejects Kura questions' —HB Today January 23. Top marks Craig. Ngati Kahungunu Ivvi Chairman Ngahiwi Tomoana further adds 'people are scaremongering and ignoring the facts'. What are the facts? The new building will allow the school to provide kohanga reo, primary, intermediate, high school, whare wananga, tertiary and taikura education with all subjects taught in reo Maori. Is that a fact? Will the new Kura alleviate the overcrowding in existing schools in the area? I am not racist —born, raised, educated and lived in Wairoa for 26 years —but I am opposed to political favouritism and support based on racial principles.

If the Maori community have a need for a new Kura kaupapa and are prepared to finance it from their own resources they have my full support. If, however, the building is to be financed from taxpayer funds Mr Foss needs to respond truthfully and convince us it will be for the benefit and use by the community irrespective of race.
A (A) B
Havelock North  

The New Zealand Herald 26/1/16
I watched the news on TV of the politicians at Ratana, then saw a New Zealander of Maori descent thundering on about the TPP. Ok, I thought, as I am opposed to the TPP which is more about corporate takeover and corporate protection than trade. Anyway, this gentleman went on to say something along the lines of, “Negotiations behind closed doors are not the Maori way’’.

I nearly fell of my chair laughing, what with the behind-closed-doors negotiations of the control of a naturally occurring and regenerating resource known as "water" happening at this very moment. Most of the favouritism New Zealanders of Maori descent enjoy have been negotiated behind closed doors.

Another prominent New Zealander of Maori descent also stated that if the TPP were to go ahead it should not interfere with the Treaty or any other favouritisms to be afforded "Maori" in the future. His words. Not mine.
G H,

Hawkes Bay Today 25/1/16
Horiana Robin should know that I live in Hastings and the siting of the school has no personal impact on me at all. Craig Foss has finally revealed that this is no primary school replacement, but a full blown to reo Maori school taking pupils right through. Perhaps Mr Foss, the minister and Horiana Robin could explain to us how students will get on looking for employment in a world where English is the language and will remain so. I know that many pupils passing on to high school find themselves disadvantaged. Mr Foss should remember that Mr Dixon enjoyed a reputation of distinction as a principal and is likely to be more versed in education matters than he is.

Rotorua Daily Post 25/1/16
Most countries in the Western world are able — in the event of the undemocratic workings of a politician — to bring into effect impeachment and remove the offending politician from office. In New Zealand, however, no such machinery exists. This, I believe, is prejudicial to the good and trusted workings of Government—both national and local, and is something that needs to be put right as soon as possible.

Politicians, regardless of their field of endeavour, make mistakes, or prove themselves to be unsuitable for their chosen calling. When this happens there is no recourse left other than to request that the individual resign. This can be a laborious, time-consuming strategy, and very often the offending person is able to further implement mischief before surrendering their office at the elections. Perhaps this is something that our local MP should take up.

Bay of Plenty Times 25/1/16
Tommy Wilson in his column (Opinion, January 18) claims that there is a fourth article written into the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi. I suggest Tommy and his friend, Pa Rawiri, whom Tommy claims told him about this, read the Maori version of the Treaty and they would then find that no such article exists.

To quote Dr Paul Moon, Professor of History at Auckland University of Technology, "The exponents of the `fourth article' cite conversations held between Hobson and others at Waitangi as somehow constituting binding parts of the Treaty, but this is based on false reasoning and an impoverished understanding of international law."

Pompallier's inquiry was purely one of self-interest. His concern being that as a British colony his evangelising could be curtailed.

If Tommy and Pa Rawiri are truly concerned about religious freedom, they can rest assured that all New Zealanders are guaranteed that right under section 21 of the Human Rights Act and section 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Welcome Bay

Southland Times 22/1/16
I would like to thank the Nga Puhi elder who stated that if the TPP agreement was signed, he would attempt to block the Government’s access to the Titi marae on Waitangi Day.

He said the proposed signing of the TPP breached the Treaty of Waitangi.

Is there anything in New Zealand that the Government doesn’t have to consult with and get approval from Maori?

I think the blocking of access is great and he gets my support.

The reasoning for my support is that it will save us taxpayers heaps of money as we won’t need to send a frigate, plenty of MPs, the prime minister with his security staff, large police numbers etc.

It will also avoid the headlines on the TV news, that yet again, that show a radical few displaying outrage at the marae.

I’m picking that most Kiwis don’t see any significance for Waitangi Day, other than a day off work.

They see the whole Treaty celebration as keeping alive a grievance process that does little for the well being of Maori and creates division within our country.

Hobson said upon signing for the crown, ‘‘we are now one people’’. Unfortunately, his wishes for our country have never come to fruition.

I blame weak MPs for not putting the Treaty and its settlement process to the past and creating a new constitution which has no reference to the Treaty and acknowledges our multicultural country, with equal rights for all.

The Southland Times 18/1/16
PC AT SIT (Southern Institute of Technology)
While SIT has done many great things for Invercargill, its cultural correctness defies belief.

In a recent position vacancy advertisement for a Social Services Tutor, it referred to wanting someone with experience in ‘‘social work/social services work with Maori family/whanau, Pasifika, disability and mental health sectors’’. This is the norm for social work.

But then it added the experience of ‘‘working with oppressed marginalised groups within Aotearoa New Zealand’’.

Having worked in social services with many groups for more than 20 years, I wonder who these ‘‘oppressed marginalised groups’’ are, other than those in the mental health field. Surely this is not a byproduct of the tripe echoed by some of those in the Treaty of Waitangi claim arena who after 170 years and countless Treaty settlements are still claiming oppression ?

And finally, I thought an educational institute like SIT would be well versed in our country’s name, which is New Zealand, not Aotearoa New Zealand.

The Northern Advocate 18/1/16 (Opinion)
As a non-Maori citizen of this nation I want to speak about Treaty matters and respond to the opinions of those who speak from the Maori perspective. Because these matters are right up front in our society, the media is constantly reporting the Maori viewpoint but not pursuing how the other 85 per cent are feeling, thinking, responding.

One must ask, why? Are we lethargic, or are we not being encouraged to participate, or is it because we will be instantly labelled racist if we say anything, at all? I suspect this is the case.

The big problem is the discussion is always between Maori and the Crown/Government, pursued that way by both parties. The truth is, it is the people of New Zealand now who pay for the whole process, who give their goodwill for this redress of historical injustices, who will continue to pay as the costs for servicing the leases/ rents needed to be paid in perpetuity for the public buildings such as hospitals, court houses, schools and universities which sit on land returned in the settlement process.

This results in rising costs or the reduction in these essential services that all of us use.

The working taxpayers are footing the bill. Not the Government or the Crown. If the bill so far has reached the $16 billion quoted, that’s one helluva lot of redress and there is a long way to go yet. In the document Ngapuhi Speaks, there are “recommendations to the people of Aotearoa/New Zealand”. These begin with: “In view of the goodwill shown by Maori towards non-Maori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi . . . ”

Yes we can recognise that, but what about a return recognition of the goodwill of current non-Maori now? My mother would say, “That’s what sticks in the gullet.”

Human history, over centuries, has led to tribal wars, religious wars, territorial wars, conquerors and the conquered, with treaties and redress not considered. While, as evidenced in Ngapuhi Speaks, there was considerable cynicism from both parties around the intent of the Treaty/Te Tiriti at the time, 175 years on can we not all practise goodwill?

Reading further into the “recommendations to the people of Aotearoa/New Zealand; to the media; to Elizabeth II, Queen of England”, for me is so disheartening. There are no offers of anything into the future, from Ngapuhi to the non-Maori New Zealanders.

All responsibility for the “mutually beneficial relationships” into the future lies with non-Maori taking on the conditions Ngapuhi detail.

If Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty, then they deny the functions of the Crown/Government over the past 175 years. This must result in a mistake by the Government to have supplied services over those years. And taking taxes from these people. Does this mean there is a right to claw back all the costs of the education, health, welfare services etc mandated and supplied to them as equal citizens under the Crown? And to pay back any taxes collected from them?

The unbalanced rhetoric of Hone Harawira continues to just insult us all. I have read a copy of Ngapuhi Speaks. It is quite a substantial document, well researched. But it is history we New Zealanders now, under a tried and true justice system, are trying to address.

I would sincerely hope that any future constitution would address the needs of all New Zealanders to live in harmony and enjoy the fruits of all endeavours, equally, but I feel little confidence in that hope.

The Southland Times 16/1/16
Recent correspondence about conflict of interest within Environment Southland is timely because exposed is a concept known as co-governance that completely undermines the ethos of democracy and property rights; founding principles of our nation.

At heart, corruption of democratic processes is the Prime Minister’s under-the-radar ambition to give iwi a nationwide co-governance role with elected councils over fresh water management, gaining him Maori Party support for National’s RMA changes.

Citizens have been well apprised of the need to pay reparation to make good to Maori for historic injustice.

I doubt there was meddling in that democratic process, so why should citizens now accept new special rights for Maori under fresh water management?

Representation the way we know it is sacrosanct and if the prime minister is, as has been reported in media, mandating unelected representatives to full governing roles, then it’s a constitutional outrage, so why the silence?

Waikato Tainui says it works, but, then, who collects the rent?

So what do our local MPs and councillors say? Their silence speaks volumes about their capacity to understand basic tenets of a democracy. Whose agenda are they kowtowing to and what legislative framework affords them such latitude? I'd like to know.

Northern Advocate 16/1/16
I was pleased to read the articles on the commemoration of the siege of the musket pa at Ruapekapeka constructed by the illustrious Ngati Hine rangitira Te Ruki Kawiti. This encounter was the final chapter of the Flagstaff Wars, initiated by another rangitira also of great renown, Hone Heke of Ngapuhi, in response to British mismanagement disadvantaging his people in the Bay of Islands.

Opposing these figures were the British Colonial forces under Colonel Henry Despard, with his chief ally being the Hokianga rangitira Tamati Waka Nene. Tamati Waka Nene had a vision of the future which rose far above the limited and factionalised views of those around him, both Maori and Pakeha. Like his elder brother. Patuone, he could see the forest for the trees.

The next major engagement was the attack on Taui's pa, reinforced as a musket pa by Kawiti. This was at Ohaeawai, where Despard demonstrated incompetence and arrogance which resulted in a sharp defeat for the attackers. Waka Nene warned that a frontal attack on such a redoubt would be disastrous, Despard would not heed the "opinion of a savage" and went ahead. The result was a third of his men killed or wounded. Kawiti withdrew, and the British occupied the pa.

The result at Ruapekapeka was broadly similar, although the British approached the battle paying heed to Waka Nene's counsel.

Does this then make Tamati Waka Nene a traitor to his people? I think not, his strong advice to the British authorities was to fully pardon both Hone Heke and Kawiti, so their mana would not be besmirched. This is where the wisdom of Tamati Waka Nene is demonstrated; he understood pitched battles and protracted war against the British would mean destruction to tangata whenua not only in Te Tai Tokerau, but across the nation.

Maori had already been seriously weakened by the bloody internecine conflicts of the Musket Wars — to continue would bring ruin. It is mentioned that Ngati Hine retained much of its land, the initial British desire was to take this land, but Waka Nene warned that such action would only lead to a fatal downward spiral of increasing antagonism.

The wise counsel of Tamati Waka Nene and Patuone remains piquantly relevant in today's Ngapuhi Treaty Settlement environment. Just as the patriotic fighting spirit of Kawiti and Hone Heke will always be honoured.

Weekend Sun/Sunlive (Tauranga) 15/1/16
There's growing disquiet about how Government is dealing with freshwater and its future control.

Mr Key is on record as saying no-one owns the water and in effect the government administers freshwater, its use and allocation as guardian and trustee for all Kiwis.

Those who claim government or its representatives have held secret (confidential) public excluded meetings with tribes to the detriment of all other citizens are correct. Whether government itself does deals with tribes over freshwater or achieves this through pressure placed on Regional Councils to accommodate part-Maori interests is of little moment.

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council Draft Regional Water Quality Plan Change is underway and this BOPRC outfit is so beholden to Maori interests, it is a foregone conclusion that part-Maori will receive race-based and co-management preferential treatment to the detriment of other Kiwis.

Just checkout BOPRC ‘Fact sheet for Maori', particularly Paragraph (7) Greater recognition of role of Tangata Whenua on Fresh Water Management and Paragraph (8) Water Management areas and opportunities to engage with Maori.

See also ‘Keep Water Kiwi' advert( visit NZCPR Website) for full details and if
you want to scare the living daylights out of yourself, check out ‘Freshwater Iwi Leadership Group' website.

One Cabinet Minister says, “Government has made it plain no-one owns water, but the government has acknowledged that iwi have rights and interests in Freshwater and Government and Iwi Groups are exploring these.” Control of water effectively equals ownership.

This should focus locals' attention on BOP's National MP's Bridges, McLay, Muller and Tolley who are not being up-front with citizens. You should be outraged so don't put up with it, demand a referendum on freshwater – after all it was good enough for Mr Key to spend $27 million on the inane flag change fiasco to divert attention away from TPP, freshwater and economic issues.

The New Zealand Herald 14/1/16 (Short & Sweet section)
Two corrections for Russell Armitage ( Herald, January 13). 1. There were no “land wars”, only tribal rebellions. 2. Our country is New Zealand, not “Aotearoa”, a word you won't find in the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Northern Advocate 14/1/16
Further to Geoff Parker’s letter, “Them and Us”:

Whangarei Mayor Mai has again used her casting vote to push through a Council policy that elevates political correctness and denigrates democracy.

This country was founded upon democratic principles and was formerly world-renowned because of our stand on equality for all citizens regardless of race.

The appointment of any person to a position of responsibility (in Mayor Mai’s view) now seems to depend upon ones racial descent rather than merit.

Unlike her, I hold the opinion that today’s part-Maori people are quite capable of competing on an equal footing with any other race, and that granting them special privileges is not only an insult to their capabilities but also results in a lowering of mana in the eyes of others.

There is nothing stopping part-Maoris from being elected to councils, boards or even Prime Minister, so let’s put an end to patronising and allow them to take their proper place in our multiracial society.

Measures to provide them with special help solely because of their ancestry is an insult to their once proud ancestors and a barrier to unleashing their true potential.

The basic principles of democracy should always take precedence over politically correct nonsense.

The New Zealand Herald 13/1/16
Of the 100,000 courageous New Zealanders who represented our nation overseas during World War I, around 2200 identified as being Maori. Of the 18,000 who tragically perished, 179 were Maori, with a similar number dying from disease. Theirs was a significant and brave contribution and sacrifice but not numerically great.

Why has our racially obsessed Auckland Council, which seems to think real and imagined Maori values are superior to all others, commissioned all six World War I memorial concepts with a major Maori emphasis?

It is an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives for their memorial to be subverted by those seeking to rewrite our history.
Red Beach.

The Southland Times 11/1/16
At the Music in the Vines concert in the Hawkes Bay it was planned that a renown woman, who had died of cancer and been cremated, would have her ashes shot into the air on New Year’s Eve at the concerts’ fireworks display.

The organisers were OK with this and one would have thought they considered any health issues. Being cremated sterilizes everything.

But her wishes were not fulfilled as consultation with local Iwi put paid to that.

Why would Iwi be consulted in the first place. And secondly, what cultural condition, other than some Maori believe they are the guardians of the air, could such an act offend against?

Call me racist, but this is part of an ongoing consultation that disempowers everyone but Iwi leadership.

Maybe someone in that leadership may wish to inform us uninformed, as to why such a lovely act was inappropriate.

MPs back repeal of a racist law, an Act that was passed in 1962 which allowed Maori wardens to order bars to stop serving drunk and quarrelsome Maori, said the DomPost on 7 Jan 2016.

The law had reportedly been described by lawyer Graham Edgeler as New Zealand’s most racist law and it’s alleged that Prime Minister John Key previously described parts of the law as, a bit racist.

Part-Maori must be allowed their rights of self determination to get drunk and be quarrelsome just like any member of any other race in NZ. However, if MPs are going to get all pseudo-sanctimonious and repeal that racist law, why stop there?!

Repeal all the rest of NZs racist laws recently implemented to give part-Maori some race-based preferential treatment, to the detriment of all other races. We now have a nation divided by laws that favour one race, and laws for the rest. NZ needs to get back to one law for all, being laws which treat all races equally without fear or favour. ( Abridged)

The Northern Advocate 11/1/16
It is the season of goodwill to all.

As a non-Maori citizen of this nation I want to speak about Treaty matters.

These are right up front in our society with the media constantly reporting the Maori viewpoint but not pursuing how the other 85 per cent are feeling, thinking, responding.

The big problem is the discussion is always between Maori and the Crown/Government.

The truth is, it is the people of New Zealand now who pay for the whole process, who give their goodwill for this redress of historical injustices, who will continue to pay as the costs for servicing the leases/ rents needed to be paid in perpetuity for the public buildings, such as hospitals, court houses, schools, universities which sit on land returned in the settlement process. This results in rising costs or the reduction in these essential services which all of us use.

The working taxpayers are footing the bill. Not “the Government” or the “Crown”. In the document Ngapuhi Speaks there are “Recommendations to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand”. This begins with “In view of the goodwill shown by Maori towards non-Maori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi . . . ”

Reading further into the “recommendations to the people of Aotearoa/New Zealand; to the media; to Elizabeth II, Queen of England”, for me is so disheartening. There are no offers of anything into the future, from Ngapuhi to the nation. All responsibility for the “mutually beneficial relationships” into the future lies with non-Maori taking on the conditions Ngapuhi detail.

I would sincerely hope that any future constitution would address the needs of all New Zealanders to live in harmony and enjoy the fruits of all endeavours, equally, but I feel little confidence in that hope.

The Northern Advocate 8/1/16
Re Geoff Parker’s letter “Them and us": I must agree that this PC nonsense is fuelling a race divide in our country. So sad when we are all New Zealanders and should be proud of the fact and stand together as one people of the land.

The mayor and the seven councillors that pushed through the Maori advisory appointment to council, should maybe have asked themselves "why is there such a low turnout of voters at the local body elections?" Could it be that people are feeling "why bother? They will do what they want anyway?" Or are they saying "Maori do not stand a chance to be democratically elected on their own merit?"

And what of the appointed Maori representative himself. Does he not feel that he is being demeaned and slightly patronised by this issue?

Madam mayor, you might have learned a few words of te reo but your diplomacy toward all the people of Whangarei leaves a lot to be desired and by using your casting vote when your council members were so divided could be seen as a very bad decision.

We have the governor-general, Winston Peters, Ron Marks to name a few, all in powerful positions. Not there by the colour of their skin but by their own ability and dedication to our country and we must applaud them all. A decision like the one the council has just made is another blooper with long ranging effects. (Abridged)

Dominion Post 8/1/16
It really is laughable that a lawyer, and a number of politicians who should know better, should publicise the "most racist" Maori law (January 6) as they did. A little research on the relevant background, which they obviously knew very little about, would have informed them that the Maori Community Development Act 1962 was enacted to address the large number of Maori workers drifting into cities seeking jobs, education opportunities and homes. Maori wardens established by the act were given authority to help keep order involving Maori intoxication and drinking offences. As time evolved, provisions of the act became outdated and unnecessary, and successive governments launched national reviews to change them, including those which gave wardens power to arrest Maori offenders.

Four comprehensive national reviews were conducted concerning the act -the latest in 2011. Although recommendations were submitted, not one minister of Maori Affairs took remedial action to address wardens' unwarranted and outdated authority. Maori wardens are a volunteer community group based in most towns. Their dedication and commitment to help their communities is unchallenged. The fact that the act's provisions are unchanged and criticised lies at the feet of politicians. [abridged]
Stokes Valley

The Northern Advocate 5/1/16
Is racism now so entrenched in New Zealand that our publicly elected councillors must be categorised and labelled as "Maori", "non-Maori" or "Pakeha"? Are there no New Zealanders left on the council?

Such a "them and us" approach within the Government and the news media is definitely fuelling racial division in our country.

Needing to appoint a "Maori" adviser to any committee suggests the council is unable to do the job it was elected to do —listen to and work in the best interests of all its constituents. It is also a move towards the expensive chaos of unelected, race-based rorts that Auckland is now subjected to.

For the sake of all that has proven good about democracy, it should never be contemplated. Understandably, the council wishes to encourage and assist Maori to participate in local affairs. But surely it can do this without conferring special rights and privileges not available to other community groups or members of the public?

The article that the letter above is relating to is in Sundry on this site.