2 Letters‎ > ‎

Unpublished letters


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

Dear Editor (Sent to the Nelson Mail 1/9/19)
Who could possibly disagree with Neville Male (letters, Nelson Mail, Aug.31st)? But the problem, of course, will be how to agree on a curriculum with a “full, factual and balanced history - to be taught without fear or favour” (as Neville Male puts it). This curriculum must also include learning the social facts about the people who are creating the history - in our case Europeans and Maori. The Europeans represented the most developed civilisation the world had ever seen, with a background of 4000 years’ understanding of written legislation, with its culture of ever increasing scientific, technological and philosophical thinking. Maori were an illiterate stone age people - albeit highly developed, culturally and intellectually. Teaching of history must include such understanding.

We can be justly proud of the Treaty of Waitangi - unique in the world. But it must be fully understood that this was not a contract of power sharing between two equal partners. It was a treaty granting to Maori the same legal rights under British common law as those enjoyed by the European settlers. This interpretation was shared by us all, Maori and Europeans alike, until very recently when sadly, feelings have come to the fore among some New Zealanders demanding special rights on racial grounds. I hate racism.

Dear Editor (Sent to the Nelson Mail 19/8/19
Gary Clover (letters, August 19th) reads into the Waitangi Treaty that granting “full [Maori] chief-ship over iwi resources, while the Crown would rule over European settlers” implies a “governing partnership”. Well, to me it implies no such thing. It simply guarantees that Maori would be granted the same property rights as groups that European settlers enjoyed as individuals. And yes, as Clover points out, it most certainly was meant to be an instrument of protection for Maori (as well as for the settlers). To me it simply implies that Maori were offered, and gratefully accepted, the same property rights as the settlers - as well as all the other legal protections and privileges inherent in English common law. The old Maori weren’t primitive fools - in fact I believe they were the most culturally, and intellectually advanced stone age people in the world (but perhaps I am biased, being a New Zealander!). The richness and spiritual depth of their language is a proof of that. Unlike the many other stone age people unsettled by Europeans, they immediately comprehended and embraced the peculiar European culture of personal rights backed by a written code of legislation - so alien to their own culture.

This understanding of the Treaty was shared by us all ever since the signing of the treaty. To me it is immensely saddening that people like Gary Clover now openly subscribe to an altogether different understanding of the Treaty - one which blatantly desires racially based legislation - and in effect, dual nationhood. It is my fervent hope that this ugly episode in New Zealand policy will not prevail. I hate racism.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Nelson Mail 19/8/19)
There is nothing written in Te Tiriti that even implies a 'governing partnership' (Gary Clover 19/8/19).

The main points of the preamble in Te Tiriti are 1) obtain the chiefs consent for sovereignty 2) preserve chiefs their land, 3) establish peace and order amongst the tribes, 4) establish a government in order to protect both settlers and natives.

Hence Article 1 clearly states ceding ‘ENTIRE sovereignty of their country forever’, Article 2 guarantees the chiefs and tribes and ALL the people of NZ possession of their lands, dwellings and their property. And that for the protection of Maoris the Queen is the primary purchaser of their lands should they wish to sell. Article 3 gives protection to all NZers, and granted Maoris the rights of British subjects – a huge gift from the most powerful nation on earth at that time, especially to the many thousands of Maori slaves.

Article 4 – there simply isn’t one, even Clover’s esteemed historian Professor Paul Moon debunks this neo nonsense in NZ Herald 29/1/13.

The Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age 4/8/19)
Ihumatao and things maori - STAY OFF URBAN LAND (SOUL)

Ihumatao land presently occupied by mischief-makers is not the OTUATAUA Stonefields 100ha site which was dealt with in 2001 by Manakau City Council and ARA apparently to everyone’s satisfaction. Fletchers legitimately own the Ihumatao land and local iwi are more than happy with the Fletchers deal reached by them for land and houses and so they should be. Now, suddenly we have the riffraff interlopers/trespassers appearing on the scene without any colour of right, unlawfully occupying the Fletchers 33.8 ha land acquired in 2016 for around $40million.

Give in to the bullying demands and the loss to Fletchers will be the purchase price, holding costs, loss of profits on the sale of homes and sections which we conservatively put at around $150m in total plus all legal, survey planning and consultant’s costs incurred to date. Local maori would lose the negotiated 8ha.and 25 homes. Current cost to Kiwi taxpayer for police & political input at least $1million.

There must be no Government or taxpayer bailout – as that sets another Titford farm type precedent.

Suggestion is let interlopers fund it, 5000 sods @ $30,000 each – that should do the trick, then Fletchers can just walk away. However, this ain’t what the whinging great unwashed, unemployed beneficiaries want, as not their modis operandi of always wanting something for nothing and stuff everyone else. They bleat give us free greenfields and add to the Stonefields reserve.

Well the ultimate final solution is just arrest them, remove them from Fletcher’s land send them packing and where appropriate institute criminal proceedings.This is no Bastion Point and no negotiation is necessary for what is privately owned land. Oh, and Fletchers while you are at it get a fawning apology from the Government and maori interests.

Incidentally, only 40kms away is Bombay Hills obelisk and boulder complex, said to predate maori arrival in NZ. As there is no history of maori, constructing stone walls, has anyone tried to establish when the walls were built by non- maori and whether there is any link with Bombay boulders. Food for thought eh? Might throw a different slant on the whole scenario.

Recent Friday evening airport interview featured Ms. Ardern with the look of a startled transfixed possum in the headlights, flanked by her sullen po-faced Ministers Henare and Davis, making a play for idiot magnet negotiations .However ACT, David Rankin, NZ Taxpayers Union and most other sane law abiding Kiwis don’t want a bar of kowtowing to violence threats and intimidation unlawful behaviour or fairy tales and rightly so too. Fletchers have followed all the correct protocols with ihumato land and Otuataua Stonefields and no one suggests otherwise.

To argue with people who have renounced the use of reason and authority and whose philosophy consists in holding fellow Kiwis in contempt is like administering medicine to the brain dead whose sense of entitlement is delusional built on self-centredness, greed and laziness and contrary to their opinion, no one owes them anything.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 17/8/19)
People who think like Rob Rattenbury that any Maori suffered trauma from colonization should recall the fate of their Taranaki neighbours a few years before 1840 when the Pukerangiora pa was captured by Waikato tribes. About 1300 were victims of cannibal feasts, some thrown into the ovens alive. A similar number were taken away by the Waikato, carrying the tattooed heads of their kinfolk which the Waikato decided to keep as trophies. The establishment of British sovereignty enabled them to return to their homes. Colonization was their salvation.

Dear Editor (Sent to the Otago Daily times 16/8/19)
Re articles from Jean Balchin then Erik Olssen 30.7.19.

I consider Erik more acceptable in her writing, many like Jean’s writings are what is causing division in this country, there is to much negative regarding Captain James Cook he was a clever man and mapped all of NZ, he was not a coloniser, if it had not been him, the French or someone else would have been here, it was inevitable!

Yes we should teach more NZ history, but whose writings, there is so much being rewritten of our history and trying to change our history.

Cook is our history so is colonisation and much was for the good. I don't notice a lot being told about the Maori mass murderers ,Te Kooti and Te Rauparaha who went through NZ murdering their own people and white and eating them. Then to ad insult on insult the country has apologised to their descendants and give them a Payout.

Lately there has been the large payout to the Chatham island Morirori tribe, which should have come from the Taranaki Tribes not the NZ taxpayer. It was the Taranaki Tribe that went there and murdered them and pegged them out on the beach.

So if you are going to tell the NZ history you have to tell it all. Not just insults to the likes of Cook, this is why and what is causing a division in our country, it is all very one sided.

Dear Editor (Sent to the Nelson Mail
Gary Clover (letters, August 10th) has completely misunderstood what the Treaty of Waitangi was about. Does he really believe that Queen Victoria would ever contemplate sitting down to negotiate with a primitive, aboriginal people the rights to “control the flood of incoming settlers”? He is dreaming. The old Maori chiefs weren’t silly. In those days all Maori tribes were competing to attract as many European settlers as possible to their various localities. They signed the Treaty of Waitangi because they, being mentally so bright, had completely understood that peculiar European cultural idea of legally enforced, personal ownership of land (which was so different from theirs) - and they wanted some regulation here so that they would not suddenly find themselves without any land to call their own. Hence the treaty. And I do not think you will find a similar document anywhere else in the world. That is why we, all of us, can be so proud.

And has Gary Clover not noticed that over the last 25 years we have successfully negotiated redress (and necessary apologies) with Maori? Why, all of a sudden, do some people now wish to scrap the Treaty of Waitangi and institute a new, untried type of dual nationhood?

Dear Ed, (Sent to the NZ Herald 31/7/19)
Vincent O’Malley is being his mischievous self comparing Ihumatao with Stonehenge and asking “would the English allow housing to surround Stonehenge?”

It is not an issue likely to arise as Stonehenge is in the middle of nowhere with the nearest city 50km away.

Ihumatao is in the middle of our biggest city.

Every city of note in Europe has very significant heritage sites surrounded by houses and commercial activity.

I look forward to Vincent saying something good once in a while, but don’t think it is in his DNA.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge

Dear Ed, (Sent to the NZ Herald 30/7/19)
The “SOUL” group headed by Miss Pania Newton are either confused or willing to ignore history as to the reasons Māori land was confiscated in 1865.

The Māori king, Tāwhiao, had declared in 1863 that no Europeans would cross the Mangatawhiri river as his father Te Wherowhero claimed no Waikato Māori had signed the Treaty of Waitangi, so there was no obligation to accept Queen Victoria as their sovereign. A false claim, as in 1840 the signing at Port Waikato by 32 signatories were almost all Waikato chiefs.

Gov Grey refused to accept two sovereign nations in New Zealand. He demanded all Waikato Māori living north of the Mangatawhiri either plead allegiance to the Crown or leave the district. Following the Waikato war, the land around Ihumatao was confiscated.

In 1995 the Government accepted that the confiscations were unjust and offered Waikato- Tainui $170m. A ratchet clause in that settlement may result in $300m eventually being paid.

Treaty claim terms exclude private land, so recipients are expected to negotiate to buy back land on the open market. Waikato-Tainui have not sought to purchase the land in question yet Fletchers have been willing sellers.

Over many years both Manukau City and Auckland Council have negotiated with the recognised tanga whenua, “Te Kawerau ā Maki” resulting in an amicable agreement that “SOUL” now contests. That agreement also resulted in the purchase of land that is now the adjacent “Stonefield’s Reserve”.

The solution is simple. “SOUL and Te Kawerau ā Maki” need to ask the Māori King to arbitrate.

He may choose to negotiate with Fletchers, but I think his focus is more on another airport hotel rather than housing for his people.

The government has no place in the dispute. Taxpayers have already settled with those involved.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge

Dear Ed, (Sent to the Waikato Times 30/7/19)
I would urge our prime minister to cease any Government involvement in the Ihumatao affair. She should make a bold statement to our nation fully explaining the history of the land, post 1863 and advise the acknowledged tanga whenua, “Te Kawerau a Maki” and the group known a “Soul” headed by Pania Newton to settle their differences. They could ask the Maori King to appoint an adjudicator.

Fletchers and Auckland Council should not be parties to the dispute. They and the earlier Manukau City have followed all the rules and bent over backwards to meet the wishes of Te Kawerau a Maki over many years at significant ratepayer cost.

Under the Treaty of Waitangi, the Waikato-Tainui people were awarded $170m dollars in 1995. A ratchet clause related to the size of the “Treaty Envelope” will likely double that amount within a few years. Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act, no privately owned land was to be touched, with the cash awarded to be put toward purchases as the tribe decided. Evidently Fletchers have offered to sell the land with no takers.

Maybe Miss Newton could ask the King to cancel the $150m deal to build a new hotel at the nearby airport and offer it to Fletchers?

To sweeten the deal, they might ask Fletchers to tender to build some houses which they could then rent or on sell (at cost?) to tribal members under favourable terms.

As a taxpayer I have no wish to purchase the same piece of land twice!
MURRAY REID, Cambridge

Dear Ed, (Sent to the Waikato Times 13/7/19)
Today it has become commonplace to exaggerate and use extravagant words or expressions for what are often minor events or conditions.

Instead of being affected by a cold we are just as likely to be impacted, a word once most used to describe what an asteroid did to wipe out the dinosaurs.

This practice is no more obvious than when Maori issues or colonisation is the topic.

Prominent examples are the description of Parihaka as a holocaust when in fact no injuries were sustained, and describing as atrocities at Rangiaowhia in 1864 when there were 12 Maori deaths solely as a result of one hot head refusing to surrender and then firing at troops from a whare, while surrounded by a force of more than 1000.

Very recently your correspondent Martin van Beynen described “Cook’s visit was the beginning of a catastrophe” My Collin’s dictionary describes a catastrophe as “a sudden, extensive or notable disaster or misfortune”.

As a race Maori were in a precarious position in 1769. History would suggest Cook’s arrival was the greatest event in their history and he should be placed on a pedestal alongside Gov. Grey.

I am constantly bewildered by how different we and the Australians view Cook.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge

Dear Ed, (Sent to the Waikato Times 13/7/19)
“Today in History” 12th July erroneously referred to the British troops invading the Waikato on that day in 1863.

New Zealand had been established as a British colony over 20 years earlier under Queen Victoria as Sovereign.

Troops under her command were merely exercising that authority.

Foolishly the “Kingite” movement chose to exclude anyone access to the Waikato south of the Mangatawhiri Stream.

They did so in the belief that as “Waikato” had not signed the Treaty of Waitangi they were under no compulsion to obey any directive from Gov. Gen. Grey.

That assertion was in error. The third largest signing of the Treaty was within the Waikato rohe, at Port Waikato, when of the 32 signatories most were chiefs under Te Wherowhero.

Many of them had travelled from the King Country to sign. There was also a later signing at Kawhia.

Gen. Cameron, ordered by Grey under the Queens authority, exercised the Crowns right to put down a rebellion. Sadly the result was very punitive land confiscations, however this was recognised a number of times over the years, last being in 1995 when Tainui received $170m with much more to come as the Treaty process rumbles on.

Sadly the signing at Port Waikato has no recognition today. I suspect the reason why is to avoid exposing the folly of the Kingite movement.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Gisborne Herald 9/7/19)
It is surely time for the likes of Wally Te Ua (Herald, 8/7/19) to acknowledge that pre colonial Maori society was one of continual brutal and treacherous cannibal warfare. In a few short pre-colonial decades one third of their own people perished. So much of the breeding stock was killed that their numbers declined for many decades and recovered only through extensive inter-breeding with the wicked white colonials. Wally’s “Land Wars (the bloody past)”, more accurately described as tribal rebellions, were a mere sideshow by comparison. Remember as the first arrival of Captain Cook is commemorated that a dozen of the crew of his second ship, “Adventure”, were killed, cooked and eaten in Queen Charlotte Sound in 1773. He did not retaliate.

It was those who followed in the footsteps of Cook who saved the Maori people from themselves as acknowledged by Chief Taipari of the Bay of Plenty. My advice to Wally is to recognize this, get over his alleged wrongs and get on with life.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 18/11/18)
Re article by Jacob McSweeny Saturday 17th “What iwi want” a leaked document reveals what will be on the table ahead of Wanganui treaty Land claims. What people haven’t been told is the chiefs of Wanganui sold the land.

In a copy of translation deed of purchase for Wanganui tells you that Maori sold the land to the Europeans. Maori never owned land they occupied it until other Maori invaded and took it off them.

Maori originals took the land off the earlier inhabitants, the Ngatu Hotu (Celts), Patupairehe and Waitaha. They were the pre-Maori who lived in peace with one another hundreds of years before the people called Maori arrived here.

The Treaty of Waitangi had nothing to do with land claims but to bring law and order to the country. Governments over the years have allowed many of the descendants of the tangata Maori. to twist the truth about the true history of new Zealand, until Governments it’s historians the universities and Te Papa is no more than propaganda to allow today’s part maori to be paid compensation or given valuable assets by governments they do not deserve or are entitled when the truth is known. It’s all for the people of New Zealand.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 13/12/18)
Re Front page of the Chronicle Tuesday Dec 13th “Mayor slams leaker of treaty document”, is it because he doesn’t want the people of Wanganui to know the truth. 

The sale of old Wanganui by May 24th 1848 nearly eight years of waiting, arrangements were so far completed between Mr McLean and the natives that a draft deed was drawn up relating to the absolute sale of the district.

All though our canoe is large and has many in it yet all are of the same mind.

Let no one attempt to infringe upon the lands now about to be sold to the Europeans.

The land is now married to the white man; let them take it, and let the natives remember; if they now intrude it will be a breach of the Seventh Commandment.

Pg 320: The block sold contained 80,000 acres for which the magnificent sum of 1000 pounds was paid.

Listen all people who see or know of this paper giving up or parting with land. Now, we, the people of “Wanganui,: of Wangaehu,” of “Kai iwi,” consent on behalf of ourselves, our relatives, children, and all who may be descended of us or succeed us, to entirely give up all our lands within the boundaries hereinafter written,

Maori never owned the land as they took it off the ancient people who were here before them. This new land claim should not proceed.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZHerald 26/5/19)
Clearly Tim Howard (letters 23/5/19) has never read Te Tiriti that 540 chiefs signed? Article One clearly states ceding entire sovereignty to the Queen of England for ever.

The chiefs ceded FULL sovereignty (kawanatanga) and they knew it, read the chief’s speeches in Colenso’s record, further supported by chiefs speeches at Kohimarama 20 years later. It is utterly absurd therefore to say that in Article 2, they somehow retained it.

He further discredits himself in referencing a racially stacked and therefore biased Waitangi Tribunal report, who the then Attorney General Christopher Finlayson rebutted in the media “There is no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. This report doesn't change that fact."

Auckland University Professor Paul Moon also stated at the time "I was shocked by some of the statements contained in the report," he said. "This is not a concern about some trivial detail, but over the fundamental history of our country, which the tribunal has got manifestly wrong."

Perhaps Mr Howard could explain if the chiefs still thought they had full chieftianship then why did they release their slaves, ceased cannibalism, female infanticide and tribal warfare?

Letters to Ed. (Sent to the NZ Herald 25/5/19)
Dear Lizzie, I love your music but am not so keen on your grasp of history concerning Cooks first week in New Zealand.

Observing the hatred toward Cook generated by others who are also ignorant of the truth, and such things as cause and effect, I am left to ponder what sort of place we would live in had Cook kept on sailing toward Queensland.

What language would we be speaking? Would young Kiwis be doing there OE in Paris instead of London? Would we have rolled over in the dark days of 1939 and invited Germany and then Japan to walk on in?

The reality is that on the strength of Cooks arrival, and subsequent visits, opened this country up to Queen Victoria and the reality that this became one of the richest, most stable, enlightened and admired countries the world has seen.

Cook was a celebrated explorer who treated his people well and respected those he encountered along the way. We should be very, very glad of his contribution.

Lizzie, If you promise not to re write history I will promise not to ever sing in public.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge

Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Herald 23/5/19)
Tim Howard’s (Treaty Settlements letter 23 May 2019) suggestion that some people have different ideas on what did or didn’t happen 180 years ago is a topic which can consume many hours - or decades. The more important discussion for us is what we want New Zealand’s future to look like? In detail please. No nice words or generalisations. Just hard facts so we, the people who work hard and pay our taxes, understand exactly where he and his ilk are trying to lead us.

Then perhaps he can tell us what established, successful constitutional arrangement does he want our country to emulate? I’ve tried looking but for the life of me, I can’t find one example of tribalism in government where the ordinary people prosper. But then this quest for power may not be about the wellbeing of ordinary people.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 19/5/19)
I would like to add a few more facts to Suzanne Menzies-Culling’s letter of the 18/5/19.

For instance, I wonder if she is aware that Major Thomas Bunbury and Captain Joseph Nias RN proclaimed Sovereignty over the South Island on June 17th 1840 on the basis of cession, after Bunbury had obtained the signatures of a number of chiefs.

Also, was she aware that Ngai Tahu have had five full and final settlements, this after they sold much of the South Island before the Treaty was signed and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre 1840 land sales enabled the chiefs to sell the land again in 10 deals from 1844 onwards for a total of £14,750.

In regards to the 1866 Oyster Fisheries Act, I understand this applied to all New Zealanders not just Maori as Menzies-Culling implies.

The 1867 Maori Representation Act was an interim measure for five years because the Maori Land Court established in 1865 was expected to resolve title issues for Maori who wanted to vote but could not meet the electoral requirement of individual ownership of a freehold estate to the value of £25. This Act was extended a further five years in 1872, and extended again in 1876, this time indefinitely.

Since 1840 many statutes have been passed to help Maori adapt to changing times. However today, as Suzanne has done, these well intentioned statutes are twisted to put them in bad light.

Lastly, Article 2 of the treaty refers to property rights of all New Zealanders (not just Maori) therefore the only tenable meaning of rangatiratanga in the context of this Article and the Treaty as a whole is ‘full possession’.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 13/5/19)
Potonga Neilson letter May 13th “put no deadline on justice” does’t know the true history of Taranaki. The fact is the Taranaki people first lost their land to the Waikato Maoris in 1830/34, they then sold most of it, which in Maori lore did not belong to them.

It was the governor who paid off the Waikato owners and then returned it in 1841 with the protection of British law and order. The leasing of the returned land was a means of the Maori owners receiving a return on very productive land they were uninterested in developing or farming. Not only have they benefited by the leases on the land but also from the taxes the farmers have paid to the government over the years.

A full and final settlement has already been made and honoured by the people of New Zealand in 1946 for land confiscated by the crown in 1863. The British made it possible for the Taranaki Maoris to return to their defeated lands as well as receiving a return for 100 years without even lifting a finger, but still Potonga wants more.

By 1860 Taranaki had been fully purchased three times. Now our government is talking about teaching the real history of our country, this will never happen as they haven’t got the guts to do it.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 13/5/19)
Some people want to believe that maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. To be indigenous you would have to be first on the land which maori are not.

NZ Government and United Nations have no hard evidence who can prove maori are indigenous John Key allowed Pita (Peter) Sharples to sign the United Nations Declaration of the rights of indigenous people, New Zealanders not knowing this until the following day.

Ngapuhi chief David Rankin says “maori are not the indigenous people of New Zealand” there were many other races already living here, long before maori.

Other maori community’s talk about waitaha, Turehu, and Patupairehe “ When our ancestors arrived at the shores there were people here to greet them.

People like Captain Cook, Julius Van Hasst and Alfred Newman mentioned there were people here before Maoris.

An extract from a book first published in 1559 by Jean Alfonse a sea pilot of Portuguese birth, gives a story of Captaine Jan Alfonce discovery of New Zealand. They called us “Isle de Hommes Blanis” (Island home of the whites). There were seen people who were white and strong, similar in facial appearance to Germadic races.

Who were these people, they were the Patupairehe, Kapupungapunga, Waitaha, Ngati Hotu/celts Turehu, Moriori and others which most of them were caucasion.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Herald 14/4/19)
Andrew Little In his comments while reviewing Hate Speech, Andrew Little displays an incredible ignorance of History and an apparent wish to classify historical records as Hate speech. This alone shows how inappropriate he is in his Justice Minister.

He dismisses as ‘myths’ the description of pre-European Maori as living ‘a violent Stone age existence.’ Mr Little, they were a Stone age people, any other materials were unknown to them and inter-tribal contact was often violent. Land was acquired by conquest and usually those defeated in the battles were killed or enslaved. These practices continued till the beginning of the Nineteenth Century and were only curtailed at the request of the early missionaries and the Chiefs’ conversions to Christianity. There is much historical evidence of this

According to Professor Rutherford, former professor of History at Auckland University, there were around 42,600 deaths in the inter-tribal battles of the Musket Wars from 1807 till 1845. This is probably the most accurate figure and there is much supporting evidence of this terrible carnage in the records of missionaries, sea captains and others of the time. This, Mr little, is not Hate Speech.

Dear Editor (Sent to The Press 6/5/19)
Ekant Veer, a University of Canterbury lecturer, may well claim the word Pakeha is not an insult, but the problem with the term Pakeha is that it refers to everyone who is not Maori no matter what race or ethnicity. Being Maori means being tangata whenua, therefore holding a special status that comes with ethnic-based rights and a superior recognition of culture and beliefs. The term Pakeha, is not in itself derogatory, but it does by definition carry a cultural inferiority. For these reasons Pakeha is an inherently racist term.

I am of European heritage, of Welsh and Scottish descent. I don't describe myself as Welsh or Scottish, nor as a Pakeha, but rather as a New Zealander or a Kiwi, because these are inclusive terms. They include everybody who considers New Zealand home, be they of European, Asian, African or American extraction and is also inclusive of Maori.

We need to be country where we celebrate our differences, where our diversity enriches us, where ethnicity matters but does not bestow privilege, where all citizens are united equality under the law. If we continue down the path of separatism and don't unite as New Zealanders we will fail as country.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Nelson Mail 3/5/19)
Contrary to Gary Clover’s spin in (1/5/19) the Treaty of Waitangi does not give Maori ‘exclusive rights’.

In Article One the chiefs cede full sovereignty, Article Two guarantees property rights to all New Zealanders and that Maori landholders grant the Queen the exclusive rights to purchase their lands should they wish to sell, this was to protect Maori from opportunistic land buyers. Article Three granted Maori the rights of British subjects, a huge boon to the many Maori slaves.

The ToW was signed in Nu Tirani (New Zealand) the mythical Aotearoa was not mentioned.

Professor Paul Moon (NZ Herald 29/1/13) says that the ‘Fourth Article’ which emerged in the 1990s is easily debunked as it does not appear in either the Maori or English texts, and that exponents of the "fourth article" who cite conversations held between Hobson and others at Waitangi as somehow constituting binding parts of the Treaty is based on false reasoning and an impoverished understanding of international law.

Mr Clover, by their own admission Maoris arrived here by seacraft and only approximately 500 years before Europeans, further they believe that the spirits of their dead leave Cape Reinga to return to Hawaiki, how can they be ‘indigenous’?

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Northland Age, 14/4/19)
Yes Ivan Grbich (Will No One Listen, Letters, NA, April 11), I am listening. You ask what is required regarding to qualifications and recommendations before any person from overseas can be accepted as a citizen of this country! It seems that if you took to one of your two wives with a hammer, it might be a good start. Belief in the principles and partnership of the Treaty of Waitangi which came into effect about 1970 (whatever they are), are another. The Prime Minister knows what they are, but she does not know what the three original articles of 1840 are!

Why the lady about whom you write has not been given citizenship is beyond me. She has given sterling service to the Northland hospice where she works for over 12 years, and has earned her right to stay in this country, along with her husband. If they are forced to go by the authorities, then an injustice will have been committed.

I join with you in saying let them stay. Her employer, as well as the Editor of the Northland Age, have requested that they be allowed to remain. They have earned it. What heinous crime have they committed to demand their deportation?

In relation to migrants wanting to come here to live, I would ask them four questions: 1) Do you believe in freedom of religion? 2) Do believe in freedom from religion? 3) Do you believe in the freedom of the individual, and 4) Do you believe in equal rights for women? Failure on any one of these four questions would bar entry!
KEVAN G. MARKS, Kaipara.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age 21/3/19)
Re article in NZ Herald Jan 22 Andrew Little led a delegation to the United Nations. He said the Treaty had been breached leaving maori strangers in their own land the impacts of colonisation continue to be felt today through entrenched structural racism poorer outcome for maori. What a load of rubbish, Andrew Little is a guy who failed as a leader of a party, also was unable to win a seat to get into Parliament so he came through the back door. He just doesn’t know anything about our true history of our country.

The people called maori never owned the land they took it off the peaceful tribes who were here before them like the kapupungapunga, Patupaiarere, Ngati Hotu/Celts, Waitaha, turehu and Moriori. etc. which makes maori not in indigenous to New Zealand. It is the descendants of some of these people who are the strangers in this land, not maori.

Dear Editor (Sent to the Hawkes Bay Today 26/3/19)
The Hastings District Council should at tomorrow’s (Thurs, March 28) council meeting reject a proposal to include voting tribal appointees on its four standing committees.

By allowing appointees to vote on standing committees only, the proposal circumvents the requirement of Section 41 of the Local Government Act 2002 that only elected representatives may vote at full council meetings.

The proposal also circumvents the requirement for a referendum because a referendum is only required if the proposal is for a Maori ward.

Yesterday’s media release claims the move would boost “Maori participation on all matters facing our community” but does not say that Hastings already has substantial Maori participation by way of its three councillors with Maori ancestry.

The council’s push to add voting appointees from four tribal groups is like adding four voting appointees from four family groups, which looks absurd and is a departure from our basic democratic arrangements.

The council’s media release loosely describes the proposed voting tribal appointees as “tangata whenua representatives” without specifying the tribal groups represented.

The move gives the appearance of a weak council being pressured by vested interests. Councillors should put democracy before political correctness and dump the proposal for voting tribal appointees.

Dear Editor, (Sent to The Press 24/3/19)
More to the point what does Gary A Clover (letters 22/3/19) think Rangioawhia or Parihaka was?

For his information, Parihaka was the reclaiming of government land from a group of rebel Maori who had squatted on it for 14years, and was reclaimed without loss of life.

Ranigioawhia was another brilliant and humane action and was the beginning of the end of tribal rebellion in the Waikato, also carried out with minimum loss of life. This Kingitanga movement (a treaty breach) had planned an attack on the citizens of Auckland - “I shall spare neither unarmed people nor property” a letter reveals.

Clover’s accusation of fairminded New Zealander’s having ideological predilections of the Treaty of Waitangi is laughable when the likes of Dame Ann Salmond appear to believe that Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty, yet Article One (Maori language treaty) which many notable Ngapuhi chiefs signed clearly states ceding sovereignty.

Lastly, I challenge Mr Clover to point to the word/s or clause/s in the ToW that even imply ‘collective political rights’.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Hawkes Bay Today 21/3/19)
It is a shame that Mr. Heperi Smith (Editorial 14/3/19) was not sincerely ‘gracious’ and showed genuine ‘understanding’ at the Otane public meeting by addressing the attendees in New Zealand’s common everyday language, English.

The long suffering public were in fact the gracious understanding ones by not walking out of the meeting.

In a nutshell, the reo zealots rudely push their agenda by arrogant grandstanding to captive audiences.

I, and in my opinion the majority of New Zealanders believe New Zealand ‘grew up’ in 1840, however there is an element in our society that want to hark back to the stone age days of inked faces and prattling in a neo fabricated language. This aberration survives only on taxpayer life support and through coercion in the workplace to learn something that is off no use outside NZ.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 23/2/19)
Re article in the Whanganui Chronicle 23rd Feb, ‘uneasy about our day of celebrations’. I have never read such rubbish as the one written by Dani Lebo. If she is an American she should go back home to her own country, she just doesn’t know anything about our true history of New Zealand.

1st She says we are colonisers living on indigenous land. For a starter Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand. There were other people here before they arrived , even our history and Maori tells us. Some of the people living here before the Maori were Ngati Kahupungapunga, Waitaha, Turehu,Patupaiarere, Ngati Hotu(Celts) Chinese who were all caucasion /fair skinned people except the Moriori who were darker skinned..

2nd Maori are not Tangata Whenua, which means ‘the ancient ones’ or ‘the people before us, until Maori change it to mean themselves.

3rd Dani mentions about our colonial history, what about our pre maori history like the Celt village in the Waipoua forest takes it about 3000 years old covering 600 acres. Koro Pa in New Plymouth built a 1000 years be fore Maori. There also were a miniature Stonehenge with blocks standing six to seven feet above the ground at Kerikeri. and another north of Taupo consisting of fifty great stones.

Dani mentions about celebrating Maori culture, what about Celtic culture.

4th wrong New Zealand has never been called Aotearoa, Maoris never used that word.

If the paper uses you as their new columnist I pity the paper, get your facts right.

Dear Ed. (Sent to the Waikato Times 2/3/19)
Don’t you dare Mayor King!

I would be fairly confident that Mr. Maipi’s version of events at Rangiaowhia and Parihaka would be at variance to the accounts of many respected and well researched Historians.

I would recommend that the Mayor invite one or two to a similar closed meeting with him and Councillors. (not O’Malley please.)

While Mr. Maipi highlighted three individuals whose names he wants expunged for “murdering Maori” has he forgotten under whose instructions they were operating?

Given his reasoning shouldn’t Mayor and Council also have in train a move to rename Victoria St?

When Mr Maipi vandalised a prominent City statue, without penalty, I suggested he had far too much publicity. I repeat that belief.
MURRAY REID, Leamington

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 1/3/19
I do some more “cherry-picking” for H Norton, but could fill your paper with hard facts. But first, I did NOT say “that there were little or no settlements or agriculture along the South Taranaki coast before Europeans settled it.”

Quoting Charles Heaphy, reporting in 1861 to the House of Representatives:

“It is a peculiar feature in the history of Taranaki that before the regular settlement of the country by the British, it had for several years been almost deserted by the natives.

“The Waikato conquered it in 1830 ... but not considering it worth while to retain occupation, they returned Northward.

“A miserable remnant of about 30 or 40 Natives of the Ngatiawa lived at Ngamotu point in 1839, when the writer was there, and were prepared to swim off to the Sugarloaf Island, where they had formed burrows, and laid up provisions, in anticipation of a renewed invasion of the Waikatos.”

I can provide missionary Ironside’s full letter from which I have already “cherry-picked”.

It is nonsense for Norton to describe the suppression of the rebellions as “invasions” of British sovereign territory. In the first rebellion against the Crown of some Taranaki tribes, in a little over twelve months, the rebels destroyed 177 settler properties. I have W I Grayling’s detailed 1862 list.

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 25/2/19)
Northern Hemisphere Hallucinations

Well now that Waitangi Day is over (Dani Lebo 23 January) let’s try facing reality.

Assertions (ipse dixit) by treatyists, apologists and part maori activists as is the norm are usually based on creative fabricated myth-history rarely coming anywhere near the truth or facts and exaggerated beyond recognition. February 6th always sees these mistruths trotted out ad nauseum.

What’s more the ‘chosen few’ are no more indigenous than all Kiwis born in this country and these souls are not and were never conservationists or environmentalists per se quite the reverse if history and past behavior/practices like destruction of moas and South Island forests are anything to go by.

Claiming special race-based privileges aimed to score more of the valuable resources is a travesty. Entitlements claimed are usually to the detriment and cost of all other Kiwis. Non- productive non- contributory parasites would be a good description for this bunch who rabbit on like one tracked cracked records with their invalid PC claptrap. There is no place for race- based activists promoting neo racism nor their fawning toady sycophants a.k.a Awol brain brigade.

The proposition that somehow NZ pre-1840 was a Utopian Garden of Eden and has since become Hades is unmitigated arrant nonsense. We have moved on over 200years from stone age New Zealand and even if there was any shred of truth in what is regularly promulgated just get over the fictional Treaty principles and partnership nonsense, get on with life, stop navel gazing and seeking free lunches.

Remember there is nothing that succeeds like failure. ”One of the consequences of such notions as ‘entitlements’ is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their dubious presence. No society has ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce” [Thomas Sowell] 

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Sunday Star Times 17/2/19)
Peter Dey (Letters February10) seems to suffer tunnel vision when distinguishing between ‘stolen’ and ‘legally confiscated’ lands, the latter being the consequence of rebelling tribes breaching the Treaty.

We can debate the translations of the Tiriti o Waitangi (only the Maori treaty and Littlewood final English draft ) ad nauseum but the facts are the Queen of England, ruler of greatest empire on the planet at that time did not do partnerships, why would she? Especially with a collection of disparate warring tribes/chiefs who had previously begged for protection from primarily the French, secondly from fellow marauding tribes, google Yates letter to King William IV.

As Article 3 granted Maori the rights of British subjects it was constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with it’s subjects.

Position is clear sovereignty was ceded, no partnership and no principles.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age and various papers, date unknown)
Re Dominion Post February 2nd Petition ‘Should we be Aotearoa’ Why do we need two names for our country. Who is wanting to change the name of New Zealand and include Aotearoa. In the treaty New Zealand was called Nu-Tirani in 1840.

It was Turi as navigator of the Aotea who brought the Moriori to New Zealand over 300 years before the Maori.

It was the Moriori who used the name Aotea after their craft landed meaning ‘The Dawn’ or ‘Where we have landed’.

About 1890 a couple of Europeans writers use it as a fanciful name for New Zealand. Aotea is not a Maori name, The reason behind adding Aotearoa to it is that further down the track the word New Zealand will be removed.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 15/2/19)
Potonga (alias Gary) Neilson (Chronicle, 15/2/19) may be right that there are some old kumara pits along the Taranaki coast but that is about all he says before drifting into fantasy.

As recorded by missionary Samuel Ironside who, unlike Potonga, lived in Taranaki in the 1850s: “They have now millions of acres of land unappropriated, not one tithe of which they can ever cultivate. This land has been a fruitful source of quarrel, bloodshed and violence.” And violence there certainly was. Has Potonga forgotten the capture of Pukerangiora pa, just a few years before 1840 when about 1300 defenders were killed and eaten by invaders from Waikato, an event which led to the virtual depopulation of the whole of south Taranaki. It is that sort of behaviour which “decimated the native population of this land” (to use his terminology), not any actions of the presumed wicked white colonials. Read John Robinson’s careful demographic analysis in “When two cultures meet” (Tross, 2012) if you doubt it – a vastly superior source of information to Potonga’s wild speculation.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age, Dominion Post, Christchurch Press, and Otago Daily Times. 10-02-2019)
I have three questions: 1: What are the principles of, and 2: What is the partnership pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi (how can we have a partnership if we are one people?), and 3: What percentage of Maori have benefitted from the billions of dollars (and counting) which have been handed out by the New Zealand taxpayer to them to date?

The treaty gave Maori people British citizenship, and saved them from harsh treatment from the most warlike among them (no need to go into explicit detail). It may be said that many, if not most, Maori were not warlike, but simply wanted to live in peace, as they do today. I challenge the Governor-General, Prime Minister, Parliamentarians, Historians, University Lecturers, Media Journalists, and anybody else to front up with definite answers. But I won’t hold my breath!

What percentage of Maori blood do they have in their veins? One leader has 1/16th Maori and the rest is, of course, 15/16ths “Pakeha”! One person in his tribe has 1/256th! One prime minister, when asked what constitutes a Maori, answered that “if you think you are Maori, you are Maori”. Another said that he would do something about the situation but, on becoming PM, did not want hokois from hell!

I understand that there some 4000 sites in New Zealand that may well prove that there were people here before the arrival of Maori, including a dormitory some 72 feet by 12 feet in Akaroa Harbour. It’s time to dig some of them up and put our true history to the test.
KEVAN G. MARKS, Kaipara.

Letter to the editor; (Sent to the Sunday Star Times 31/1/19) 

In response to Hinemoa Elder 28.1.19, What is this Woman on? She needs to weed out her own racist lies, the so called Colonials have built all the infrastructure and comforts she enjoys in this country.

She infers lateral violence Maori beating up Maori is because of the Colonials? Maori were committing horrific atrocities to each other long before the English landed here!

Who are the majority now committing violence on woman and children, stop trying to blame others and start taking some responsibility for yourselves for a change.

Also in the Treaty of Waitangi the Chiefs did cede Sovereignty to Queen Victoria [another lie saying they didn’t], since when would a Queen of Britain ever form a partnership with a handful of natives only, excuse me!

1860 at Kohimarama, 20 years on after the Treaty, where the meeting of many of the Chiefs who had signed, gathered to say they were happy with the Treaty and fully understood Queen Victoria’s Sovereignty over them and all the people of NZ.

The Chiefs were well versed, the Missionaries had taught many English well and about God and it could be said they had a better understanding than you Ms Elder!

The Editor, (Sent to the Dominion Post 29/1/19)
Lost in Translation(?)
Only one legitimate Treaty namely TeTiriti o Waitangi maori language version with a Preamble and 3 Articles a benign document all Kiwis could live with plus one genuine final Hobson/Busby English language draft (aka Littlewood draft) which cross-translates perfectly with the signed TeTiriti whereas the bogus/false Freeman version doesn’t.

No signed EnglishTreaty and Hobson stated Treaty signed at Waitangi on 6 February1840 was the only Treaty.

Translating one page /500 words into 30 languages is nonsense.

Once Treaty was signed, almost immediately redundant as Sovereignty ceded by chiefs who signed, British Citizenship granted and maori land sale rules all in place so 3 Articles were satisfied with the coup de grace being absolutely no reference to any Treaty Principles, Partnership nor Fisheries, Forests, Rivers, etc. in either TeTiriti or Littlewood draft!.

The Treaty promised only what was contained in the 3Articles.

In fact wasn’t a treaty as not made between nations but simply an agreement between the Crown and a group of disparate warring maori tribes represented by 52 chiefs at Waitangi with eventually 542 signatories all ceding sovereignty.

However, in reality sovereignty was acquired by the Acts of State (May1840) confirmed by QueenVictoria’s Royal Charter of 16 November1840.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 18/1/19)
In reply to W. Shaw letter January 18th in our history book it reads Beside gods, the natives believed in the existence of other beings who lived in communities, built pas, and were occupied with similar pursuits to those of men. These were called Patu-paearehe the chief residence were on the tops of lofty hills and they are said to have been the spiritual occupants of the country prior to the arrival of Maori. The Wanganui natives state that when they first came to reside on the banks of the river, almost all the chief heights were occupied by the Patu-paearehe.

The patu-paearehe were only seen early in the morning, and are represented as being white, and clothed in white garments of the same form and texture as their own; in fact they may be called ‘the children of the mist”.

They are supposed to be of large size and may be regarded as giants. They are seldom seen alone, but general in large numbers; they are loud speakers and delight in playing on the putorino (flute).

They are said to nurse their children in their arms the same as Europeans and not to carry them in the Maori style, on the back or hips.

If you look at a $1.20 stamp you will see on it a Patupairehe, there are descendant of the Patupairehe still remaining here with golden hair and green eyes of the ancestors.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post13/1/18)
In response to the pack attack on A N Christie (letters 9/1/18).

Jackie Evans - agreed te reo is an official language of New Zealand, but it is not the COMMON language and I doubt that te reo will ever be the common language of New Zealand.

Noel Jory - ‘first language of Aotearoa’. Aotearoa is a mythical name for our country, secondly please produce a written pre European document in what you call the ‘first language’. Even the ToW was first drafted in English and then translated into Maori.

Maori language was prohibited in schools at the request of the Maori elders of the time, all children of those times were physically punished for misdemeanours, not just Maoris.

Ruth Thomas – English is not a legislated official language of New Zealand. Further those that push the ‘te reo needs to be normalised....’ barrow do not realise how sinister normalising te reo is. It is key to enable the Maori sovereignty movement to impose their self-serving agenda (tribalism and control) onto New Zealand.

I wonder if this is what the majority of New Zealanders really want?

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post 7/1/19)
S White ( Post, 7/1/19) refers to Te Reo as our "indigenous language". It is not for the simple reason that Maoris are not indigenous, despite what the ignorant UN said. Maoris arrived at a more-or-less accurately known time only a few centuries ago, which disqualifies them from being indigenous, and proceeded to slaughter our truly indigenous people, very few of whom survive today.

Dear Editor, (Sent to The Press 6/1/19)
Recently you printed a letter of mine pointing out that as the Stone Age Maori culture had no writing, books or libraries, it was fatuous for the City Council to give its new Library a Maori name.

You printed a response from K Gillard making the absurd claim that as there had been a Stone Age in Europe, my comments were groundless. She seems unaware that European civilization has progressed a long way from the Stone Age in ways too numerous to mention.

There followed a letter from G Mitten, saying much the same - did they collude? - and suggesting that as I reside in Nelson it was not my business.

Well, Christchurch is my birthplace, with associations for seven generations of my family. Can any ex-Rarotongan newbie say anything to compare?

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Press 2/1/19) 
Gerry Mitten ('Press", 1/1/19) "wonders why", living in Nelson, I have any interest in Christchurch affairs.

Let me inform him. Christchurch is my birthplace; my parents and paternal grandparents all lived and died there.

It was my home for 56 years; I brought up a family there and three of them and my late wife graduated from Canterbury University.

I was critically injured in the 2011 earthquake and evacuated to Nelson by Life Flight aircraft three weeks later when it was safe to do so.

Nevertheless, as no friend of political correctness, I deplore the behaviour of the Christchurch City Council, so besotted with all things Maori, that it takes the idiotic step of giving its new library a Maori name.when libraries are purely a part of our European heritage. It is as bad - and likely to be more lasting - than Nelson having a Maori man usurp the role of Santa Claus