2 Letters‎ > ‎Unpublished letters‎ > ‎

Unpublished letters 2014-2015

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times (31/12/15)
In your online comments today about the flag of our country, Hemitewera Manie mentioned colonisation and FreeNZ said "Pakeha country. The current flag still means occupation to Maori."

Perhaps you are both young and do not realise that before the colonists arrived, Maori tribes were murdering each other out of existence, and in desperation, some Maori chiefs wrote to King William of England for help to save them from killing each other into extinction.

If you young people could actually retrace your steps and spend some time in the reality of the bad old days of inter-tribal fighting, cannibalism, no hygiene, and a much reduced life-span, no doubt you would have a different outlook. As Maori very quickly intermarried with the new arrivals, you both are most likely to be descended from those colonists. Your colonial ancestors gave you the comfortable lives you now have - warm homes versus leaky raupo huts, education and a written language, transport, warm clothing and footwear, and so much more. They also brought Christianity which brought an end to cannibalism. Your lives have been much enhanced by your colonial ancestors.
R B 

Dear Editor,(Sent to the Nelson Mail (29/12/15)
Your correspondent Anton Hyman (Mail, 11th December) lives in a dream world in which apparently he believes the Kupe myth, quotation and all.

Tasman thought he saw the great southern continent named "Staten Landt" which other Dutchmen had given to a land mass off South America. At almost the same time it was found to be another island, bearing the name Staten Island to this day. Accordingly, in 1643, the Dutch States-General named Tasman's discovery "Nieuw Zelandt", neatly matching "Nieuw Hollandt" or Australia today.

Eastern Polynesians did not give names to island groups, only individual islands. Aotearoa was only one of several names they gave the North Island, not widely used when Europeans arrived.

In translating Hobson's final draft of 4th February 1840, Henry and Edward Marsh, residents for 17/ years, named our country "Nu Tirani", clearly a transliteration of "New Zealand" in the absence of a/ Maori name.

In the 1940s, official documents in Maori used the name "Niu Tireni" - no "Aotearoa" in sight. For the whole country, "Aotearoa" is a "Johnny-come-lately" invented by a couple of fanciful Englishmen writing in the 1890s.

I say again: "'Aotearoa' appearing on new banknotes is a fraudulent name for New Zealand."

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age & Gisborne Herald 28/12/15)
There is a new word sweeping the Maori world and that is - decolonisation - where they attempt to return to the good old days before the wicked white colonist arrived and ruined their idyllic life-style.

If only they could retrace their steps and actually return to the bad old days of inter-tribal fighting, cannibalism, murder of new-born girls, no hygiene, and a much reduced life-span.

Perhaps then the truth would emerge! Pre-colonisation Maori was so successfully murdering themselves out of existence, that in desperation, Maori chiefs wrote to King William of England for help to save them from themselves.

What the colonists found when they arrived here was a disparate group of warring tribes in danger of extinction.

Many of us are descended from those colonists and we should honour those ancestors of ours who made this fine country what it is today.

It was colonisation which brought Maori from stone-age to space-age in a very short time! Be very grateful for it!
R. B

Dear Editor (Sent to the NZ Herald 15/12/15
Maire Leadbeater (Flag Change Fades Ties to Servile Past - 15/12/15) is totally mistaken if she thinks a new flag will signal a more democratic future for NZ.

Our politicians and bureaucracies have been hell-bent on entrenching expensive governance structures which are totally based on accidents of birth and elitism. We haven't voted for many of the people who now rule over us and our public resources, but we are certainly paying heavily for them.

Auckland’s Independent Maori Statutory Board and the management of NZ’s coastline (including the Hauraki Gulf) are prime examples of such corruptible systems. Thanks to the government, we, the people, have no way of challenging or auditing them. The British Monarchy is the least of our worries.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Sunday Star Times 14/12/15)
I read your column Movers and Shakers of 2015 with great interest, particularly the item about Bill English and the Freshwater issue.
In essence, it states "Freshwater Rights could come to the fore as talks between the Iwi Leaders Group and the Government reach a critical stage next year. The Government might allow regional coucils to do local deals with Maori on a catchment-by-catchment basis!"

If that scenario does come to pass - how will it go? Faced down by a determined tribe, do you really think that these councillors are going to consider us - the people who pay the biggest proportion of their wages?

Amongst the many demands from the Iwi Leader's Group - "developing mechanisms to express their economic interests, free freshwater and infrastructure to every marae, $1billion of taxpayer-funding "to implement freshwater management and control."

We cannot let the race-based gifting of this life-source of freshwater be given to tribal corporate interests - for ever!

Dear editor (Sent to the Weekend Sun 6/12/15)
Not only has our Race Relations Commission angered Kiwis as the grinch of Christmas - there is much more that is sinister to this organisation!

In a democracy we all have a right to free speech and the Bill of Rights grants us this privilege. However, the Race Relations Commission now has a drive to limit free speech with censorship of what the media can print on race relations.

An example, pre-censorship, was the recent Constititional Review in which the Maori Party attempted to entrench the Treaty of Waitangi into a written constitution as supreme law. Ultimate power would have shifted from the government to the judiciary to determine how the Treaty should be interpreted and applied.

There was much correspondence on the subject resulting in the review panel failing in their bid to make us live under the shadow of racial discrimination - a situation it appears that the Race Relations Commission approves of.

Today, due to censorship, newspapers could avoid the issue and the silent majority would not even know until it was a fait accompli!

Here in Tauranga, we are lucky to have a newspaper such as the Weekend Sun which continues to applaud the notion of free speech without fear of the heavy hand of the Race Relations Commissioner.
R. B

Dear Editor,   (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 4/12/15)
Our council who we have elected certainly knows how to rub our nose into the spelling of Wanganui. On Monday Night going pass the council chambers I noticed the workmen had already put the ‘h’ in the spelling.

I received information from an advisor to the New Zealand Geographic Board noting my submission against putting the ‘h’ in Wanganui telling me they received 299 objections and 350 supporting for the ‘h’ in the spelling.

I was told the NZGB did not agree with the evidence that I sent into them, this was ignored and the same goes with our councillors. This shows the truth no longer matters anymore, they do what they want and to hell with the rate payers.

We have the local body elections coming next year, its time we got people on council who will listen to the people, we need people who will push for a binding referendum on the Spelling of Wanganui and let the people have there say on this matter the fight is not over yet You cannot trust the present councillors.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 23/11/15)
May I congratulate Kevin G. Marks on his excellent letter which encompasses most of the problems New Zealand is encountering at present. As he says, the racist Waitangi Tribunal ought to have been stood down long ago. Totally pro-Maori decisions are definitely not democratic and it is disgraceful they are still active. I think even Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson now realises he has clasped a viper to his bosom as the Tribunal attempts to encroach further into matters outside their jurisdiction.

As for Freshwater, John Key has declared: "No one owns the water". Let us hold him to that by way of a referendum if necessary. Why should an activist section of the 15% part-Maori have the audacity to demand co-governance or governance of Freshwater to which we are all freely entitled. You can be sure the dollar sign is dancing before their eyes. The Treaty of Waitangi gave Maori control over their land with the right to sell - which they did with gusto - but Hobson would be aware that no one owned the water.

Millions do not have access to fresh water but here in New Zealand, due to the knowledge of the Europeans who settled here, they set up pipelines, dams, bores, .reservoirs and pump stations to give us the freshwater we enjoy and for which we pay through our water meters.

This is a most serious matter and we must fight for our right to a natural resource which is Freshwater.
M. B

Dear Editor (Sent to the NZHerald 17/11/15)
Your correspondent Ian Brougham gives us a timely reminder of the issue of freshwater rights about to be handed on a plate to Maori.

Earlier this year, Maori issued a directive to the government to give control of the country's freshwater to them - within a year.

The government are distancing themselves from this by handing over the decision to regional councils and unitary authorities who are certain to roll over and acquiesce when faced with a determined tribe sitting across the boardrooom table.

I am also indigenous, having been born here, my ancestors arrived in 1842, and greatly helped to make this country into what it is today.

Maori say water is their taonga - well water is also a treasure to me and no doubt to all New Zealanders.

The government must take back control of this freshwater situation and it must become the subject of a binding referendum - it is far more important than the issue of a new flag!

If ever there was a time for all of us to stand up and be counted - now is the time!
R. B

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Dominion Post 13/11/15)
Marama Fox's new bill to further entrench the Treaty of Waitangi “principles” (Dom Post 13/11/15) confirms that a covert revolution is making gains in New Zealand. Unfortunately, most are too distracted by the flag debate, pandas and the All Blacks to see it.

In 2013, a racially-stacked Constitutional Review Panel recommended NZ adopt a written constitution based on these undefined "principles". Then without public demand, work started on changing our flag and removing the Union Jack. We now have new banknotes without Queen Elizabeth and the issuing nation including the fictional Neverland, "Aotearoa."

Currently unelected, unaccountable, race-based bodies are successfully seeking positions of co-governance at local government level around the country. Even more concerning are the behind-closed-doors moves to hand control of freshwater to tribal Maori - catchment by catchment, council by council.

Facilitated by radical bureaucrats and appeasing politicians, New Zealanders are being rapidly conditioned to the idea of a Republic of Aotearoa with a constitution based on the re-interpreted Treaty. This will enforce dual sovereignty, with race-based levies and taxes on non-iwi for the pleasure of living here. Wake up New Zealand…

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 10/11/15)
Alex Ballantyne (News 10/11/15) is badly wrong. Despite the propaganda from Finlayson and many others, Te W'iti and Tohu led a rather nasty cult based on the Hau Hau religion. Te W'iti took part in a Hau Hau attack on Sentry Hill soon after they had killed Captain Lloyd, later using his head as a trophy.

Ideas of pacifism and the albatross feather symbol were brought back to Taranaki from the Chatham Islands by returning tribesmen who had brutally killed and eaten the truly pacifist people there.

At Parihaka they squatted on government land, treating the government with contempt. They were given fair warning in advance that this would not be tolerated.

The humane action of Native Minister Bryce in presenting an overwhelming force with unloaded guns made Te W'iti see that resistance was futile and so occupation proceeded with no casualties. Bryce should get the credit for that, not Te W'iti.

Substantial quantities of cash, arms and ammunition were found there later. Comparing Te W'iti with Gandhi is obscene.

Mr Ballantyne's story is a myth perpetrated by racists.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Christchurch Press 6/11/15)
David Marra is badly wrong. (Press, 6/11/15) Te W'iti and Tohu led a cult based on the Hau Hau religion. Te W'iti took part in a Hau Hau attack on Sentry Hill soon after they killed Captain Lloyd, later using his head as a trophy.

Ideas of pacifism and the albatross feather symbol were brought back to Taranaki from the Chatham Islands by returning tribesmen who had brutally killed and eaten the truly pacifist people there.

At Parihaka they squatted on government land, treating the government with contempt. They were given fair warning in advance that this would not be tolerated.

The humane action of Native Minister Bryce in presenting an overwhelming force with unloaded guns made Te W'iti see that resistance was futile and so occupation proceeded with no casualties.

Substantial quantities of cash, arms and ammunition were found there later.

Mr Marra's story is a myth.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 4/11/15)
Another round of claims coming your way soon. Iwi leaders are now demanding control/ownership over our waters. The government are wanting regional councils to hand over control and managements of fresh water to iwi.

Iwi leaders have been talking with Maori groups around the country on taking over the waters, but there are no meetings for non-Maori who will be affected if this takes place. The government, in secret, are planning to transfer the resources to iwi and the general public will be excluded from the decision making.

Local government memorandum on your behalf has agreed that iwi take over the nations land and natural resources. When did the citizens of New Zealand agree to this take over?

Any citizen that might be seeking to represent us on council must stand to be elected except in iwi's case they can be appointed and cannot be voted out, this is just one example of apartheid in our country.

Iwi say they are a treaty partner, there is no such partnership in the treaty, and the Environment Court does not give it. Local authorities aren’t subject to Crown obligations under the treaty.

Iwi are not only seeking control over the fresh water, they want free water rights for their marae, housing, and land while expecting other NZers to pay for water.

Has anyone woken up to what is going on in our country? Or has John Key got the public's mind on changing the flag and Panda’s.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 3/11/15)
People you need to be paying attention to this local fresh water

Subject, it affects you all!

Do you really want Maori in Co-governance managing your fresh water rights?

Because that is what is being mooted, Maori will not rest until they have divided NZ on all issues! Check out the draft Region wide water quantity plan: www.boprc.govt/freshwaterfutures/

The Regional council is asking for input from the public on changes to permit water takes and what should be metered or restricted takes.

There is a form you can fill in and /or feedback and return before the 1st Dec to waterquantity@boprc.govt.nz

NZ people should all be equal in the control over our fresh water it is our survival for life! Check and print Form from:

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 3/11/15)
To assist your readers in their battle to save the name of your city and destroy the false "h" and the "Fong", I draw their attention to the Treaty of Waitangi which far too many people never even look at. It is a document in Maori of course, written by competent missionaries who spelled words as they heard them.

For instance the word for "land" is "wenua" so "whenua" as in "tangata whenua" is a corruption of the language.

Now, as the treaty was signed on 6th February, the translators had to find a Maori version of "February" in dating it - a clear indication of the need for an "f" is ever there was one but what did they choose? "Pepueri." "F" was non-existent in Maori speech so they didn't use either it or "wh".

All the "Fong" business is a sham.

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 28/10/15)
Your correspondent Stephen Nel has obviously had a negative experience with our health system.

However I can speak from an opposite experience having recently been diagnosed with a serious condition. It was only four days from diagnosis in the doctor's surgery to a seat in the specialist's office at the Tauranga Hospital and the ongoing treatment has been amazing. I am well and feel a million dollars right now!

Mr. Nel - I am sure that if you have any life-threatening medical situation, you too will find that you become an instant priority and will be extremely grateful for our outstanding health system as described by Mary Brooks.

Enjoy all the benefits of life in our wonderful country - and don't eat bacon!

Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Listener 19/10/15)
Under the heading "Done Deal" the "Listener" informs us
concerning the TPP that "of its five bottom lines ... the
Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld ... recognising that New
Zealand governments have that obligation". (pp 22-23,
October 17 2015)

Now since the substance of this treaty is that 500-plus
chiefs agreed to cede sovereignty completely and for ever to
the Queen, in return all Maoris becoming fully-entitied
British subjects (read New Zealand citizens for that today)
and virtually nothing else, this was a done deal 175 years
ago and nothing short of foreign conquest will upset it.

So why then did New Zealand's negotiators waste their
bargaining power insisting that this dead letter "bottom
line" be inserted in the TPPA? They would have done
something useful instead in using their energies to get
better access for our dairy products to overseas markets.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 19/10/15)
Correspondent Graham Clark is correct when he states that "Via taxes, we're all forced to pay for our health system" (letters 15/10/15), however he mistakenly says " Maori pay tax the same as non-Maori".

Maori do not pay tax the same as non-Maori, many Tribal corporations operate as charities so are exempt from tax although GST is levied on business activities. Maori authority distributions are taxed at the default rate of 17.5 percent rather than the normal dividend rate of 33 percent.

Maori households contributed $2.4-billion in tax in 2003 but received $2.3-billion in benefits in that year, according to New Zealand Institute for Economic Research Maori Economic Development, Te Ohanga Whanaketanga Māori.

With most of the Maori tax contribution returned to Maori as welfare there is little left to contribute to hospitals, police, schools, roads etc.

New Zealanders pay tax not cultures, therefore although a patients culture may be taken into consideration it cannot sensibly be demanded in a public health system.

What different cultural requirements does Graham think that Maori have every right to demand? As New Zealanders we speak the same common language (English), mostly wear the same style of clothes, live in similar houses, work in a single economy, play sport, and eat the similar wide variety of food now available.

This defines New Zealand's present culture, not some 19th century romanticism. Cultures evolve; they are not static.

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Gisborne Herald 10/10/15)
In reply to Joe Naden who is a victim of colonisation from 170 years ago - for years my taxes have gone to pay for endless spurious Maori treaty claims and it has not made you feel any better - what a waste of those billions of dollars!

For goodness sake Mr Naden - what tyranny do you suffer from? Your white ancestors saved Maori from being murdered and cannibalised by their neighbours - why else did they live in a fortified pa? They brought Maori from stone-age to space-age in a very short time. You now have undreamed-of comforts!

In a recent article by the realistic and sensible Alan Duff - "Being a Maori in NZ is a negative experience - all that compulsion to live by the myth of whanau, hapu and iwi, those who move overseas do much better!"
If he could, he'd pack every Maori out of the country so that they could realise what a wonderful thing it is to be a Maori, a Kiwi and also individualistic.

Count your many blessings Mr. Naden and let the victim mentality go!

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Gisborne Herald 10/10/15)
I do not know whether to laugh or cry upon reading Joe Naden`s ridiculous letter claiming democracy went out the window in New Zealand after1852 when colonists outnumbered Maori. Prior to 1840 `democracy` was a word with no meaning to Maori living as they did subject to continual intertribal fighting, cannibaiism and slavery. Democracy is not defined by the number of people of different ethnicity living in a country but by the laws of that country. When Maori signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, they, for the first time became under democratic rule when under British laws, all citizens of New Zealand were equal.

I would guess that Joe Naden is part Maori and I wonder why his Maori side feels underprivileged compared to his European side. Maori have equal opportunity to education at all levels and many, instead of bemoaning their lot through letters, do brilliantly. Due to massive Treaty `compensation settlements, some iwi are the richest people in the country. Yes, democracy is alive and well in New Zealand for all, especially part-Maori.
M. B

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 23/9/15)
I heard this morning an item that surpasses all the antics of radical Maori so far.

The Northland Ngā Uri ā Hakiputatōmuri Native Council believe that existing laws do not apply to them. It has sacked the Northland Regional Council by telling them it has done a miserable job, and have issued their own passports, permits, driver's licences and motor vehicle registrations.

I would expect that as they do not wish to continue to suck at the teat of the Mother Government, they will immediately end their receipt of all government benefits, pensions, unemployment benefits, hospital and outpatient treatment, subsidised doctor visits and associated subsidised pharmaceuticals.

They will keep off taxpayer-funded roads and not call on our police force to protect them if need be! They will surrender all the advantages that rightfully belong to those of us who obey the laws of our country as decided by the sovereign powers of our Parliament.

Another sideshow will be when they try to fly out of the country using their unlawful passports. They will not be able to bully Air New Zealand!

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 17/9/15)
Bill Simpson (News, 14/9/15) informs your readers correctly that "Walter Mantell, Commissioner for extinguishing Native Maori title received his orders on April 25, 1848" but his sinister insinuations after his first sentence are all rubbish, including Durie's reference to a bogus "partnership".

First, omitted by Simpson, is that Mantell's orders applied initially only on Banks Peninsula and subsequently in the South Island alone where the tiny population of Ngai Tahu were willing sellers of by far the greater part of it.

Second, and importantly: British sovereignty, accepted by the great majority of chiefs in signing the Treaty of Waitangi, did not extinguish "native"," customary" or "aboriginal" title.

Third: when the Crown later bought such lands from willing native owners, at that point the Crown acquired them in fee simple, the native title being extinguished.

Land held under customary title will have suited the hunter-gatherer usage of pre-Treaty Maoris but not its subsequent use for pastoral and agricultural activities. In recognition of this, the Native Land Court was set up later to manage the transfer of Maori-owned land under customary rights to freehold under fee simple. Such progress from former Stone Age practices was beneficial to those Maori owners who chose to take advantage of it.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News (16/9/15)
Dr Dennis Ngawhare-Pounamu falsely accuses me of using misleading facts. Then he uses the false argument of guilt by association in referring to the Napoleonic Wars.

Here is some of the truth - there is always more of course.

1. In 1831, Waikato captured Pukerangiora Pa. About 1200 were slaughtered, many eaten and the heads of tattooed chiefs taken as trophies.

2. Waikato took many captives home as slaves carrying those trophies.

3. Most of the remainder fled south. Within a few years they had invaded the Chatham Islands and committed genocide there with the utmost brutality.

4. South Taranaki was virtually depopulated. A couple of families remained in the bush near Opunake and a few more at Ngatimotu, ready to flee to the offshore islands if any enemies should appear.

5. In 1840 the Waikato released their prisoners under the terms of the Treaty and the southern refugees judged it safe to return. As direct consequences of the actions of the British, I call these rescues.

6. Returning tribes began fighting amongst themselves over who were the rightful owners of much of the land.

7. In good faith the settlers and their agents paid for some land three times over or more to competing claimants.

8, Ngawhare-Pounamu refers to our country by the false name "Aotearoa". He won't find it in the Treaty, a document in the Ngapuhi dialect which he ought to study one day.

I can provide reliable references to all of the foregoing. Keenan and Moeahu both made false statements, as I said.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 13/9/15)
Your correspondent M Borell (12/9/15) appears to accept that the polytech handout called "Network Waitangi" sanitises Maori history as he/she does not directly dispute it, instead reverts to name calling.

Borell and other New Zealanders should be questioning why this cleverly written highly controversial booklet is being used by our educational systems.

Indeed students should be educated about various cultures, but based on facts, not opinion, hearsay or cherrypicked history.

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Northland Age 8/9/15)
So Dover Samuels was beaten in school for speaking Maori and is now taking a claim to The Waitangi Tribunal for compensation.

So who is he claiming from? It was Sir Apirana Ngata who led the way to English being spoken in schools to improve success for Maori children in both worlds. "English in school, Maori at home!"

As our country is made up of approximately 86% pakeha, it is always us who pay as the result of any claim to the Waitangi Tribunal.

Is this fair?

Dover Samuels - why would you and your fellow claimants have any right to demand redress against anyone? It was your own people who put you in that position. Don't knock them and don't knock the process, which even if harsh, has brought you to where you are today! By all means set up a scholarship but where would the money come from? It must not be as you suggest, financed by the Crown - because my taxes fund the Crown and it would therefore be at my expense.

We who continually pay the piper are so fed up with the relentless line-up of claims resulting in a never-ending gravy train paid by the majority to a select few.
When will it ever end?
R. B

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Dominion Post 26/8/15)
Whoever wrote the "Opinion " in the "Times for 25/8/15 has a very perverted idea of history. The Waikato tribes rebelled against the legitimate government of New Zealand. Governor Grey warned them beforehand that land would be confiscated if they did - a well-understood tribal practice in earlier days. They rebelled, they lost and the land was confiscated to pay in part for the cost of suppressing the rebellion. Some land was taken mistakenly from loyal Maoris and returned shortly afterwards.

As British subjects who broke the Treaty of Waitangi by rebelling, they were not entitled to privileges granted elsewhere in the Treaty. Their Waitangi Tribunal claim was full of false statements including the untrue claim that land was confiscated before the rebellion started.

The claim to Auckland is equally outrageous. They might as well claim all of Taranaki because they captured Pukerangiora Pa there in 1831, slaughtering and eating 1200 of the inhabitants, Te Whero Whero personally butchering more than 150 helpless captives. That is a part of their history that they seem to have forgotten.

These people will never stop their demands until the rest of us wake up and tell them that they have done better than they deserve and the whole flawed "Treaty settlement" process is terminated.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age 11/8/15)
In an official position, on the walls of the Kaikohe Council chambers, is plaque which states in part:

"The Treaty of Waitangi was a Declaration of the Traditional Maori rights of absolute authority over Aotearoa."

This is a blatant lie.

Dear Editor (Sent to the Gisborne Herald (6/8/15)

The carry on about the maori language and PM. Key's attitude toward it is of little consequence.If anything I would have thought that Mr. Key's attitude was unnecessarily laudatory.

The fact is that maori as an spoken language in the early 1800's would have been very limited and lucky to have 1000 words (currently many thousands) and of course no written language existed.An extensive modern day wriitten language has been concocted to cover everything but the kitchen sink.

Let us be clear the moriori language preceded the similar maori language and there is no certainty that other languages didn't precede both of these. All that aside maori is an irrelevant language outside NewZealand but like any other language if people want to learn it at their own cost then good luck to them.The vast majority of Kiwis show little interest in maori and the other 7.3 billion people in the world have no interest in it at all. It's in the same category as Welsh, Irish/Gaelic ,Scots and Manx and so on.

Local language is irrelevant to everyone other than those with a vested interest to retain it. This is not a lack of respect it is simply the reality of the situation.Only the compulsion to learn in schools and the obscene amount of money thrown at maori by Kiwi taxpayers that artificially has it on life support without which collapse would be imminent.

The main three world languages are Mandarin 14% Spanish 6% and English 5%.The Global language which unifies speakers is overwhelmingly ENGLISH.

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Dominion Post (22/7/15)
Bob Brockie brings up a valid point that has me very concerned. The move
to remove European names from our geographic places is gaining traction
and worringly, is being assisted by the New Zealand Geographic Board to
overturn these names.

I am aware that an iwi is hoping to rename Hastings as Heretaunga and
Clive as Waipureku. The area may be called Heretaunga, but the
infrastructure from which the city of Hastings has been built, is from
European knowledge and expertise that the colonial settlers brought with
them and therefore surely cannot be re-named as it is living history.

With over 200 years of intermarriage, there is as much Anglo-Saxon,
French or Scandinavian blood running through the veins of all of us,
including those who only celebrate their Maori-ness!

Therefore as a spiritual people, surely all their bloodlines must be
equally honoured?

There are many lovely Maori place-names but also many European names
which also deserve to be equally honoured.

Please let us leave the names in our country exactly as they are now.

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 17/7/15)
Murray Guy – re your letter about “the polite request” from local iwi for a change of name for Churchill Park.

My problem is that this re-naming is symbolic of a creeping movement to re-name places right around the country through "polite back-door requests" to council. A friend in Auckland tells me of the new Devonport Library with its new name of Te Pataka Korero o Te Hau Kapua – and in tiny letters for the rest of us “Devonport Library. The Walter Nash Stadium in Wellington is also under threat of being re-named after a visit to the council by local Maori. It is sneakily happening all over the country!

My greatest sadness is the arising division by race. With intermarriage over 200 years, there is more Anglo-Saxon blood running through all our veins than any other bloodline including those who only celebrate their Maori-ness. We are all Kiwis whether brown, white or brindle! Let us keep the current place-names which acknowledge the history of all of us.

There are many beautiful Maori place-names in New Zealand and also many wonderful British names to honour where we ALL come from. Isn't Churchill Park one of them!

Dear Editor (Sent to the NZHerald 16/1/15)
Unbelievably just a few months after part-maori interests were given control of a myriad of extinct volcanoes around Auckland, Kiwi visitors are about to be hit with a proposed ban on vehicles. This seems to be based on the concept of ‘mana for maunga’ nonsense (perhaps that should read ‘more money for maori’). TupunaMaunga o TamakiMakaupau authority “manages” the cones. Digipoll a non-event unless participant numbers provided.

As a regular visitor to Auckland for over 50 years, I have never experienced any major congestion on Mt.Eden(Maungawhau) or OneTreeHill(Maungakiekie) and motorists are, in my view, invariably courteous and polite. Parking has never been an issue with 20 carspaces at Mt.Eden and 40 at OneTreeHill although buses and large vans are a problem. Clearly these hills are not the Acropolis nor Stonehenge.

The access roads that were painstakingly constructed probably close to 100years ago are solid/adequate and little damage is being done to the Reserves or the environment by motorists with cyclists and trampers posing more of a threat.

I’ve never heard a squeak about any vehicle problem until maori interests got control and started flexing their muscles with an agenda that is not hard to fathom.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 24/6/15)
M Armstrong (Advocate, 6/6/15) writes with a learned turn of phrase but when turns become twists that is a serious matter.

She twists the meaning of kawanatanga to mean "non-tribal governance" when its real 1840 meaning was "sovereignty". The chiefs who were parties to the Treaty knew that by signing they would become subordinate to a superior authority, as their own recorded words clearly stated.

She says correctly that Maoris have a "Treaty right" to participate as individual voters but claiming that they have a "unique status as indigenous people" twists the truth again.

Her claimed "21st-century expression of their Article 2 tino rangatiratanga Treaty right" is her own 21st century invention. What Article 2 did was affirm the right of possession of land and personal property of all the people of New Zealand - tangata katoa o Nu Tirani - surely plain enough. Her claim that it affirmed Maoris as senior partners is more nonsense.

Article 2 was unnecessary as it was implied by Article 3. It is not Mr Parker who is confused about two different rights but Ms Armstrong who dreams up non-existence rights of her own.

Yet again, she invents her own account of the 1831 letter of Ngapuhi chiefs to King William, telling fairy tales which your readers should not believe.

Dear Sir/Madam, (Sent to the NZHerald 21/6/15)
The editorial (June 20), defending the police directive that Maori drivers in the Counties Manukau district caught without a licence or in breach of licence conditions should be given two months to fix the problem, fails to acknowledge the breach of a basic tenet of our constitution, the principle of equality before the law. This is a very serious matter.

The rule of law demands that offenders of similar culpability should be treated in the same way. If the police believe the best way to reduce offending is to offer support and training instead of a fine, this should apply equally to all citizens, irrespective of race.

The practise of affirmative action in educational institutions is one thing. Differentiating between races when applying the law is quite another. Such a policy sets a dangerous precedent.

NZHerald's June 20th editorial can be read here > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11468739

Dear Editor (Sent to the Hawkes Bay Today 9/6/15)
Settlements only 2%? How Greedy!

Ngahiwi Tomoana (Settlements bring hope and optimism 8/6/15) infers that Treaty settlements are only a shadow of what they should be receiving and quotes Ngai Tahu.

Apparently the payments were satisfactory at the time because Ngai Tahu sold most of the South Island in 10 deals over 20 years from 1844 for a total of ₤14,750,

This land was undeveloped and only started to grow in value as settlers invested capital and labour, developing farms, building roads, towns, industry, schools, hospitals.

To claim further payments for transactions in which both parties were happy because the purchaser increased the value of the land he or she bought by investing capital and labour does not succeed in the real world.

The only people who get away with this are shysters who pretend to be tribes who cry poverty and claim the wicked white coloniser done them wrong.

Anyone who thinks settlements that Maori are getting are only a shadow of what they should be receiving, is either ignorant or lying.

Re Tomoana's 'white anger' remarks - Most Kiwis do not harbour 'white anger", but what they do oppose is race-based policy and entitlements based on lies using guilt as a motivation.

New Zealand was a country in which rights and responsibilities were based on citizenship irrespective of race. Over the past 26 years unequal rights based on race have emerged.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Gisborne Herald 30/5/15)
I stand for truth, democracy, fairness and opposition to racism of any sort. A brick through my window may be my reward. Many falsehoods and lies are current in New Zealand today - the Education Department misleading children about our history - the Waitangi Tribunal supporting fraudulent claims followed by awards of massive amounts of taxpayers money - award to tribes of fishing quotas based on a false treaty and child poverty getting worse so something is seriously wrong.

I have no cure-all for poverty and I don't blame the poor for it but some spend too much on liquor, tobacco, weed, pokies and petrol before feeding their children. My advice to them is to grow vegetables if they can get a patch, take their children to free libraries and encourage their efforts to write, read and reckon. The rewards are there for those who try.

Henry Koia might not like me for this but I can tolerate that.

Dear Editor (Sent to the Gisborne Herald 30/5/15
It is pleasing to see Henry Koia (27/5/15) conceding that 'kawanatanga' translates to 'sovereignty'.

To save face Koia now craftily tap dances to the meaning of 'tino rangatiratanga' as self-determination, self-government, autonomy etc. Ownership (or 'possession') is one of the MANY words that 'rangatiratanga' translates to, it is the logical choice given the wording of 'ALL the people' in Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi, a document In Maori.

Mr Koia, 'informed' reasonable New Zealanders will know that the Treaty was translated from a factual English document (Littlewood draft) on 1833 watermark paper where the hand writing has been verified as Busby's and which was the same as the Clendon "translation" (an English text of the treaty sent by U.S. Consul James Reddy Clendon to the United States on February 20, 1840) which has the translation of 'tino rangatiratanga', as 'possession'.
I rest my case.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 21/5/15)
Peter Moeahu (News, 20/5/15) trots out the usual line of the treaty-twisters in his reply to me, claiming that by Article one "the Maori gave to the Crown te kawanatanga over what was the Crown's". What nonsense! Does he really think Hobson came halfway around the world just to get that? If Peter reads the recorded words of the chiefs at Waitangi and elsewhere it should be clear even to him that they knew that by signing the treaty they would become subordinate to the governor and hence to the Queen. By signing they ceded sovereignty and they knew it.

Then he goes on to say "Article 2 confirmed and guaranteed Maori tino rangatiratanga over what was theirs". If Peter will only read the treaty a - document in Maori - he will find that by it property rights were guaranteed to all the people of New Zealand - tangata katoa o Nu Tirani - not just Maoris. Any "50/50 partnership" is just another delusion of the treaty-twisters.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Herald 19/5/15 & SST & Dom Post 24/5/15)
By introducing unelected appointments to the council decision making table, Councils and their Mayors are attacking the very fabric of our democracy. Such arrangements create a major constitutional change, with no mandate sought. Last Friday the people of New Plymouth spoke, by overturning a council vote with a binding referendum. A massive 83% voted against separatist Maori wards.

One only has to look at the nationwide polls below to see that the general public do not want a bar of undemocratic race-based representation, either by appointment or by the introduction of Maori wards.

70% — No to Maori seats in Parliament ( Sunday Star-Times poll 2013)

79% — No to Maori special voice: Rotorua ( Rotorua Daily Post 9/5/14)

79% — No to Maori seats: New Plymouth ( Taranaki Daily News 27/4/11)

80% — No to Maori wards: Waikato District Council, April 2012.

80% — No to Maori wards: Hauraki District Council, May, 2013

79% — No to Maori wards: Nelson District Council, May 2012.

52% — No to Maori seats, Wairoa District Council, May 2012 (pop: 46% Maori)

68% — No to Maori wards: Far North District Council March 2015. (pop: 44% Maori)

83% — No to Maori wards: New Plymouth District Council May 2015

When will our representatives learn that our democracy is sacred?

Dear Editor (Sent to the NZ Listener 8/5/15)
While we are being diverted by an unwanted flag referendum, the government negotiates behind closed doors with tribal corporations to give them rights to a huge share of our natural fresh water under the spurious pretext that it is a "taonga". When all has been decided, there will be a charade of public consultation, a meaningless exercise to give us the illusion that our voices will be heard.

Under Article second of the Treaty of Waitangi, all of us, "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani", were guaranteed the right to own ordinary property, "taonga". Suggesting anything otherwise today is a colossal lie. Natural water by time immemorial common law is a common good which belongs to all the people.

If we do not wake up and protest over this travesty of democracy, we shall discover that a precious resource has been stolen from under our very noses.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 14/5/15)
Peter Moeahu says he was not raised in ignorance (13/5/15), well the only other excuse I can think of is that Peter was away gathering puha during the Treaty of Waitangi lessons where he would have learnt that ALL New Zealanders were given the rights, equality and protection of British subjects. He would have also learnt that there is no 50-50 treaty partnership (one cannot be a subject of the Queen and a partner at the same time).

Once Peter acknowledges that Maori are New Zealand citizens without partnership he will understand that our education system is for New Zealanders and not based on 'pakeha' privilege and historical amnesia as he claims. However Maori do get many special education privileges and the reason why they fail, after that, is due to their attitude which more than likely has been passed down from peers like Peter with huge anti-colonist chips on their shoulders.

Freshwater resources are a collective asset that we hold in common. Access for all to this most basic of needs is best served when the control of water management remains in the public domain, so once again it is New Zealanders and not 'pakeha' or Maori that should control this birthright.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post 12/5/15)
Fred McRae states a blatant but dangerous falsehood when he claims (Post, 12/5/15) that "kawanatanga [is] guaranteed [to Maoris?] under the Treaty of Waitangi". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The word "kawanatanga" occurs just once in the articles of the treaty, in Article first, as the word for "sovereignty" in the sentence stating that the chiefs cede it completely and for ever to the Queen.

He will argue of course that that is not its meaning but there is ample evidence that it was understood by the chiefs as "sovereignty" in 1840 and that is the only thing which counts.

His claim that the treaty "provides for the exercise of kawanatanga" and about "protecting iwi concerns" about their resources are total fantasies of his own making.

I suggest to your serious readers that they get hold of a copy of the treaty - a document in the Ngapuhi dialect, and, with the help of William Williams' 1844 Maori dictionary if need be (but not a more recent one), find out for themselves what the treaty really says.

The matter is important enough that they should try.

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 8/5/15)
Peter Moeahu – how dare you call Pakeha “the enemy!”

We are the very people who fund all the monies handed on a plate to Maori over the years. The proceeds of your resulting businesses are now euphemistically called "Charities" and are tax-free, so the real taxpayers –“the enemy” - continue to pay – and pay!

Dr. Brian McDonnell, of Irish, French and Tuhoe descent, states "Where there is intermarriage, it is a bridge between ethnic groups, not a process in which one identity is sucked and absorbed into the other until it disappears” - obviously the case with those who divide us into Maori and Pakeha. Surely we are simply all just New Zealanders!

Lastly Peter, you will have a fair drop of European blood in your veins. Do you equally honour your European ancestors as you do your Maori ones?
It is thanks to your colonial ancestors that your life has gone from a harsh stone age to a very comfortable space age in a very short time.

Dear Editor (Sent Christchurch Press 5/5/15 and NZ Herald 12/5/15)
It is crazy that New Zealanders are handing power to tribal groups ("Iwi empowered to save lake" Christchurch Press 4/5/15) - are we that deficient that we hand power to tribes to apply regulations that elected councils should be enforcing?

Once these tribes gain this authority as the article says they are looking to expand it over other regions and no doubt other councils throughout New Zealand.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 12/5/15)
Potonga Neilson says "The history of Aotearoa is still being generated by that stuff produced by bullocks" (29/4/15), I might add that his diatribe contributes immensely to the bullock dung heap.

Meanwhile here in New Zealand to claim further payments for arms-length transactions (in which both parties were happy) because the purchaser increased the value of the land he or she bought by investing capital and labour does not succeed in the real world.

No homeowner is compensated for the increased value of properties they once owned. Why should tribes be compensated?

The only people who get away with this are shysters who pretend to be tribes who cry poverty and claim the wicked white coloniser done them wrong.

It gets worse. Not only do the shysters continue to claim top-ups for the increasing value of assets they once claimed to own, they forget they once sold it and repeat the lie that the wicked white coloniser stole the land from them.

Worse still, idiots in government who appear unable to think this issue through, and won't even look at government records of the transactions, keep giving money, assets, and favours to the elite of these so-called tribes.

This process is a toxic mix of greed, dishonesty, and stupidity.

Anyone who thinks settlements that Maori are getting are only a shadow of what they should be receiving need to do more honest research.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Gisborne Herald 26/4/15)
When Queen Victoria was begged by some Maori Chiefs to send troops to halt the continual intertribal fighting in New Zealand which caused horrendous loss of Maori, she only agreed to help if she was given sovereignty. She already ruled the best part of the globe so why on earth should she send hapless men to the other side of the world with all the expense and misery of travel in those days. without being made sovereign. This was made abundantly clear to the Maori Chiefs by Hobson. As a matter of fact on the way over Hobson had been told that some Maori chiefs had gone to Sydney and offered for sale vast tracts of land which were under contract. When Hobson arrived the first thing he did was to cancel the contracts and give the land back to Maori.

It is ludicrous that the watered-down Maori of today like Jason Koia who have more European blood in their veins than Maori, should claim to understand what the Chiefs understood in 1840. Great pains were taken to ensure that Maori fully understood the terms under which they would be saved from the continual blood-letting and eventual extinction.

New Zealand at that time was a desolate land inhabited by intertribal fighting cannabiistic natives. Koia ought to be eternally thankful that it was the British who gained sovereignty and who dragged a people who could neither read or write, into the nineteenth century building roads, schools, hospitals, houses and sharing their vaster knowledge through education.

Present day non-part-Maori owe Maori nothing. We ought to be thankful for this beautiful country and be proud to be New Zealanders.

Dear Editor, (Taranaki Daily News Sent 22/4/15)
Last throw of the dice by Mayor Judd who must be getting desperate. First up he rails bitterly against a poll, then he canvasses Government to look at banning citizen polls . Now when he sees the spectre of up to 80% of the New Plymouth voters turfing out his inane maori privilege stratagem he trots out the pro-maori interest lobby, with fawning toadies in tow in support of appeasement, separatism, tribalism for a self serving forum to debate the aberration. Maori interest ward seats (elected or unelected) reek of race-based preferential treatment and there is no place in NZ for this undemocratic and unconstitutional planet bongo stuff, because it is repugnant to the Kiwi psyche.

Perhaps it is reasonable to ask the questions; why didn’t Mr.Judd engage with the New Plymouth public at the outset, why was there no meaningful public consultation and why was this thing not in anyone’s 2013 Election manifesto? I will tell you why; these secret agendas never see the light of day, the public are excluded from participating therefore becoming a “fait accompli” and this is how Council administrations will act, given half the chance.

Dear Editor, (New Zealand Herald Sent 22/4/15)
Unbelievably just a few months after part-maori interests were given control of a myriad of extinct volcano cones around Auckland, Kiwi tourists are about to be hit with a proposed ban on vehicles. This seems to be based on the concept of ‘mana for maunga’ nonsense (perhaps that should read ‘more money for maori’). TupunaMaunga o TamakiMakaupau authority “manages” the cones.

As a regular visitor to Auckland for over 50 years, I have never experienced any major congestion on Mt.Eden(Maungawhau) or OneTreeHill(Maungakiekie) and motorists are, in my view, invariably courteous and polite. Parking has never been an issue with 20 carspaces at Mt.Eden and 40 at OneTreeHill although buses and large vans are a problem. Clearly these hills are not the “Acropolis nor Stonehenge”.

The access roads that were painstakingly constructed probably close to 100years ago are solid/adequate and little damage is being done to the Reserves or the environment by motorists with cyclists and trampers posing more threat.

Not a squeak about any vehicle issues until maori interests got control and started flexing their muscles with an agenda that is not hard to fathom.

Dear Editor (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post 20/4/15)
Max Simpkins opinion piece (20/4/15) is based on two assumptions that he has interpreted in a way that would lead to a two-worlds, bifurcated, Maori/non-Maori New Zealand.

1. Does the fact that local authorities are legally required to establish processes to enable Maori to contribute to decision-making processes necessarily require go-governance panels, Maori boards or Maori wards?

2. How can the Treaty of Waitangi be interpreted as a symbol of commitment to developing and maintaining strong relationships between the Crown, councils and Maori when all the treaty actually says is that the Queen is sovereign and Maori are her subjects, with the rights of subjects, including possession of property.

With dual Maori-non-Maori ancestry, and through working with police, in law, and on treaty issues, Mr Simpkins is certainly at the frontline in a number of ways.

However, we already have a political system that includes everyone irrespective of race and that is achieved by having rights and responsibilities based on citizenship, not ethnicity.

Perhaps Mr Simpkins can explain what special qualities Te Arawa people have that enable them to enhance quality council decision-making that other New Zealanders do not possess?

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post 9/4/15)
My cousin is a direct descendent of Robert Bush, a magistrate in Rotorua at the time of the purchase of the township, and he has records of this event. In 1881, the Native Land Court had made an order vesting Ngati Whakaue as owners of the township area by right of continuous occupation and The Thermal Springs Act ratified this arrangement.

In 1882, the first leases of sections were auctioned but many were defaulted on and eventually the Commissioner of Crown Lands undertook to surrender the leases and arrange freehold purchase of the township site by the Crown.

Robert Bush was chosen to act as agent for the Crown. He met with the tribe in late 1888 and after many intense meetings, the negotiations to purchase the area were finalised late in 1889. The key figures for the Crown were Under-Secretary T.W. Lewis, MP William Kelly, Gilbert Mair, and magistrate Robert Bush.

As Robert Bush later stated "The Arawa tribe as a whole but particularly the Ngati Whakaue secton of that people, have always been known as a difficult people to deal with. Many obstacles had to be surmounted in the negotiations for the above lands, which after many discussions, were overcome, and resulted in the Crown becoming the purchaser of the lands."

There is no doubt that the township of Rotorua was purchased by the Crown and was not gifted by the tribe!
R. B

Dear Editor (Sent to the Sunday Star Times 29/3/15)
Kevan Marks wrote about the government's proposed referendum to change our flag (29/3/15). He hit on a very important point when he mentioned the underground swell to call our country Aotearoa New Zealand and his opinion that perhaps the "New Zealand" component of the name may just conveniently slip off the end.

It is not only the name of our country which is at risk of being sabotaged - it is our towns, our airports, our libraries. After being approached by a local tribe, and without the consent of the local rate-payers, the Hawkes Bay Airport has been renamed Ahuriri Airport. I believe the name of the city of Hastings is also under threat of being replaced by a Maori name - that would indeed become "The Battle of Hastings" if their council decided to attempt to follow through on that one.

Devonport's new Library has been named Te Pātaka Kōrero o Te Hau Kapua and in tiny letters underneath are the words "Devonport Library"?

Surely it is time that councils considered the wishes of their ratepayers instead of bowing to the PC brigade and ploughing ahead to suit the plans of the minority.

Dear Editor (Sent to the Christchurch Press 26/3/15)
Re Tahu Potiki's Parihaka cult and its sham pacifist Te Whiti tale (Press 24/3/15).

At the time of the Treaty of Waitangi there were only about 150 Maori left in the whole of Taranaki due to invading Waikato tribes in the preceding years. In 1840 the authorities begun purchasing land in Taranaki from very willing Maori sellers. Due to the peace which flowed from the Treaty of Waitangi, Taranaki Maori returned in 1841 to claim land that was forfeited when conquered by the Waikato tribes.

There were squabbles between Maori of who owned the land which in many cases resulted in settlers paying many times over to satisfy conflicting Maori claims.

Maori armed rebellion against the Crown in 1860-61 saw numerous settler families murdered and their houses and barns burned to the ground in the mayhem.

Rebelling Maori were warned that their land would be confiscated and this did eventuate. Potiki's ‘hero’ Te Whiti now comes on the scene (1864), and for 14 years he squatted on the above confiscated land which now legally belonged to the Crown.

During this time Te Whiti and his followers created havoc in the surrounding Taranaki area and harboured known criminals, Titokawaru and his fellow Hauhaus.

Titokowaru was a brutal rebel responsible for slaughtering and the short revival of cannibalism.

In 1881, after diplomatic efforts had failed to resolve the stand off, Parihaka was reclaimed by the Crown without bloodshed.

A stockpile of around 250 weapons, including breechloaders, Enfields, revolvers and a variety of ammunition were discovered in this ‘republic of peace.”

Do the crime, Do the time.

Dear Editor, Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle (25/3/15)
We have Potonga loose with the truth again, speaking of the Kai Iwi cavalry murdering several children at Nukumaru. Here is what happened during the bitter Titokowaru rebellion when he boasted "I have begun to eat the flesh of the white man . . . My throat is continually open for the eating of human flesh by day and night".[

.In January 1869, a cavalry patrol led by Lieutenant Bryce charged a group of apparent Hauhaus, killing two and wounding others. They turned out to be boys chasing pigs and geese so it was a regrettable incident such as happens in warfare.

In 1883 GW Rusden published his "History of New Zealand" claiming that women and children were "cut down gleefully and with ease". Bryce sued Rusden for libel and was awarded £5,000 damages.

A few weeks later a party of Ngati Maniapoto marauders led by one Wetere murdered the three children of Captain Gascoigne, their parents and two unarmed men at Whitecliffs, North Taranaki. Then missionary John Whiteley who had given 33 years service to the West Coast tribes rode up on a pastoral visit and was shot dead.

The previous November, Te Kooti attacked Matawhero by night, slaughtering 70 settlers and Maori residents including nine settler children and babies bayoneted or tomahawked and two half-caste children.

Who lacked honour for murdering children and an unarmed missionary, Potonga?

Potonga speaks of lies in "legends that our Maori ancestors were 'murderous savages'". Well, there are plenty more examples like those above and many times other Maoris were the victims. To say so is not "anti-Maori" but we need to understand our past if we are to solve the problems of today.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Whangarei Leader 18/3/15)
M Armstrong (17/3/15) puts the Waitangi Tribunal on a pedestal whereas a Ngapuhi kaumatua, David Rankin, a direct descendant of Hone Heke says “The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along", and Brian Priestley MBE “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth".

Agreed the Maori text that approx 500 chiefs signed is the correct treaty. Unfortunately, since 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal and successive governments have related to the inaccurate and excessively legalistic 'official English' version which was penned by Hobson's secretary James Freeman using discarded earlier drafts. The differences between the two texts have been exploited to use treaty “principles” instead of the exact text of the treaty as authority to transfer wealth, assets and rights to Maori

The main fear for Maori was the French as a letter (1831) to King William IV from thirteen chiefs asking for protection shows, not the 'intentions of the British' as Armstrong says.

Her letter touches on the 1835 Declaration of Independence (DOI), pro-Maori historians Claudia Orange, Michael King, Paul Moon say the DOI had no international status, was an unauthorised act and that there was no indigenous power structure within New Zealand. Only 57 chiefs north of the Firth of Thames thumbprinted the DOI, New Zealand had some 600 chiefs at that time. Even if the DOI had any validity the chiefs themselves breached the agreement by not meeting annually as agreed and were back at war with one another within months.

Armstrong then incorrectly infers that the DOI was incorporated in the treaty, the fact is it was superceded by the 1840 TOW because Hobson made sure that the chiefs that signed the DOI also signed the TOW. She blunders on by asserting that the treaty only 'allowed for a governor to oversee British settlers' when the treaty says 'ALL the people of New Zealand'.

"The violence in the 'violent colonisation' she refers to was in most cases instigated by Maori rebels and I have covered the fact that most of New Zealand was sold by willing Maori sellers in a previous letter (10/3/15).

The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 vested ownership in the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders including Maori. Whereas now under the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2010 there are at least eleven applications for title/rights to large areas of the coastline by separate Maori interests.

I thank the Whangarei Leader for boldly publishing this exchange of letters.

Dear Editor (Sent to the Northland Age 16/3/15)
Maori chiefs voluntarily sold 25.33million hectares while not owning the land anyway because maori had no accepted concept of land ownership as we know it. They certainly did not lose the land or have it stolen, as Les Still ignorantly infers. (Letters 12/3/15, "The better opinion is to give them their land back")

New Zealand is a land area of 26.8million hectares (268,000sq km), 1.2million hectares were confiscated during 1860s maori wars, the bulk being returned to maori shortly after via compensation commissions.

In September 2009, 1.47million hectares of maori land (including customary land) existed with much the same in 2013.

The fact is that land-owner Maori sold New Zealand to the 'wicked white colonizer' in hundreds of transactions painstakingly recorded in Turton’s deeds posted for all to see on the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre of the Victoria University of Wellington’s website.

In the same publication (12/3/15) B C Gregory attempts to whitewash my facts re Parihaka (26/2/15). However he has a chronological problem - the reclaiming of Parihaka by the Crown took place on 5th November 1881, whereas my two newspaper articles relating to the squalor and diseases, which Gregory cunningly attributes to after the reclaiming of Parihaka, were dated 22nd September 1875 and 12th September 1881.

Need I say more?

Dear Editor, (Sent to Northland Age 12/3/15)
Greetings to Te Tao Nui Anihana!
I am not interested in your ancestry but around 50,000 people claim to be Ngapuhi.

If we are to plan successfully for the future we need to know our history and I for one want to do this for the sake of my grandchildren and yours. I wrote an accurate summary of Maori slaughter of other Maoris and its dreadful consequences, not my "version". That is Maori history, no more, no less. Do not deny it. You may be angry, sad and disgusted but don't blame the messenger – that is an old trick.

Your claim that the "declaration of independence" is the body of the treaty shows how misinformed you are. The "declaration" was a worthless piece of paper no matter how many people today want to resurrect it from the dustbin of history.

I wish all Maori and part-Maori people well as I do all New Zealanders but our future must be based on truth, honesty and fairness. Sadly people like the Waitangi Tribunal with its perverted judgements stand in the way of that goal.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Daily Post Rotorua 3/3/15
I read TeTaru White's (deputy chair Arawa) letter (28/2/15) with bemusement, the only ones who are 'spitting the dummy' are Messrs White, Chadwick and Co because their underhand tactics in attempting to bypass democratic procedures by creating unelected, positions on Council were derailed by Pro-Democracy Society. These people are now backing down and saying they hope democracy prevails through the process of public consultation, and one has to grin at the about face of the Mayor and her cohorts.

As for Mr White's attempt to promote the ‘maori economy’, in reality it doesn’t exist by itself, having been given assets from hard working Kiwi taxpayers augmented by sweetheart Government deals via questionable treaty settlements and other race based initatives while paying little or no tax, iwi groups maori incorporations (17.5%), charitable trusts (zilch). This fiscal creativity' doesn’t create a new maori business/economy, it has only changed hands (rearranged the deck chairs) so does not contribute anything extra to the New Zealand economy.

Mr White's BERL's (2002) figures need further investigation to arrive at the truth. In 2010 Maori-owned businesses produced $22.2-billion worth of goods and services or around 11 per cent of GDP (BERL), but Maori are 15% of the population? The so-called Maori economy is under performing despite generous drip feeds from central government.

Dear Sir (Sent to the NZHerald 1/3/15)
I note that Devonport has a new public library.
I have two questions about it. (a)...Why is the Maori name of Te Pataka Korero O Te Hau Kapua in such large letters compared to the miniscule English name of Devonport Library. It appears that the council responsible for this almost overlooked the importance of adding the words in English - possibly just a wee afterthought to appease the 86% of Kiwis who actually are not Maori.
(b)... The apparent translation in Maori of the above words is "Libraries of the Gas Cloud" - so perhaps better stick to the original Devonport Library in the large lettering it deserves and stop trying to be so ridiculously politically correct!
R. B

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age 27/2/15)
BC Gregory's invective towards me gets shriller and shriller, a clear indication of what a loser he is. Even when I provide accurate information to answer his questions he can only reply with abuse. Recall that Dr Lance O'Sullivan, named "New Zealander of the Year" in 2104 and clearly an outstanding man, found Gregory so impossible to work with at Kaitaia Hospital that he had to set up a separate clinic in order to give his patients the treatment they needed.

Gregory should go back into his hole, stay there and keep quiet.

With my compliments of course,

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the Gisborne Herald 25/2/15)
Jason Koia's "opinion" (24/2/15) is a twisted account of history. The Waitangi Tribunal flagrantly ignored the compelling evidence of the day that the chiefs at Waitangi knew that by signing they were ceding sovereignty. Ngati Porou affirmed their loyalty to the Queen at the 1860 Kohimarama conference as did Apirana Ngata subsequently..

As Mr Koia does not identify his tribal affiliations, I cannot say where they stood in these matters but I note his animosity towards Ngati Porou.

There is indeed only one real treaty - in the Ngapuhi dialect and it guaranteed "tino rangatiratanga" to all the people of New Zealand - "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani".

He is wrong in saying "The Crown's motive was to establish British rule for land acquisition". The complete opposite was the case and one British undertaking was to review all pre-treaty land transactions and only validate those which were fair to both sides.

"The Crown", alias the government of New Zealand, kowtows to the corrupt recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal which never rejects a claim. I share Mr Koia's view that we need instead "an impartial and competent tribunal" to review the many fraudulent claims for which the taxpayer foots the bill but in the present climate that appears too much to expect.

FLAGS  (Sent to the NZ Herald 23/2/15)
It is nonsense for Vanessa Lawrie to claim that the so-called "United Tribes" flag is an official flag of New Zealand. It was a brainchild of Busby and the chiefs to whom he showed it had no idea what he was doing. It fell rapidly into disuse until later it was used as a house-flag by the now-extinct Shaw Savill shipping line. It is likewise extinct.


New Zealand has only two official languages, Maori and sign language, not three as Kerre McIvor asserts.

English is the most widely used language and the only legal requirement to use English is in filing tax returns.

A petition is currently under way to make English an official language of New Zealand..

The problem with sprinkling Maori words among English is shown in Kerre's column when she says "keep the kupu coming, Kanoa". Kerre's use of those words obscures what she was trying to communicate.

As an example of where Maori in English obscures meaning is the use of the word "kupapa" to describe those Maori who fought for the government during the 1860s wars.

"Kupapa" in this context means "traitor" so is a loaded word.

If the word "traitor" is used instead of “kupapa”, those histories would be instantly recognised as being heavily slanted against the Maori who fought for the government, and the government.

A wise person once said: “Don’t agree with anything that you don’t understand”.

This may well be applied to the sprinkling of untranslated Maori words in English speech.

DEAR EDITOR (Sent to the Whangarei Reporter 21/2/15)
While I agree with the aim of Mitch Morgan's letter (19/2/15) speculations about the Treaty of Waitangi should be settled once and for all by looking at the evidence of the day recorded carefully by Colenso, which was ignored by the Waitangi Tribunal in reaching its false conclusion. Chiefs who opposed the treaty initially knew full well that by signing they would become subordinate to the governor and hence to the Queen.

Thus Te Kemara: "the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down - Governor high up, up, up, and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm, a crawler - no, no, no."

And Kawiti: "I, even I, Kawiti, must not paddle this way, nor paddle that way, because the Govemor said 'No' ."

Again, Tareha: "You high, and I, Tareha, the great chief of the Ngapuhi tribes, low! No, no."

Nevertheless, all three of these signed the Treaty within a few days.

The only misunderstanding arose because French missionaries had said that by signing, the chiefs would become slaves whereas the exact opposite was the truth. The wording of the treaty made it clear that slavery would be abolished.

Sovereignty was ceded.

The Waitangi Tribunal has betrayed all the people of New Zealand by blatantly ignoring the truth.

TREATY FACTS (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 17/2/15)
Your opinion piece (Times 6 February) is way off the mark and it may come as a thunderbolt from the blue but rest assured there is only one legitimate version of the Treaty - that is the maori Tiriti-o-Waitangi (and only) version, , signed at Waitangi on 6th February 1840, a benign document, the terms of which all Kiwis can live with. By the way the treaty is only an historical relic now and there was never an English version.

It is not difficult to read the treaty. It consists of just five brief paragraphs – a preamble three articles and a postscript and in effect all it says is that the Queen is sovereign and maori are her subjects with the rights of subjects including possession of property.

You can discard the Freeman, ornate flowery adaption (post treaty) usually fraudulently represented as the English version and unbelievably incorporated into 1975 Waitangi legislation by an inane Labour Government.

If you want the closest thing to an English version, then accurately re-translate (in 1840 language), the maori version back to English and you will get the Littlewood draft (Hobson’s final draft), almost word for word. Only four words differ one of which is the date. A copy is held and displayed in the Smithsonian Institute.

Unless you are determined to fly in the face of reason, factual evidence, common sense and reality by embracing the fraudulent rewriting of NZ history as fabricated by the separatists, whingers appeasers treatyists radicals apologists and grievers then I don’t see how you can reach any other conclusion than that outlined by me herein. As an aside in our culture once someone has entered into a treaty (contract) it is not unilaterally renegotiable and one can’t add and change conditions to suit ones own self interest. It is worth recalling George Orwells 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.

Hopefully the above factually accurate information (that can be established by genuine investigative journalism) will stop all the angst and gnashing of teeth, in trying to work out why Tiriti-o-Waitangi and the Freeman fraud are incompatible. Only the maori version is valid so I trust this helps solve the dilemma you faced.
Mate a moa.

CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 17/2/15)
Close but no cigar for Peter Dey's effort on the early history of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Governor William Hobson’s secretary James Stuart Freeman sent the ornate-style treaty text that became the official English text to New South Wales governor Sir George Gipps on February 8.

That text resembles a discarded draft dated February 3, and includes the phrases “lands and estates forests fisheries” and “right of pre-emption” that do not appear in the Maori text Te Tiriti.

U.S. Consul James Reddy Clendon sent a copy of the James Busby February 4 draft of the treaty to the United States on February 20, 1840.

This draft, also known as the Littlewood treaty, has just four words that differ from Te Tiriti and one of those words is the date.

Hobson did not "choose to have two official versions and it was his choice to make" as Dey wrote.

Hobson worked almost exclusively with the Maori text with one exception that being one text in English signed at Port Waikato in late March -- used because no Maori text was available and chiefs were ready to sign.

LOONEY LEFT-WING MAORIFICATION (Sent to the NZ Herald 16/2/15)
Labour’s dogma promoting legal recognition of U.N.Declaration of rights of indigenous people plus Constitutional recognition of the Treaty means Kiwis will not have any say, there won’t be any referendums simply “Labour’s way or the highway”.

Labour will unilaterally:-
* Legislate to recognize maori as first and only indigenous peoples of New Zealand.

* Continue to explore the means of respecting the status of the Treaty and recognising it within our Constitutional framework (a Treaty-based Constitution).

* Ensure as a principle the equity of funding for maori providers across the public sector on all service contracts.

* Work with LocalGovernmentNZ to review (enforce) the provisions for unelected maori representation on Councils and Committees.

* Retain race-based maori parliamentary seats until ‘maori’ decide otherwise.

* Promote maori self-governmen with separate legal system.

Maori are not indigenous and Labour is proposing special/preferential race-based treatment for part-maori.

There are no legitimate Treaty principles, partnership, obligations, or promises as Labour seeks to misrepresent. If you think Labour maori policies are ruinous, check out the Greens inane aberrations. Equal legal rights for all kiwis must be mandatory.

KIWIS, don’t be the irrelevant majority. Reject Labour/ Greens machinations if you want a New Zealand that you can live in without continual racial upheavals.

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the NZ Herald 11/2/15)
Any sober and serious look at the written records of the genesis, context and meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi must lead to the conclusion that beyond any shadow of doubt, the Maori chiefs knew that by signing the treaty they were ceding sovereignty completely and for ever to the Queen.

The Waitangi Tribunal instead manipulates the meanings of words to reach a false conclusion. The Tribunal is profoundly wrong and it is inappropriate for the "Herald" to contemplate otherwise.

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the Daily Post Rotorua 10/2/15)
Joseph Gielen ((10/2/15) is wrong on many counts. The so-called pre-treaty "flag of the united tribes" was a brainchild of James Busby. The Chiefs had no idea what he was doing. Read Michael King's "Penguin History", p.153 to find out.

The Treaty is not a "partnership". He is wrong in saying the chiefs "did not agree to be subsumed as individual citizens of Imperial British Empire of their day" because that is exactly what they did agree to.

As Hobson said to each chief as they signed the Treaty "He iwi tahi tatou" - "we are one people

now" - one nation, one sovereign, one flag. The one and only flag to fly on Waitangi Day to honour the Treaty is our national flag as Geoff Parker said.

He imagines that "Geoff and his ilk would have us all fighting each other all over again". The exact opposite is the case. Geoff and his ilk clearly want to see us as one people as the Treaty provided with no special rights for anybody based on race or any other reason.

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 9/2/15)
Your joker, Potonga Neilson, seems to have forgotten that the Maori tribalism whose praises he sings led to the slaughter by other Maoris of about 44,000 Maoris in a population of around 120,000 with associated cannibalism and slavery in a few decades before 1840. He says he "must declare that Maori tribalism was a very advanced and equitable system superior to that which we have today". Few, then or now, would agree. Most Maoris lived in constant fear of being attacked in the night by other tribes, the lightest sleepers, fully armed, sleeping on the outskirts of their villages. Paul Moon (not a relation) suggests that the psychological damage they suffered continues to this day. Potonga may daydream but that is what happened.

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily Times 9/2/15)
Dion Tuuta learnt a strange version of history. Is he unaware that in the 1830s, Waikato tribes slaughtered one third of the Taranaki population, 1200 at Pukerangiora alone, taking another third as slaves while the rest fled south? Settler transgressions were trivial by comparison. They found an almost deserted land, for some of which they paid three times over. Returning refugees and slaves liberated by British justice fought among themselves over land then turned on the settlers, destroying 177 homesteads in just over a year and killing innocent people. Their rebellion was of necessity suppressed at gunpoint and some land confiscated to pay in part the price of this as they had been warned. Much was returned.

If he actually reads the Treaty of Waitangi, a document in the Ngapuhi dialect, he will find that his bogus name "aotearoa" for our country is not even mentioned. It would be helpful if Dion Tuuta would get his facts right before bursting into print.

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the Christchurch Press 9/2/15)
The "Stuff" article by Monk and Wright on 6th February seriously distorts the truth.

The 2000-odd Europeans in New Zealand before 1840 hardly mattered. Yes, of course they had firearms but it was the 800 Hongi Hika brought back from England that made the difference. About 44,000 Maoris were slaughtered by other Maoris, with slavery and cannibalism in the pre-treaty decades, not the 20,000 of Monk and Wright. Ngai Tahu numbers were drastically reduced by their own "Eat Relation" or "Kai Huaka" feud followed by Te Rauparaha's butchery at Kaikoura, Kaiapohia and Onawe. Deaths from measles were few by comparison.

Most of them quickly swapped their many dialects of Maori for a far better language - English - then and now the greatest international language the world has ever known.

Current distortion of the truth about the Treaty of Waitangi is rapidly turning New Zealand into a state more rotten than Denmark.

TREATY GUNPOINT THREAT NOT RECORDED (Sent to the Hawkes Bay Times 6/2/15)
Hawke's Bay elder Jerry Hapuku’s account of his ancestor being forced to sign the Treaty of Waitangi at gunpoint does not match recorded history.

The very pro-Maori historian Angela Ballara described Te Hapuku and the treaty in her biography of him in the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand.

Because Te Hapuku had signed the 1835 Declaration of the Independence in the Bay of Islands on September 25, 1838, Major Thomas Bunbury deemed it important to obtain his agreement to the treaty so visited him at the Tukituki River in Hawke's Bay.

"At first Te Hapuku refused to sign, saying that Nga Puhi were now slaves through the treaty, but Bunbury convinced him that his assent to the treaty could only increase his mana; he gave it on 24 June 1840”, Ballara wrote.

Ballara did write that Te Hapuku was threatened by British Resident James Busby at some time in the 1830s with a visit by a warship to stop him bullying whalers at Mahia.

The article that Mike above refers to > Kaumatua recounts signing of the Treaty

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the Dom Post 5/2/15)
Carwyn Jones, who sounds more Welsh than Maori, is wrong. By the Treaty of Waitangi the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen. In return, all Maoris got full rights as British subjects and the property rights of all of us were confirmed. That is all. Denial of the cession of sovereignty and talk of "treaty partnership" are nonsense, more like Nazi propaganda than the truth. It is time to put the treaty back in 1840 where it belongs and move on.

Dr Jones talks about "damage the governments have done to Maori communities over the last 175 years" but forgets the enormous amount of damage they did to themselves in the preceding decades. About 44,000 Maoris were killed by other Maoris in a population of about 123,000 with cannibalism and slavery. The psychological damage must have been colossal and Paul Moon ("This Horrid Practice") has asserted that it continues today. This accounts for the "grievance" attitude of some Maoris. Of course it is easier to blame the government and the pioneers from Britain.

Until these matters are faced honestly and squarely, nothing will be resolved and race relations will get worse. It is not the New Zealand I want for my grandchildren.

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the NZHerald 5/2/15 herald refused to print it)
Paul "Not-a-relation" Moon strays a long way from relevance in today's "Herald" (5/2/15.)

He is wrong in saying the Treaty of Waitangi was "devised principally to enable Britain to extend its jurisdiction to its subjects" here. Hobson's mission was to gain sovereignty for the Queen and establish a settled form of government for all the people of New Zealand. I know of no evidence that "there waa no expectation ... that its tenure would be interminable." That permanent organised settlement from Britain was already under way was well known and taken into account and the pioneers' descendants are here today!

"Sherbo" (actually "Sherbro") which Paul offers as an example of a forgotten treaty is on the ebola-ridden coast of West Africa and the chance of permanent British settlement was non-existent. His comparison is absurd.

The Treaty of Waitangi was a done deal in 1840; just one step in our progress towards nationhood. It was superseded by the Royal Charter in November 1840 by which New Zealand became a colony separate from New South Wales. Digging it out of the past has made it a tool of political activists seeking increased political power and material gain at the expense of other New Zealanders.

The foregoing may make me a "treaty-hater" in Paul's eyes but that is nonsense. He is deluded today, not me.

WHAT FLAG WHAT DAY? (Sent to the Daily Post Rotorua (4/2/15)
We do need a New Zealand day so maybe we as New Zealanders can become more patriotic and the NZ flag is the honor of the day for ‘one people’.

Its almost treason and definitely a divided country when its all about Black and red flags [terrorist colours] for separate tribes and ethnicity’s the country has lost its way.

MORGAN THINKS HE KNOWS BEST FOR US ALL (Sent to the Weekend Sun 4/2/15)
Why does Gareth Morgan think he knows what’s right for you and me?

We have just spent over a year fighting the battle to keep the Treaty of Waitangi out of the Constitution, because it is just so wrong for NZ. It would be just like the gun law in the American constitution [which they hate], talk about the elephant in the room that everyone has to bow and scrape to. The Waitangi Tribunal has done nothing but cause grief since 1975 when another know it all Geoffrey Palmer got it all slipped through along with the so-called Waitangi principles set in concrete. Do we really want to go there again?

Not to mention renaming NZ, it’s about as rubbish as changing the flag!

All these things cost so much money that we don’t have and what for?

Also he wants Te Reo compulsory in schools, No again. It could be optional in Schools, but why should we all have it rammed down our throats when many children can’t even spell, read or write English which they need just to get a job!

Wonders never cease Morgan wants an Upper House of Parliament with 50/50 maori representation too, now we really are getting into special privileges for the Minority. What’s gone wrong here with all these know it all so called self-appointed Gurus, maybe someone is paying him to say all this or he thinks he’s going to get a knight hood for it all! NZ Democracy where has it gone?

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the Northland Age 4/2/15)
Part-Maori Porter, alias Taipari's personal abuse ("Age", 3/2/15) is a weak argument.

First, e hoa, admit it. Your Ngapuhi ancestors were ruthless and treacherous cannibals who butchered thousands of Maoris from other tribes, women and children included.

One of the great benefits of the cession of sovereignty to the Queen was the stopping of this orgy of slaughter.

It is paranoid nonsense to claim that I "stereotype" you as a "lazy, dole-bludging druggie". I merely asked whether your rates payments are up-to-date. Millions of dollars are unpaid in your area.

Your statement that I am "a Maori-bashing redneck" is more such rubbish. Nobody is less a racist than I am and I have a record to prove it. It is you and your like who destroy good race relations in New Zealand. Come to Nelson and I shall patiently explain the truth to you - and bring BC Gregory with you.

I shall continue to present an honest account of our history to counter the multitude of falsehoods and plain lies which are ruining our great country today.

DEAR SIR, (Sent to the Hawkes Bay Today 30/1/15)
I believe there is a move by some local claimants to request that The Geographic Board changes the name of Hastings to Heretaunga and Clive to Waipureku.

Early Maori had no notion of towns and cities which were built by the colonial settlers. What really built these towns and cities was hard work and a knowledge of European settlement and infrastructure in a civilised society. Therefore there is no reason that a place called Hastings can be re-named Heretaunga when the reality is that the original Maori of the area had nothing whatsoever to do with the building of the metropolis.

Are the good people of Hastings and Clive about to let this happen while they sleep?
R. B

Weekend Sun/Sunlive (Tauranga 30/1/15)
I'd like to congratulate Bruce Moon for his straightforward and honest opinion piece ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi - here's some of the history' (The Weekend Sun, January 23).

It set out clearly the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, and congratulations to the The Weekend Sun for printing it.

I, like many others, have been frustrated by the NZ Herald's refusal to publish any letters with a whiff of Maori criticism, and I've consequently cancelled my subscription.

It seems our other local paper is willing to publish Gareth Morgan's abysmal rubbish, but reluctant to allow letters pointing out the inaccuracies to see the light of day.

A good example, is Morgan's claim the British tried to annihilate Maori.

He obviously is not aware of the fact that Maori chiefs went first to King William, and then Queen Victoria, begging them to send help to end the inter tribal warfare, slavery and cannibalism, which was rampant at the time.

Maori were doing a very good job of killing each other, such as Hongi Hika selling the gifts King William gave him, to buy muskets so he could participate in the genocide from 1821 to 1830 when more than 50,000 Maori were slaughtered. I'm sure Bruce's article will raise the hackles of those trying to twist the true meaning of the treaty, but he tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
M B,
Tauranga City.

RE: Dame Susan Devoy's column ‘We can't afford complacency in race relations' (The NZ Herald, January 22).

Dame Susan, your recent column shows how ill-equipped you are to fill objectively the sinecure role to which you've been appointed.

Your statement “That sport had nothing to do with politics was not only naive but wrong” is only your opinion, an opinion that wasn't supported by half of all New Zealanders at the time.

During the 1981 Springbok Tour the Russian Bolshoi Ballet was visiting New Zealand and although Russia was then denying political freedom to 10 times as many people in Eastern Europe as was apartheid in South Africa, John Minto and his cohorts staged no protests against them.

Your appointment to Race Relations Commissioner in March, 2013, was criticised by Maori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell, Ngapuhi leader David Rankin and Mana Party president Annette Sykes because you'd suggested the Waitangi Day celebrations should be replaced.

Your appointment was also lampooned in verse. You've certainly come into line now, by saying “The everyday racism some of us face”.

I face daily when I see the special and exclusive treatment afforded to Maori in education, health and social services or when I reflect on the Waitangi Tribunal, the Maori Party, Maori monopoly of all welcomes to overseas guests, the composition of Constitutional Advisory Panel, the ethnic imbalance of control at Te Papa and un-elected Maori being appointed to national, regional and local committees and councils and afforded voting rights. When I see the corruption of the Treaty not only by Maori revisionists but by academics, legal authorities, officials, government agencies and politicians to justify the granting of 48 per cent of our fisheries and 36 per cent of our forestry to 14 per cent of the population.

When I consider the mindless chatter about non-existent principles of the Treaty and the partnership of Maori and the Crown made by loose-lipped politicians.
I'm concerned when many of the actions and words made by you in pursuance of your duties seem less than objective to many of us.

Yes, Dame Susan, we have some way to go.
B J,

Editor's Note:
The Sun team approached the New Zealand Human Rights Commission's senior media specialist asking Dame Susan if she wanted to reply to this letter, and at time of print, had not received a reply.

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 23/1/15)
Gareth Morgan's article raises some serious questions about how well this man knows the history of his own country.

The notion that the Maori language was not allowed in schools - far-thinking Maori leaders themselves asked that children speak only English in school.

He then said "They bloody near got exterminated" - certainly, but it was brutal tribe-on-tribe fighting that was causing the extermination!

Then the suggestion of a national conversation about enshrining the treaty into law. All done, but not dusted!

The race-based Constitutional Advisory Panel went around marae to tell of their intent to entrench the treaty into a written constitution.

With submissions shortly to close, the panel felt they better inform the other 86% of us. In Tauranga, a tiny back-page newspaper notice of a public meeting meant to slip by us. But some saw it and Michael Cullen was left in no doubt how we felt about this most undemocratic and racist potential legislation. With national widespread objection, the plan was put on hold.

Mr. Morgan appears to be remarkedly uninformed - perhaps at the time he was busy apprehending delinquent cats and missed the action!
R. B

Dear Sir, (Sent to the NZ Herald 23/1/15)
Gareth Morgan suggests that our government consist of a upper house of Parliament in which half the members are Maori, with the power to send legislation back to the lower house for further consideration. In effect this would place the power to veto all democratic decisions made by the government in the hands of one particular sector, a group which would be unaccountable to the wider community. A power bloc such as this would have the ability to hold the country to ransom if it chose to do so.

Such an arrangement is incompatible with democracy. It would subvert the fundamental principle of a democracy based on one person, one vote, each of equal value. It would entrench racial discrimination, and create a two tier society, with the general population constitutionally inferior to Maori.

Gareth Morgan appears to have forgotten the lessons of history and the reasons why our forefathers fought so hard for a democratic system of governance.

Letters to the Editor NZCPR
I was glad to hear that a number of Maori people are also tired of hearing about Treaty issues. I am of Maori descent but I have never regarded myself as a 'Maori'. I am a New Zealander and I try to be fair minded.

I do not know what was in the minds of the signatories to the Treaty and no-one else today can honestly say they know either. Neither can it be said to have represented the wishes of all the Maori people of that time.

For better or worse it did signify a general desire that our two peoples would live together in peace thereafter and stop the fighting. The Crown was acknowledged as the prevailing law.

The' Treaty Document' is not a document expressed in clear legal terms and it is not reasonable to accord it such status. It is an historical document which should now be consigned to the archives, having served its purpose.

I acknowledge the right of the latest legal immigrant, of what ever ethnicity, to be treated the same as any New Zealander as long as they agree to obey the law of this country. I do not necessarily agree with our Government's immigration policy ( or many of its other policies for that matter) but imperfect as our system is , we are stuck with it, until/ unless we can come up with something better. If someone will not abide by the law they are here under false pretences.

Everyone of legal age has one vote. It is unfair that any group should have special representation, Maori included. The same should apply to central and local Government. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that Maori, or anyone else, should have special seats.

The 'Treaty' is being used as a cash cow to be milked at the whim of a few , for personal advantage.

Following are random excerpts from the transcript of the Kohimarama Conference in 1860 attended by 112 Maori Chiefs. Many of those Chiefs were Ngapuhi, so it will become apparent that the Waitangi Tribunal’s “finding” that Maori did not understand the concept of “Sovereignty” when signing the Treaty is far from the truth.

Wi Te Tete: “Listen ye Pakehas, and ye Maori Chiefs! We have now become one people under the Queen.”

Hori Kerei Te Kotuku: “When you arrived we were dwelling in ignorance, we were blind. First came Christianity, after that the Law. I saw that there was salvation for me. You appointed magistrates. We received them. It was during the time of Governor Grey that we first recognized the Queen's authority. He said there is no other Sovereign for us but the Queen. I did not receive the Law without consideration. I sought it carefully in the pages of Scripture. I did not search in ignorance. I saw its benefits, and then I embraced it. Now the Queen is my Sovereign.”

Te Ahukaramu: “These are the things which I desire. First, God: secondly, the Queen: thirdly, the Governor. Let there be one Queen for us. Make known to us all the laws, that we may all dwell under one law.”

Raniera Te Iho: “I offer my land, in the proper manner, to the Governor. True the land passes across to the Governor, but then I get my price for it. Should I afterwards stretch forth my hand after my land, that would be wrong. I prove my allegiance to the Queen by parting with my lands. I give up my land to Queen Victoria, and to the Kings and Queens, her successors.”

Tohi Te Ueurangi: “Let the Queen be above all. I have nothing more to say.”

Most Chieftains (Ngapuhi included) echoed this thought – the Queen above all others.
New Zealand has become so politically correct that fiction is now more acceptable than the truth.

As the initiator of the Waitangi Tribunal Sir Geoffrey Palmer has created a monster and done more damage to the social and economic structure of this country than can ever be imagined. I imagine as a lawyer he has probably benefited quite well from the process.

Over the last 50 years there has been Billions of Dollars provided specifically for Maori education, health, housing etc - this is apart from Treaty settlements and we have achieved nothing except more demands.

The Waitangi Tribunal should be disestablished as being of no relevance in today's New Zealand. It was an instrument for its time when all indigenous people were of 100% Maori blood. Today many so-called Maori are in reality Europeans with a smidgen of Maori blood. They can claim nothing as they are not true Maori.

In a legal sense Maori do not exist. I have this from no less a person than Pita Sharples.

The Tribunal is irrelevant in modern New Zealand.

Four students receive pharmacy scholarships
Four Māori pharmacy students have been awarded Hiwinui Heke pharmacy scholarships – two each from the Auckland and Otago Schools of Pharmacy.

The awards are jointly presented by PHARMAC and Nga Kaitiaki o te Puna Rongoa o Aotearoa (Māori Pharmacists Association or MPA). They are aimed at Māori students enrolled at pharmacy schools and committed to studying pharmacy.

PHARMAC developed the scholarships with the MPA as a way to encourage more Māori students to complete their pharmacy studies.

The scholarships are named after Hiwinui Heke (Te Arawa), who was one of the first Māori to graduate from a New Zealand pharmacy school in 1955.

PHARMAC and the Māori Pharmacists Association (MPA) have formalised their relationship with a Memorandum of Agreement, that will underpin their relationship for the coming years......

Dear Editor (Sent to NZ Herald 17/1/15)
Waitangi Day is a circus . Year after year our PM has to be escorted by Titiwhai Harawira.

Titewhai Harawira with 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 . Witnesses told of a beating that included punching, kicking, and twisting of his genitals. Hinewhare hit him so hard, it was said in evidence, she dislocated her shoulder. 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 including a possible skull fracture. 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 PM should not have to be arm-in-arm with anyone who could treat another human being this way. It is both an insult to the PM and demeaning to the Office. If Ngapuhi won't sideline the Harawiras then the PM bodyguard should.

The Editor (Sent to the NZ Herald 14/1/15)
Little point wasting too much time on Gareth Morgan’s current hallucinations. His ill conceived foray into the world of cats his regular rants on the evil of residential property investment notwithstanding Mr.Morgans purchase of luxury, Mount Maunganui beach mansion for squillions then spending millions on makeover work stretches the credibility. Being a self anointed guru on all topics suddenly the 4 part serial nonsense pumping up Mr.Morgan’s book “Are we there yet - the future of the Treaty of Waitangi.” appears out of left field.

Perhaps Mr.Morgan, should reflect that there is only one Treaty, (maori version) with 3 Articles, a benign document all KIWIS can all live with. There is no treaty partnership, no special treaty obligations and no treaty principles other than those fabricated via political and judicial fictions over the past 40years .There can be no modernisation of Treaty terms because they remain what they were in 1840 and cannot be altered to suit special interest groups. Anyway the Treaty is an historical relic of no significance today.

While on race issues, there is no place in NZ for (un)elected representation on Government or Local Authorities based on race, particularly as part-maori are no more indigenous than all other Kiwis born in NZ. Hopefully Kiwis have enough nous to work this out, even though the main media won’t readily accept reality!

Dear Editor (Sent to the NZ Herald 13/1/15)
Raewyn Maybury's claim in the "Herald" (13/1/15) that "The British colonisation of Maori was also brutal, often horrifically so" is a piece of pure nonsense.

What was really horrifically brutal was the incessant war amongst Maori tribes before 1840, with cannibalism and massacre of prisoners commonplace and any survivors made slaves. More than a third of the population was killed in this way in the "musket wars" and it was the slaughter of so much of the breeding population which led to the major decline in Maori numbers in the early days of colonisation.

Colonisation saved the Maoris from themselves. They should be eternally grateful for it.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Herald 8/1/15)
Gareth Morgan continues waffling on about "rangatiratanga" with no idea of its 1840 meaning. As Phil Parkinson has said, "Kawharu's mistranslation of 'tino rangatiratanga' as 'the unqualified exercise of chieftainship' is not merely erroneous but preposterous". "Tino rangitira" never became common usage, "a single, late and remarkable exception" being as a title of Queen Victoria in an address to her by some Rotorua Maori residents. Parkinson quotes Durie "there is, then, no single definition of tino rangatiratanga and little comfort can be derived from linguistic origins or simplistic notions".

Two things are certain: Article first of the Treaty stating that the chiefs ceded sovereignty, neither Hobson nor anybody else would have imagined that it was contradicted a few lines later in Article second, so whatever the meaning of "tino rangatiratanga", it was nothing like "sovereignty". "Full possession" is the only meaning which makes sense in context. Furthermore, it was assured to all the people of New Zealand, "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani", not only to Maoris.

So Maori "aspirations for tino rangatira" which Morgan says will never be over, are all modern day-dreaming about fantasies of the past with no existence except in their imagination.

Dear Editor (Sent to the NZ Herald 7/1/15)
Herald readers do not need lengthy pontification from Gareth Morgan about the Treaty of Waitangi.

All they need to know is that by this document in the Ngapuhi dialect, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen completely and for ever. In return, all Maoris, including the many slaves of other Maoris, became British subjects with their full rights and privileges - a magnificent gift. It was a done deal - that was that. Whatever perceived wrongs the Maoris have experienced since have been far outweighed by the benefits British civilization brought to them - cessation of brutal tribal conflict, better food, better housing, better clothing, better transport, a written language and so on.

It is high time today that all New Zealanders of whatever ethnic origin or mixed race put the Treaty back where it belongs and moved forward in harmony as equals in a democratic state with no racist privileges of any kind for anybody.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 4/1/15)
It is ludicrous to read Manu Caddie`s allegation that the reason part-Maori are not voted into a separate Maori ward because non-maori New Zealanders are ashamed of the way they have behaved in New Zealand history. Let me remind Mr Caddie that two deputations were made by Maori elders first to King William and then Queen Victoria BEGGING them to send Troops to put a stop to tribal warfare and cannibalism. This lead to Maori to be given equality as British citizens under one law (to quote Hobson) - We are one people.

The wars that were fought were because Maori rose against the the Crown, breaking the terms of the Treaty.

We have been at peace for many years, so why do people like Caddie stridently demand special privileges for part Maori.

We have a Maori Governor General, Maori members of parliament, and in Simon Bridges a potential Prime Minister.

Councillors are chosen for their business acumen and community involvement.

Maori already have a voice in council, but if they want to be elected, they must express and show concern with rates, roading, sewerage, parks etc., and the future of our city, not just Maori interests.

Under law we are one people, no more, no less.
Pyes Pa.

RACIALLY BIASED REPRESENTATION (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 15/12/14)
Mayor Judd and his clique unsuccessfully tried to get unelected representation for part-maori interests onto New Plymouth Council Committees and a media poll showed 80% of the public supported this outcome. Then back comes Mr Judd via the back door with the Maori Ward aberration and manages to force that through 6/5 despite strong public opposition . As a result, NPC now faces an Electors poll which Mr. Judd and his clique will certainly lose with probably 80% of local Kiwis set to vote against unelected or elected Local Government representation based solely on race.

Mr Judd in desperation has tried to lobby the Government to tinker with democracy and remove the Elector poll options. Suddenly he goes even further, suggesting maori representation should be 50/50 on New Plymouth Council based on some fanciful fictional Treaty obligations whatever they may be.

Well Mr Judd, here is the truth of the matter - there is no Treaty partnership and there are no Treaty principles or obligations. In addition part-maori often with infinitesimal bloodlines comprise only 15% of Kiwi population but when taking into account diluted bloodlines in reality this effectively equates to only 3-4% of the total Kiwi bloodlines pool.

With the racial bias being displayed Mr. Judd should resign forthwith if for no reason other than this special race based privileges nonsense was not spelt out in his election manifesto.

DEAR EDITOR, (Sent to the Weekend Sun 15/12/14)
The Waitangi Tribunal, you report, 15/12/14, claims that "The Crown", meaning New Zealand's citizens, dishonours the Treaty of Waitangi over Lake Waikaremoana.

Not true. By the treaty all Maoris (tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani) got the full rights of the people of England (Article 3) and all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani) were guaranteed possession of their land, dwellings and private property (Article 2). As the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and for ever, (Article 1), English common law applied thereafter and all waterways were the common property of all the people. That is all.

Recognize this about the Waitangi Tribunal:

1. It has never rejected a claim presented to it by any tribe, no matter how ill-founded.

2. It accepted the huge claim of Ngai Tahu, who had accepted a fourth "final settlement" in 1969, and the conclusion of Alan Everton's close analysis that the claim was fraudulent.

3. It accepted the totally unfounded claim of Ngapuhi that it had never ceded sovereignty, all the evidence showing clearly that the chiefs ceded sovereignty and knew it. (See my recent article in "The Northland Age", 4/12/14.)

It is the Waitangi Tribunal which dishonours the Treaty. Its abolition is a necessity for our country's sake.

Dear Sir, Sent to the NZHerald 8/12/14
Joan Macdonald's glib letter (8/12/14) is seriously mistaken.

The proof is clear that by the Treaty (in Maori) signed by 500 or so chiefs and Hobson, the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and for ever to the Queen of England. See Bruce Moon's article in the "Northland Age" for 4/12/14 for an excellent account of this.

The so-called "English version" is a bogus document concocted after the event by Hobson's officious secretary, Freeman, to send overseas and no amount of legislation will alter that.

From 1840, British law and authority applied in place of the mayhem which preceded it, not, as Macdonald claims, by wars and confiscation. All Maori men had the vote before all settlers did.

Macdonald's sweeping claim that Maoris live in the poorest conditions because they are a minority is absurd. If it were true, it would be true of other racial minority groups too.

Billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been given to tribal elites for claims which are mostly false yet Maori social indicators get worse and worse. Might this be due to the attitude of many Maori today? If all took responsibility for their own lives the outcomes would be happier for everybody.

Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 22/11/14
Peter Dey recently scorned me for using the word "apartheid"

Another who uses the word is respected Ngapuhi leader David Rankin who will lodge a claim against the Waitangi Tribunal if they refuse to alter their report that Ngapuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty.

He says - "The tribunal makes up history as it goes along and historians point this out, yet anyone who disagrees is labelled racist - it is a body which is bringing apartheid into NZ."

Evidence Mr. Rankin gave to the tribunal was omitted as it didn't fit their narrative which is made to fit predetermined outcomes. His words - "Several radicals with little knowledge of our history had testimonies included because it fitted with their separatist agenda.

The tribunal is a bully and exists to make lawyers and elite Maori very rich. It has divided many of our communities and the sooner it is shut down the better."

This is a bombshell!

It seems that we, the taxpayer, are funding an obviously corrupt organisation which uses our money to support blatant lies of the radicals of the Maori Sovereignty Movement who have one agenda and that is to create a state of apartheid.
R. B

Sent to Hawkes Bay Today 21/11/14
A Maori board is still part of the Local Government Commission amalgamation proposal although it is not shown on the diagram published on Tuesday in the HB Today.

While the commission cannot propose an independent Maori board or Maori wards, according to page 14 of the position paper released this week, a bill that would entrench the existing regional planning committee and its joint council-Maori membership has been introduced to Parliament as part of the treaty settlement process.

Maori boards are not wanted according to ratepayer polls in Nelson, Wairoa, and Waikato in 2012, and Tauranga this week, not to mention the outcry at the New Plymouth mayor’s un-mandated push for a Maori ward.

It appears joint Maori-council bodies, with appointees guiding elected-councillor decisions, are being imposed, covertly, under the guise of “treaty partnership”.

Tuesday’s HB Today report did not mention the scale of opposition in submissions against the draft amalgamation proposal.

A total of 733 submissions, 609 (83.1 percent) opposed the proposal, 108 submissions (14.7 percent) supported it and 16 (2.2 percent) were neutral.

One submission in support included a petition with 107 signatures and 348 submissions against were on a standard form.

A heavily unpopular amalgamation proposal that includes a widely opposed Maori board does not look like a good recipe for a united and prosperous Hawke’s Bay.