Taranaki Daily News 29/6/17

COUNCIL PRESSURE

I see the New Plymouth District Council is folding under tribal pressure (TDN 24/6/17) and no council worth its salt should bow to such pressure without consulting ALL its electorate.

I, and I guess many New Zealanders, would be interested to know how ‘council decision making ability’ could be enhanced by tribal input, and surely giving undemocratic ‘effective voice’ for one racial group over others is discriminatory?

The ‘‘Encouraging Maori participation in local government’’ site page clearly states: ‘‘Taken as a whole, they are an obligation to consider what steps the council can reasonably take to encourage and assist Maori to participate in local affairs. These provisions do not confer special rights and privileges on Maori that are not accorded to other tauiwi (other members of the public).’’

We are constantly bombarded with claims to Maori sovereignty over New Zealand from political activists and racebased representation on the New Plymouth District Council is just another increment of that agenda.

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

Northland Age 29/6/17

A REFRESHER

Nobody will shake Wally Hicks' perverted view of much of our history, but it will do no harm to refresh the memories of other people.

First, the Treaty of Waitangi was translated by Williams, father and son, on the night of February May 4, 1840, from Hobson's final draft of the previous day (nicknamed the Littlewood treaty by officialdom) and dated February 4. When both documents were shown to Ngapuhi elder Graham Rankin in 2000, he said their meaning was the same.

This was not exactly true, as the Williams inserted the word Maori in Article third, which granted them the rights of British subjects, inapplicable to others. This Maori, or a synonym, appears in all translations known to me - one piece of evidence that the Littlewood treaty preceded the actual treaty and was correctly dated February 4.

The point was lost on Claudia Orange, who did not want to know about it because it upset her pretty little theories. She said it was probably a later translation by somebody unknown who got the date wrong - or words to that effect. Again, its paper was watermarked 1833 and was provided from his private stock by James Clendon, in whose home Hobson's draft was penned by James Busby. To Orange it was probably old stock that was lying around in some lawyer's office.

It is the false stories of such as Orange which are accepted officially as near to holy writ and fed to our innocent school children and to new migrants today.

By contrast, Article second, which simply guaranteed the property rights of all the people of New Zealand, did not include the word Maori. It gave emphasis only, and was actually redundant. Incidentally, when it was explained to Te Rauparaha -who signed the treaty twice - he said it was "for weaklings". To him the only rights to property were those obtained by force of arms. Thus Mitch Morgan stated correctly that there were only two essential principles in the treaty - in Articles first and third.

Hicks finds this "frankly laughable". I for one would not mind much if he laughs his head off.

By Article first, of course, the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and forever, and their recorded words at Waitangi show that clearly they understood this. Hicks belittles the Kohimarama Conference, the greatest assembly ever of Maori chiefs. It lasted a full month, and probably nearly 200 chiefs attended part or all of it. Taranaki chiefs declined to attend. They were too busy squabbling over who owned what and who had to right to sell, which led to their aimed rebellion.

That a hundred at the conference conclusion affirmed in the clearest of words that the Queen was their sovereign is dismissed airily by Hicks but reasonable people will understand its significance.

Hobson's declaration of sovereignty over the South Island probably saved Ngai Tahu from the fate they dreaded, of annexation by the French and/or annihilation by Ngatitoa.

They have done remarkably well since, with no less than five full and final settlements of claims for flaws in the purchase of land, the last which has made them very rich being found on close analysis to be a swindle.

Emissary Bunbury found Stewart Island deserted, though he did get the signatures of Tuhawaiki and Taiaroa, probably at Ruapuke.

Taiaroa, incidentally, made the long journey to Kohimarama. Tuhawaiki was drowned at sea in 1845.

However, the greatest thing the treaty did for Maori tribes was to save them from themselves, as observed by Chief Taipari, of Tauranga. In the preceding decades they had killed and eaten about a third of their own population.

People with some Maori ancestry have many privileges and financial support today, and many are well aware of this. If the rest would stop believing that other New Zealanders owe them a living, stood on their own feet and kept within the law, they would find that they live in a pretty good country.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

LET'S SAY NO

Say no to racism — my sentiments exactly Dame Susan, so let us get rid of the Maori Party, Maori All Blacks, the Maori Council, Maori Broadcasting, the Waitangi Tribunal, for Maori only, Maori Fisheries Council and a multitude of organisations exclusively for Maori.

Is this not a sign of racism?

If you regard it as an ethnicity matter, then why are there not similar official organisations for the other hundreds of ethnicities in New Zealand?

Your perception is illogically selective. He iwi tahi tatou. Are we not all one people? New Zealanders.

The media, while willingly supporting the government contention that Maori are deserving of special and exclusive treatment, are willing to publish derisory comments on Don Brash and the Hobson's Pledge Trust, but are reluctant to print contrary views that are of vital concern to the majority of New Zealanders. Views that aspire to support of democracy.

This media attitude disparages the concept of a fair, free and objective Press.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Bay of Plenty Times 29/6/17

GATE PA

Your editorial by Sonya Bateson (Opinion, June 23) refers to lack of teaching on New Zealand history. I can report to her that all is well.

When I was at school in the 1950s we were taught extensively about the Treaty of Waitangi and the Battle of Gate Pa wherein the British were roundly beaten by superior Maori tactics along with the acts of chivalry and compassion.

Then there was the battle of Te Ranga, following which order was restored.

The article on the commemoration of Te Ranga (News, June 22) wherein the British launched a pre-emptive strike against a looming threat which Des Tata refers to as a “massacre” was certainly a tragedy.

However, given that the British has been thrashed and outclassed two months before, it is understandable that they were wary this time round.

The Maori could have negotiated peace, possibly surrendered, but chose their own destiny.

I have learned through many years of reading that history is usually very biased. That’s okay, but we need to be aware.

A comment on wars generally – the civilian population usually suffers to a far greater extent than the combatants.

BILL CAPAMAGIAN, Tauranga

Northland Age 27/6/17

MEDIA SILENCE

I have no political party affiliations, and so whether you publish my letters or not is immaterial.

What is pertinent is the reluctance of much of the media to publish both sides of political opinion, such as the obvious, selective racism shown by the government; 44 meetings with Maori exclusively since 2008 and with no inclusion of the general public.

This evasion defies democracy.

Your responsibility, as the Fourth Estate, unless you are a nominally political publication, is to see that your reportage is open, fair and objective.

If it is not, then it is no better than the media silence that enabled Hitler to exercise power.

This is not histrionic hyperbole, it is fact.

BRYAN JOHNSON , Omokoroa

Taranaki Daily News 27/6/17

NOT LEARNING

We have a governance group set up by the NPDC with a Maori name and includes five so called iwi leaders. When did this happen? I find iwi involvement undemocratic, unconstitutional and certainly misleading.

These so called self-appointed iwi leaders did not have the fortitude to call a hui with their beneficiaries and or hapu to discuss this option before implementation and election. Surely as beneficiaries we needed to be involved in electing of these iwi leaders.

The process NPDC has used is a breach of trust between those that have been appointed as Trustees on their respective iwi boards, their beneficiaries, and hapu. The selection of these people is undemocratic, high-hand, dictatorial and certainly autocratic.

Past Maori committees have not worked because it was set up by Pakeha (NPDC) for Maori, without discussing this with Iwi as a people. How dare NPDC select these people and then call them our leaders, who are you? When will you people learn?

WILLIAM SIMPSON Waitara

Waikato Times 26/6/17

BARCLAY AFFAIR

So Prime Minister Bill English recalled in a few hours the Todd Barclay incident. He has had 14 years to recall his National Party’s pledge to abolish Maori Electorates. Let’s hope that’s long enough.

BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa

Dominion Post 26/6/17

CANNABIS DEBATE

It’s great news for Maori that a cannabis bill was drawn from Parliament’s ballot box, as they make up the demographic most adversely affected by the current cannabis prohibition.

Although the high use of cannabis in this country includes all population sectors, it is Maori and representatives of other minority groups who are disproportionately incarcerated on cannabis charges.

The huge harm that affects the entire family of those dragged through the courts and imprisoned on cannabis charges is too extensive to measure but we know – from every social study – that criminalisation of a parent often results in damaged children and marriage difficulties.

Most New Zealanders know cannabis has remarkable medicinal potential. The sooner we develop our own industry, the sooner we can offer affordable cannabis to those who would benefit from it.

Bill English seems to prefer we be limited to imported $1000+/month pharmaceutical cannabis products, making them affordable only to the rich. [abridged]

VICTORIA DAVIS Golden Bay

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 23/6/17

MAORI ALL BLACKS ‘RACE-BASED NONSENSE’

We should all adopt Don Brash's recent assessment of the race-based situation reinforcing the paramount significance of citizenship over dodgy ethnicity considerations.

Maori ‘All Blacks' comprising mainly players of infinitesimal Maori bloodlines are a race-based nonsense in the same league as the reserved anachronistic Maori Parliamentary seats. It is about time some of the media's editorial staff stopped fantasising over, fictionalising and rabbiting on about all things Maori and took a healthy dose of reality by facing the facts.

A couple of quotes sum it up rather nicely. “The worst enemy of humans is not brute facts but men/women with brains who will not face them.” (Eastman) and “Facts are stubborn things and whatever our wishes, our inclinations or the dictates of our passions they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” (John Adams).

Returning to last Saturday's rugby game, the performance by the Maori team was lamentable and a huge disappointment to the 28,000 followers who turned out to see them live up to their pre-match hype.

Frankly, it ended up in the same reeking-of-overconfidence mess as was the case in 1956 when the Springboks handed out a 37-zip thrashing.

S PATERSON, Arataki

SAY NO TO RACISM

My sentiments exactly Dame Susan (‘Anti-racism campaign launched', SunLive, June 15), so let us get rid of the Maori Party, Maori All Blacks, the Maori Council, Maori Broadcasting, the Waitangi Tribunal for Maori only, Maori Fisheries Council and a multitude of organisations exclusively for Maori.

Is this not a sign of racism? If you regard it as an ethnicity matter then why are there not similar official organisations for the other hundreds of ethnicities in New Zealand? Your perception is illogically selective. ‘He iwi tahi tatou.' Are we not all one people? New Zealanders.

The media, while willingly supporting the government contention that Maori are deserving of special and exclusive treatment, are willing to publish derisory comments on Don Brash and the Hobson's Pledge Trust, but are reluctant to print contrary views that are of vital concern to the majority of New Zealanders. Views that aspire to support democracy. This media attitude disparages the concept of a fair, free and objective press.

B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.

Otago Daily Times 24/6/17

RACE-BASED LANGUAGE – POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

KEITH Adams' letter on race-based language (ODT, 21.6.17) seems a bit double Dutch at first, but he asks —what is good taste, and what is good humour these days?

Brought up in upland Otago I believe I have heard it all, with a fair bit of sexism chucked in as well. Billy T. James had his following. Recently I heard a talk by Mike King, who appears to have become a reformed comedy buff.

To be honest I feel more liberated, and less guarded in what I say in jest these days. I find women to be more relaxed and more amenable to a bit of a joke than over the last 40 years. In my '50s childhood the Irish Catholics were the butt of really vile jokes and rhymes. I could still quote them to provide examples. But yet the Irish joke became a hilarious genre. in the hands of the Irish themselves— and why not?

Our generation learned to push its boundaries and to stretch the musical and cultural genres. If I was to open my mouth and not put my foot in it. I would find the tone of voice the most important thing. The words and phrases we might hesitate to use should be used and ventilated. Political correctness be damned.

DAVID GEORGE Cromwell

NZ Herald 24/6/17 (A quick word section)

Again the racist card is played. Security holds the wrong woman because a shop assistant says a Maori woman stole a wig. Who is the security staff supposed to apprehend. a blond Norwegian?

R. WILLIAMSON, Kohimarama.

Waikato Times 23/6/17

`SAY NO TO RACISM'

My sentiments exactly Dame Susan, so let us get rid of the Maori Party, Maori All Blacks, the Maori Council, Maori Broadcasting, the Waitangi Tribunal, for Maori only, Maori Fisheries Council and a multitude of organisations exclusively for Maori. Is this not a sign of racism?

If you regard it as an ethnicity matter then why are there not similar official organisations for the other hundreds of ethnicities in New Zealand? Your perception is illogically selective. "He iwi tahi tatou." Are we not all one people? New Zealanders.

The media, while willingly supporting the government contention that Maori are deserving of special and exclusive treatment, are willing to publish derisory comments on Don Brash and the Hobson's Pledge Trust, but are reluctant to print contrary views that are of vital concern to the majority of New Zealanders. Views that aspire to support democracy.

This media attitude disparages the concept of a fair, free and objective press.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

NZ Herald 22/6/17

MAJORITY RULE

Waaka Vercoe asks why those who want to scrap separate Maori electorates don’t talk to him and others on the Maori electoral roll before calling for the abolition of those electorates. The answer is simple. Whether to retain Maori electorates is a decision for all New Zealanders, not just for those who happen to identify with the Maori part of their ancestry.

The Maori electorates were established in 1867 when only men who had property could vote. Because most property owned by Maori was communally owned, almost no Maori men were able to vote. The four Maori electorates enabled all Maori men to vote. They were intended to last for just five years, and became redundant in 1893 when all adults got the vote.

DON BRASH, Co-spokesperson, Hobson’s Pledge Trust

The Northern Advocate 22/6/17

EARLIEST SETTLERS

Juliet Golightly said in her May 31 article that if scientific evidence was to surface to prove that white people with red hair came to NZ before Maori no doubt there would be intense academic and general interest in such a find. Really?

The book To the Ends of the Earth written by Maxwell C. Hill, with a foreword by Professor David Bellamy published in 2012 provided plenty of proof that Maori were not the first people of NZ. It included a statement by Hoani Nahe, a Maori elder from the Hauraki region, who in 1894 stated that when the Maori migration arrived here they found people already living in the land. Ngati Turehu are a sub tribe of a people called Patupaiarehe.

I have not seen any intense academic/scientific/archaeological interest in trying to determine our true history, instead when skulls, bones or artefacts are found they are assumed to be Maori and given to local iwi for burial. These should all be automatically sent for DNA testing for their true origins.

Over the years there have been many questions in regard to the stone walls in the Waipoua Forest that are not of Maori origin, so where are the archaeologists investigating these walls, why have they not been documented and the results published?

It is therefore left to amateur historians like Noel Hilliam to try to determine our true history. Sadly when he published his findings in the Northern Advocate, instead of the intense academic interest all he has received is vitriol and threats.

CHRIS ROWE Mangawhai

Northland Age 22/6/17

TIME ENOUGH

So the Prime Minister, Bill English, recalled in a few hours the Todd Barclay incident. He has had 14 years to recall his National Party's pledge to abolish Maori electorates. Let's hope that's long enough.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

OPEN WIDE

Dame Susan Devoy's article in the New Zealand Herald on racism is uninspiring, cliched and obvious, and does not suit the academic quality that might be expected from one in her official position.

When she was appointed to her present position in 2013, her appointment was roundly criticised by Maori. It was said of her appointment by the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Judith Collins, that "No matter how heroic, well meaning or nice Susan Devoy may be, this was a provocative, symbolic, even poetic act." When she refused to be interviewed she was criticised by sociologist Tulia Thompson: . This is a kettle taken off the boil ... while National finds manuka-honeyed words to slip inside your mouth."

Marama Davidson, of The Daily Blog, called for poems titled Susan Stand Down and received more than 50 replies, suggesting she should refuse the position. However, during her tenure, she allayed any further criticism from that quarter by displaying a less than objective stance on race issues. In her recent Waitangi Day speech she accepted the Kingites' oral record of the actions at Rangioawhia between Tainui rebels and the Colonial Forces during the Waikato Campaign, without any reference to the contrary, historical records.

And rebels they were, as affirmed by Sir Apirana Ngata and the Kohimarama Conference chiefs.

This was scarcely appropriate for her role as a Race Relations Conciliator. C'mon, Dame Susan, open your other eye and start to represent all New Zealanders, without fear or favour.

BRYAN JOHNSON OMOKOROA

The Press 21/6/17

MAORI ECONOMY

The article in The Press (June 19) on the projections for the fast-growing Maori economy omitted to mention the fact that many Maori businesses pay no income tax, therefore have a distinct cash advantage over similar businesses that do contribute to wider society by paying income tax.

Yet some Maori businesses do pay income tax, albeit at a much lower rate than the company rate of 28 per cent, by paying tax at the Maori Authority rate of 17.5 per cent which is based on the marginal tax rate of Maori.

Interestingly, some Maori Authority business are in the same sectors and are in effect at a fiscal disadvantage to those that operate as pseudo charities.

Given that the Government is looking into tax issues generally, is it not time that these fiscal issues were also revisited?

DR MICHAEL GOUSMETT Rangiora

The Northern Advocate 21/6/17

FIRST FOOTPRINTS

Re: Letter to the Editor

In your headlined article of May 31, Amateur historian quizzed on skulls, you have disclosed a bias supporting the theory of Maori being the first inhabitants.

Quoting Bill Edwards as a Northland history expert over and above Noel Hilliam, with over 50 years of practical investigations, is farcical.

For Mr Edwards to categorically deny total absence of archaeological evidence when Northland has a proliferation of ancient sites is nonsense.

To also say, there are no linguistic links to other languages shows he knows nothing about the work New Zealand’s Professor Barry Fell. Fell is noted for his linguistic and ancient script studies and stands alongside Rutherford and Hillary for pioneering achievements.

Then geologically, we have human footprints, cut moa bones, rat remains and petroglyphs in and under the volcanic tephra.

Biologically, we have more Waitaha, Turehu and Patupaiarehe descendants in Northland than probably anywhere else in New Zealand.

Those who have had DNA analysis done, confirm their heritage links with past civilisations. Look at any Maori population groups and you will find blue or green eyes, reddish or blonde hair and aquiline or Mongolian-like features. (Abridged)

B JONES Hamilton

Wanganui Chronicle 21/6/17

MAORI IN PRISON

Potonga Neilson (letters, June 5) does not read my letter correctly. I did not say that Maori culture and character were based on gang culture. I wrote of guarding territory.

Prison is for people whose misbehaviour cannot be tolerated.

I ask: "What rules of behaviour are taught in tikanga Maori?

Is there anything like the Ten Commandments followed by Israelis, Jews and Christians?"

The question I ask Potonga is: "Why do so many Maori misbehave and end up in prison?"

TOM PITTAMS Wanganui

Northern Advocate 20/6/17

COASTAL RIGHTS

I wonder how many New Zealanders are aware that under National's Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 just by registering a claim to the coastline, tribal groups pick up important rights — to be notified of any developments in their claimed area —and can get paid mining royalties (backdated to the lodgement of claim) if their claim is approved.

Further, the approx 600 claimants are eligible for $8.45 million of taxpayer funding to assist with their claims, while a $110 fee is imposed on anyone who wishes to file an objection with the High Court.

Therefore tribal groups have good incentives to lodge claims regardless of how frivolous.

Some lodged claim applications seek the right to "take" dolphins and whales, penguins and seals, mine the area for minerals and extract sand — free rein to exploit our coasts!

As New Zealand Herald columnist Fran O'Sullivan wrote on February 6, 2010, "Park the charming stories about the customary connections that Maori enjoy with the foreshore and seabed. "What's really at stake are the big bucks that can be earned from commercial activities such as marine farming, mining, ironsands or even clipping the ticket on revenue from off-shore gas and petroleum deposits."

New Zealanders should vigorously oppose all claims.

GEOFF PARKER Kamo

NZ Herald 19/6/17

CITIZENSHIP, NOT ETHNICITY

While the Maori All Blacks exist as a remnant of a bygone paternalistic age, the team kaumatua and whakapapa checks belong to a new paternalism that the June 17 Herald editorial seems to endorse wholeheartedly.

The editorial writer laments that "some in this country seem wilfully to misconceive the purpose of Maori electorates for Parliament, iwi consultation under the Resource Management Act, 'race based' considerations in university admissions, even this week a Maori All Black team".

In the writer's view, New Zealanders are in one of two camps, Maori or non-Maori. He appears unaware that the 2013 census found more ethnicities here than there are countries in the world, with 189 languages spoken.

The only way New Zealand can go forward in harmony is through policies uniting all of us by our common citizenship rather than by dividing us by our different ethnicities.

Demands by the Pasifika, Chinese, Indian, African, and Middle Eastern people of our country for separate electorates, specific clauses in legislation, quotas in medical school, and so on, would strain our system to breaking point.

Hopefully, before then we will have journalists promoting rights based on citizenship, not ethnicity.

As Bill English argued in a 2002 speech, our future must be based on a single standard of citizenship. DON BRASH, Co-spokesperson for the Hobson 's Pledge Trust

Herald on Sunday 18/6/17

RAM RAIDS AND RECIDIVISTS

Apparently around 600 dairies that legally sell cigarettes, plus liquor stores and petrol stations are at serious risk from physical attack by violent thugs and the Government proposes to provide $1.8m to protect them.

How, pray tell, will that happen?

The dairy owners are entitled to go about their lawful business unmolested by these pieces of trash.

One solution is to target these felons, not isolate the victims.

So why not consider arming the potential victims, amend the Crimes Act to permit this under very stringent controls including the use only of wadded blank cartridges appropriately called "ratshot"

Law-abiding citizens already have the right to use reasonable force against threats and violence so give those at risk the option of getting gun licences, firearms tuition and practice and they are ready to fight like with like.

The cost of supplying 600 shopkeepers with automatic pump-action shotguns (the choice of many police forces worldwide) at $500 each would be only about $300,000.

One benefit is a taxpayer saving of $1.5 million on Paula Bennett's inane scheme.

The other positive deterrent outcome will enable the ready identification of the felons and their supportive relatives.

ROB PATERSON, Mt Maunganui

Dunedin Star 15/6/17

Dear Sir,

The headlines of The Star ( 8/6/17) : "Prayers in show of solidarity - Parihaka formal apology"... blah blah, were enough to drive any informed person to complete despair - and to wonder if real investigative journalism ( as opposed to ideological propaganda ) still exists anywhere in mainstream news media.

There is no excuse for ignorance regarding the Parihaka affair for the facts of the matter were well documented at the time and are available to anyone prepared to do a little objective research.

The "Prophets of peace", both Te Whiti and Tohu, were former Hau Hau warriors ( they who used the decapitated heads of Europeans as footballs ) only resorted to "passive resistance" ( a.k.a breaking the law and the Treaty of Waitangi ) when they realised that killing non combatant settlers and loyal Maoris was not going to work.

At the time some said that Parihaka was a proverbial "den of iniquity".

After some eleven years of illegal occupation ( so, what's new ? ) and refusal to honestly negotiate with the Crown the authorities were left with no option but to expel the squatters ( completely without violence ) and end the anarchy.

As explained by Dunedin author the late Stuart.C. Scott, the Rongo Stone itself is a monument to a myth.

Mr. Scott revealed the truth in his 1995 book "The Travesty of Waitangi" in which he commented that his own grandfather Adam Scott was a warden at the Dunedin jail and had charge of the Parihaka prisoners.

The standing joke in the Scott family at the time was that their father threatened his charges that if they were not back at the gaol by 6pm they would be locked out !

The slanderous lies ( for that is what they are ) aimed at the European civilisers of New Zealand are no new thing. They have been unrelenting for nearly two centuries now.

No wonder that race relations continue to deteriorate when the Neo-Marxist Left, whose very raison d'etre is the denigration of their own forebears, are so implacable in their refusal to desist.

One can only wonder how much longer New Zealanders will permit this sort of misinformation to continue ?

COLIN RAWLE. Dunedin

Bay of Plenty Times 17/6/17

COMPO PAYMENTS DISAPPOINTING

I was at Pilot Bay on Thursday morning and saw the waka coming from what I thought was Matakana Island, and thought what a great sight. I thought it might be some thing to do with Matariki.

Reading the paper on Friday, this was a protest between Maori tribes. I am disappointed. I have been told so many times in the past few years that we are one country and should all get on, this is not happening in today's world. we see more and more money going to Maori when we should all be benefiting from money given out by the government.

After the payout a few weeks ago in Wanganui, I heard a few comments suggesting that those in England during World War II should be able to get compensation from Germany for damage to their houses, land, loss of relatives, etc, but of course, that is never going to happen. but it does here.

What amazed me watching TV a few weeks ago how many people attended the service at Wanganui on a Friday and the same yesterday at Pilot Bay. Do they not have to earn a living?

WENDY GALLOWAY Omokoroa

NZ Herald 17/6/17 (A quick word section)

In a week when Dame Susan Devoy, the Race Relations Commissioner, asks for New Zealanders to ‘give nothing to racism’ and Sonny Bill Williams, Sam Neil and Taika Waititi call on Kiwis to support the c.ause we still have a Maori All Black side play the Lions

R. J. LANGFORD Howick

Nelson Mail 16/6/17

ONE PEOPLE

Under Sec.103 Marine and Coastal Sea Act 2011, more than 100 applications have been made to the High Court of New Zealand by the Tribal Iwi to secure absolute title and customary rights' over the entire New Zealand coastline and seabed, out to the 12 mile limit.

This group of descendants of Polynesian immigrants wish to take control of our way of life without contributing in any way to the past development.

What does this mean to you and your grand children if they succeed?

Tahuna beach and Rabbit Island will have an entry fee. The total reclamation at Port Nelson will return an income to the local iwi. And bear in mind that all of this will be placed in a Trust that pays little or no tax on the profits.

Surely it is time to stop all this silly nonsense and these descendants from the early immigrants acknowledged their European heritage and the tremendous benefits that they derive from this heritage.

JOHN HARTS Nelson.

Sunlive / Weekend Sun 16/6/17

RACE-BASED FUNDING?

A fund of $4 million has just been launched to assist young Maori to get their driver's licence so that they are better able to get work or keep out of jail.

Many young people cannot stump up the three-tiered cost of $338.20 to get their licence.

Why is the taxpayer funding yet another programme based on ethnicity and why doesn't our elected government govern for all NZ citizens based on need, not on the squeaky wheel of tribal Maori elite?

M ANDERSON, Pyes Pa.

TIME TO REIGN IN HAKA

Why did the rugby union ask 40,000 patrons to stand and remain silent for one minute and then allow the Blues rugby team to perform a haka in front of the visiting Lions which included the image of throat cutting? Had they not heard that many of the victims in the London attack had similar injuries? What a disgrace, and what did the world watching think of our country in letting this be performed?

The haka used to be performed for special occasions and now should only be performed by the All Blacks when international teams are visiting - minus the throat cutting - or when overseas. It seems to be used as entertainment for every occasion and has become irrelevant to the point that we will see the haka for the opening of a can of baked beans.

G SPROULL, Matua.

NZ Herald 16/6/17

REVERSE DISCRIMINATION

I totally agree with Susan Devoy that there is no place for racism in New Zealand.

This evil does start small and grows exponentially if allowed to or encouraged, which is why so many are concerned at the legalising of racism in our courts, bureaucracies and institutions — something she endorses.

A non-racist country would have laws applying equally to all of us.

Welfare and support would be dispensed according to need, not ethnicity.

But this is not the case in New Zealand.

FIONA MACKENZIE, Whangaparaoa.

Waikato Times 16/6/17

DRIVER'S LICENCE FUND

A fund of $4 million has just been launched to assist young Maori to get their driver's licences so that they are better able to get work or keep out of jails, the three-tiered cost of $338.20 to get their licence.

Why is the taxpayer ftmding yet another programme based on ethnicity and why doesn't our elected government govern for all NZ citizens based on need, not on the squeaky wheel of tribal Maori elite?

MAUREEN J ANDERSON Tauranga

NZ Herald 15/6/17

NZ MAORI TEAM

We’re a funny old place sometimes, especially with our rugby. Long gone are expressions like “Maori time” and “we’ve made them honorary whites, so look out South Africa”, but we still field a racebased team against visiting internationals.

Why haven’t Dr Brash and the others picked this up? Did Hobson really say, “He iwi tahi tatau, except for rugby”? Some Pakeha are better players than some Maori All Blacks. We know this because they are All Blacks. Perhaps they could be designated “honorary Maori” and be eligible. But then the team would be All Blacks, and the match would be just another test.

GARY FERGUSON, Epsom.

Bay of Plenty Times 15/6/17

ETHNIC FUNDING

A fund of $4 million has just been launched to assist young Maori to get their driver’s licence so that they are better able to get work or keep out of jail. Many young people cannot stump up the three-tiered cost of $338.20 to get their licence.

Why is the taxpayer funding yet another programme based on ethnicity and why doesn’t our elected government govern for all New Zealand citizens based on need not on the squeaky wheel of tribal Maori elite?

MAUREEN J ANDERSON, Pyes Pa

The Northern Advocate 15/6/17

HISTORY LESSONS

Another interesting letter from Juliet Golightly ( Northern Advocate June 3).

She attempts to rubbish the work of Noel Hilliam, and insists that government embargoes on historical sites do not exist, and then states that any mention of pre-Maori inhabitants is a politically motivated (racist) conspiracy.

Mr Hilliam may not have the higher education qualifications that Ms Golightly apparently deems necessary for credibility, but his search for our true New Zealand history has led him to discover and investigate sites that our “official historians” have never seen yet still see fit to air their expert opinions on.

Educated they may be, but education is no substitute for observation. Ivory towers do not a historian make.

Ms Golightly asserts that government embargoes don’t exist on historical sites in NZ. In 2004, MP the Hon Chris Carter was asked, under an “official information” request, how many archaeological embargoes were presently in place. He forwarded a written response that there were 105 current embargoes, mostly concerning burial sites.

Mr Hilliam worked alongside government archaeologists at the Waipoua Forest stone village until archaeologist Michael Taylor abruptly shut down the site, placing a 75-year embargo on documented findings. A legal challenge eventually had the documents released, notably missing the carbon dating figures obtained during site investigations.

I have had the pleasure of meeting Monica Matamua, spokesperson for the surviving Ngati Hotu (Patupaiarehe) people who settled in NZ some 2000 years ago, and also George Connelly (Hori Kupenga Manuka Manuka) paramount chief of the Waitaha people who arrived here around 550AD.

The Waitangi Tribunal refused to acknowledge their testimony, ruling in favour of conflicting Maori claims.

It is unimportant whether the original tangata whenua had white, brown or black skin pigmentation. The goal of the search is for truth; not the pursuit of a predetermined agenda.

MITCH MORGAN Kaipara

Northland Age 15/6/17

BIG BUCKS

I wonder how many New Zealanders are aware that, under National's Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, just by registering a claim to the coastline tribal groups pick up important rights — to be notified of any developments in their claimed area — and can get paid mining royalties (backdated to the lodgement of claim) if their claim is approved?

Further, the approximate 600 claimants are eligible for $8.45 million of taxpayer funding to assist with their claims, while a $110 fee is imposed on anyone who wishes to file an objection with the High Court.

Therefore tribal groups have good incentives to lodge claims, regardless of how frivolous.

Some lodged claim applications seek the right to "take" dolphins and whales, penguins and seals, mine the area for minerals and extract sand — free rein to exploit our coasts.

As New Zealand Herald columnist Fran O'Sullivan wrote on February 6, 2010, "Park the charming stories about the customary connections that Maori enjoy with the foreshore and seabed, what's really at stake are the big bucks that can be earned from commercial activities such as marine farming, mining, iron sands, or even clipping the ticket on revenue from offshore gas and petroleum deposits."

New Zealanders should vigorously oppose all claims.

GEOFF PARKER Kamo

NZ Herald 14/6/17 (Short & Sweet section)

ON DOCTORS

Did I just read an article about "Maori doctors'? Am I missing something? If I go to hospital should I be requesting an "English" doctor? Is there an elephant in the room, sitting quietly, scared?

KEN DUFFIN,Papakura

NZ Herald 13/6/17 ( Also in Waikato Times 13/6/17, Southland Times 13/6/17, Wanganui Chronicle 13/6/17 Heading: ‘Coastal Claims’)

FORESHORE RIGHTS

I wonder how many New Zealanders are aware that under National’s Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 that just by registering a claim to the coastline, tribal groups pick up important rights - to be notified of any developments in their claimed area, and can get paid mining royalties (backdated to the lodgement of claim) if their claim is approved.

Further, the approximately 600 claimants are eligible for $8.45 million of taxpayer funding to assist with their claims, while a $110 fee is imposed on anyone who wishes to file an objection with the High Court.

Therefore tribal groups have good incentives to lodge claims regardless of how frivolous.

Some lodged claim applications seek the right to ‘‘take’’ dolphins and whales, penguins and seals, mine the area for minerals and extract sand – free reign to exploit our coasts!

As New Zealand Herald columnist Fran O’Sullivan wrote on February 6, 2010, “Park the charming stories about the customary connections that Maori enjoy with the foreshore and seabed, what’s really at stake are the big bucks that can be earned from commercial activities such as marine farming, mining, iron sands or even clipping the ticket on revenue from offshore gas and petroleum deposits.”

New Zealanders should vigorously oppose all claims.

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

PARIHAKA APOLOGY (Also in Northland Age 13/6/17)

The true history at Parihaka has been obfuscated by histrionics on television —weeping, wailing and the gnashing of truth in Te Reo.

Chris Finlayson has divested taxpayers of more hard-earned dollars and apologised for actions that took place more than 100 years before they were born. In doing so he has played fast and loose with historical facts.

The inhabitants of Parihaka had occupied the land illegally for 10 years. A peaceful people do not hoard 250 firearms as Te Whitt did.

In spite of implied brutality of the colonial forces, the only casualty was a local boy whose foot was trampled by a horse.

The romantic myth of Parihaka has been celebrated in verse and song; the media is unlikely to let dramatic reportage be diminished by seeking truth and so this will not be aired.

BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa.

The Northern Advocate 12/6/17

TREATY ‘PARTNERS’

Is the Treaty partnership?

Amongst the news media coverage of Far North Mayor John Carter’s $1 billion investment agreement with Tus-Holdings was the statement by his deputy, Tania McInnes, that the council should work closely with its ‘Treaty of Waitangi partners,’ the Te Rawara iwi, in considering Tus’ investment proposals.

However, as an historian of some years of experience, I can find no reference whatsoever to ‘partner’ or ‘ partnership’ in the 1840 Treaty documents.

So are the claims of a treaty partnership true or false? Here is a chance for your readers to benefit from their knowledge of New Zealand history.

Discover the words ‘partner’ or ‘partnership,’ or any reference to these words, in any contemporaneous versions of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi documents, and I will gladly donate $5000 to a nominated charity, via this newspaper.

My only condition is that the words must have been found in the actual, formal Treaty as written and signed in 1840. They cannot come from some other, later interpretation, opinion, document or material.

PAUL VERDON Torbay

HISTORY MYSTERY

Reference your article, May 31, one wonders if Heritage New Zealand is The Flat Earth Society reincarnated with the repeated denial of anything that goes against their concepts of New Zealand’s ancient history.

For Bill Edwards to deny no evidence of pre-Maori habitation is to admit to being blind or deliberately blinkered (on whose direction?) to what is readily available to be seen at various locations around New Zealand.

The responsibility to protect anything archaeological is well known, but there has been wholesale destruction of sites of interest in the Waipoua Forest and surrounding hills.

The government authorities have not expressed any interest or concern. Why not?

There is more than ample evidence available and with sufficient provenance to justify a royal commission inquiry.

Nothing less will satisfy a growing army demanding that New Zealand’s rich pre-Maori history be truly documented and established as factually as is possible, given that a large number of very interesting sites have been deliberately and systematically destroyed.

It is a matter of record that a large number of sites of significance were recorded in the Waipoua Forest and that this record was embargoed till 2063 until an enlightened Minister of Conservation lifted that embargo in the public interest.

However, a lot will not now be found as they have been scattered and destroyed.

Having seen some of the stone work in the Waipoua forest and the markings on some stone, (which match an acknowledged Phoenician style) there is no other logical explanation for this other than human activity at some distant past date.

Noel Hilliam is a national treasure with his knowledge of what he has unearthed on land and under the sea, and yet is not accorded the recognition that such a dedicated explorer deserves.

Why? This humble man has more knowledge in his fingertips than Heritage New Zealand has in their archives, and is more than willing to share his vast storehouse of history with any genuine seeker of the truth.

There is, it is believed, a great thirst for knowledge of our colourful past which also includes many Maori friends and acquaintances.

This desire for previously unrecognised facts will not be denied. (abridged)

S REILLY Kaikohe

Dominion Post 12/6/17

TREATY’S HOME

Your leader (The Treaty House, May 27) suggests the fervent Internal Affairs spin justifying shifting the Treaty of Waitangi to the National Library has been swallowed uncritically.

Neither it nor the weak arguments outlined by the present Chief Archivist (Letters, May 20) address the serious issues raised by two of her distinguished predecessors (Letters, May 17).

Why couldn’t the enthusiastically acclaimed new exhibition space have been constructed in the building where the Treaty rightly, arguably legally, belongs? What would have been the costs of refurbishment compared to the recorded extravagance?

If, as the Chief Archivist implies, Archives House now offers less than optimal storage, are other records of the nation at risk? How does this situation reflect on Internal Affairs’ stewardship? Her contention that greater space and a better location could not have been made available stretches credulity.

The oft-stated proposition that the Treaty will be ‘‘more accessible’’ is equally feeble. From the opening of Archives House, viewing was freely available.

The argument that this may better appeal to schoolchildren misses the point that the Treaty is the birthright of all ages. Seemingly razzamatazz is deemed more appropriate than respectful display.

Neither spendthrift Internal Affairs officials, nor their minister, should take pride in this exorbitantly expensive departmental hijacking of New Zealand’s founding document.

ALAN FERGUSON Formerly GM, Corporate Services, Archives New Zealand (1993-2006)

Wanganui Chronicle 12/6/17

GET OVER IT

Oh, Potonga, never, ever have I said "sweep it under the mat", but your "verbose diatribes"are non-productive!

I note you never write of the indignities and cruelties practised by tribe against tribe, both before and after European arrivals?

Other nations have similar problems to Maori and don't continually gripe about it.

I was living in Indonesian Timor when East Timor was but a province of that country, was in that province during the transition to the founding of "Timor-Leste" and was fortunate enough to work alongside Gusmao, Alkatiri and Belo.

The atrocities by Indonesians against Indonesians are beyond belief, and yet the East Timorese are not bitter. They are getting on with life, determined to put the past aside.

I was in the thick of it, serving alongside our troops (Maori and Fijian soldiers) watching with great interest to see these people "get on with it".

I was in Poland briefly while it was still a quasi-communist-run country and in Berlin just after the wall came down, and those people are not full of "historical hurt" like you. Get over it, Potonga.

MICHAEL WILTON Taihape

Wanganui Chronicle 10/6/17

PLEASING MAORI

The National Party is at it again wanting the Maori votes and forking out $8.45 million assistance to Maori groups claiming customary interests in our coastline, with a further $33m for covering administration costs of the marine and coastal area claim.

It has been confirmed by minister Chris FInlayson that there are 580 claims that have been lodged.

Any member of the public wanting to oppose these claims will have to pay $110 in fees for each notice they register.

The taxpayers are forced to pay for those groups who want the coastline for themselves.

It's time for the voters of New Zealand to wipe this party off the face of the earth — we don't have to put up with apartheid in this country any longer. — (Edited)

IAN BROUGHAM Tawhero

Hawkes Bay Today 10/6/17

FAIR SHARE?

Mekia Whaititi’s article re Budget.

Get real. She wants “fairer access to government programmes and services”.

All New Zealanders, including Maori, get 99 per cent of new government spending.

Maori get the other 1 per cent exclusively. Seems to me this is more than fair. I don’t see any government sponsored kindergarten vans around.

Why should kohanga reo get $5 million for new vans when it is already sponsored to the tune of $92m pa?

Now she wants to plunder the KiwiSaver home start fund to “ensure Maori access a fair share of that fund”.

Maori entitlement to that fund is in proportion to the amount they individually contributed to that fund. No more. No less.

It will be an interesting election. If we see any more of this racially dividing rubbish I can only say “God defend New Zealand”.

MURRAY CHRISTISON Napier

Northern Advocate 10/6/17

PRE-MAORI HISTORY

Regarding the article on pre-Maori History of NZ (May 31), may I respectfully suggest you acquire a copy of the NZ published book To The Ends Of The Earth, that has a forward written by no less credible academic than Professor David Bellamy of the UK.

The historic evidence of early voyages by the Egyptians (Ptolemy 3rd), Greeks and Phoenicians have been unearthed in Vatican records. taken from the sacked ancient Library of Alexandria.

I am sure you will be fascinated to learn that the Commander of Fleet sent by the Pharaoh to discover a route to the East was named no less than Maui ... and his general one Rata! Do those names not ring a bell with you? The link with Maori legend is obvious.

No matter how NZ bureaucrats and PC academics belittle the authors, there is evidence, including rock carvings around NZ, to refute the denigration of this contribution to historic knowledge.

Most would say that Dr Bellamy can trump them all.

Is it not general knowledge that the NZ sweet potato or kumara originated in Peru? And probably brought back across the Pacific. left in several islands, by the remainder of the original fleet and the hardy sailors who managed to return to the Mediterranean with their maps. These are photographed in the book, from the original Egyptian/Roman records.

My own brothirs, during their young lives, saw and walked amongst the remains of ancient stone walls in the northern forests, now desecrated by the bureaucracy which for some unfathomable reason wishes to hide any truth of a pre-Maori history of this land. (From their description it reminded me of the remnants of mossy ancient walls deep in the Andes forest of Peru and Bolivia)

GAY MCCULLOUGH Chartered accountant (retired) Whangarei

NZ Herald 10/6/17

MAORI INVITED

Many thanks for including a review of Manifesto Aorearoa 101 Politicla Poems.

I was disappointed. however. that Morgan Godfery felt the collection did not speak " to and from the Maori world", Iamented the absence of certain Maori poets and felt those who were included could be read as isolated among the bodies and voices of so many Pakeha.

From the introductions. Mr Godfery should have been aware the editors went to great lengths to encourage Maori, Pasifika and poets of other ethnicities to submit work .

The anthology was widely advertised and we wrote to such journals as Mana and E Tangata as well as approaching individuals. That some Maori poets as well as some Pakeha. did not submit work was their choice.

PHILIP TEMPLE, Co-Editor

NZ Herald 9/6/17

DIVIDED TRIBE

When the Treaty Settlements began we were promised that they would be all submitted and settled by 2014.

Therefore it was disappointing to see Treaty negotiator Chris Finlayson on 1 News on Tuesday sounding angry and frustrated that Ngapuhi have yet to even organise their submission.

It seems inter-tribal bickering is causing this seriously overdue hold-up. Perhaps a sharp reminder to those in the North dragging the chain would help get them to the negotiating table, something along the lines of a “use it or lose it” statute of limitations.

COLLEEN WRIGHT, Botany Downs.

Otago Daily Times 8/6/17

WHEN reading I. Williams’ letter, I began to wonder why there are not more letters like this on the subject of Maori privilege.

Why haven’t the media taken up this issue and kept the population informed as to what is going on quietly in the background?

In education a commitment to biculturalism and ‘‘cultural competency’’ is about to become mandatory in our schools through a new code of conduct proposed by the Education Council that is due to come into force on July 1.

So, the next generation will be indoctrinated into biculturalism. Is this what the country wants? Have we given a mandate for this to happen? Do we care?

ANNETTE WALE Wellington

Southland Times 8/6/17

CUSTOMARY INTERESTS

Recently, around 600 claims for tribal customary interests (Rights or Titles) to most of our coastline were lodged under National's Marine and Coastal Area Act.

If approved, tribal claimants will gain rights akin to ownership, including being able to veto Resource Management Act applications, declare wahi tapu to prevent public access, and mine the non-nationalised mineral resources in the area.

Many of the claims were made to the High Court, see http://tinyurl.com/mmz8kzj

Since the public can register objections to those claims, citizens with an interest in our coasts should register as an interested party with the court ASAP, so they can object to claims later.

If no-one objects, the court may well find in favour of the claimants. It appears the closing dates on the claim advertisements are indicative only. Therefore it is not too late to register as an interested party even if stated deadline has passed.

Doing nothing is not an option. our coast and all the wealth that it contains is under threat from tribal opportunists. (Abridged: editor)

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

Gisborne Herald 7/6/17

ULTRA-CRITICAL RESPONSE CONFUSING

Re: Odd from someone who disparages Maori, June 1 letter.

Karen, your ultra-critical letter re my views and beliefs about Maori are confusing to say the least.

Yes, I am certainly against a name change for our area. This is part of our history and should not be changed.

Why is it that people such as yourself are so critical of anyone with a different opinion?

My statement long ago that it is just as well we were not colonised by the French or Portuguese is not a “red herring” but a statement of fact.

I have always acknowledged that we are multi-cultural. I have never stated that Maori had plenty to celebrate over Cook’s arrival.

I also wonder at the continuing anger of people referring to Cook’s crew shooting a small number of Maori. One would have been too many, but they were confronted by a Maori challenge and that would have terrified many who had no idea of the scenario.

As to massacres, what about the one at Matawhero where Te Kooti’s warriors killed men, women and children? Perhaps you should visit our small cemetery at Makaraka.

I have always acknowledged the injustices that were done, including land confiscation, but surely the millions and millions of dollars paid out through Treaty settlements are a reasonable degree of compensation from this generation so many years later.

To say I would treat local Maori as “pets” to dress up etc in the pa is stupid. My idea was that it would be more like a movie set. You have absolutely no right to judge my idea in the vein you infer. I am sure you would have totally encompassed the concept if one of your friends had come up with it.

This pa with all its “trimmings” would be of immense benefit to local iwi and the mana of those involved would be immense. Iwi would reap the rewards, not any “unlearned” Pakeha like myself.

Also, you state that I have disparaged the Maori contribution to Aotearoa in most of my letters. This is absolutely false. I work with Maori and some of my best friends are Maori. Fortunately I have never come across someone as bigoted as yourself amongst my associates.

I have a wonderful Pakeha daughter-in-law who spoke fluent te reo at her graduation. I was more proud than you would ever care to know.

You also said I view Gisborne as multi-cultural and Maori have no special place, and that iwi have no right to decide the name of our town. The only people who have that right are our residents, Maori, Pakeha, Chinese, Indian etc etc.

Why do you not encourage your people to change the many offensive Maori names around our country, such as Whataupoko in Gisborne. The translation of this suburb’s name is too offensive to print.

Sorry Karen, but if you wish to criticise my writings and opinions, as is your prerogative, then I shall do the same to you. Make sure of your facts before you put pen to paper.

By the way, I have already received a number of calls and face-to-face comments congratulating me on my idea. I am sorry it doesn’t meet with your approval. I feel certain I will receive more support than yourself through this forum.

Also, Karen, to finish, does the English side of your family (the Jones) agree with your very passionate views or do they see everything from both sides?

Perhaps readers can make the call. Is my idea good or bad? I bow to you all over your superior wisdom.

MIKE MULROONEY

Bay of Plenty Times 7/6/17

USE COMPO TO BUILD HOMES

Over the past 12 months or so, it's been heartbreaking to hear and see lots of families unable to afford a basic need that is housing, for them and their children. I think a lot of people do struggle, me included, to meet the basics of housing and food.

Would it not be a good idea (for Maori families mainly) that hundreds of millions of dollars compensation for the taking of land, be used to build hundreds of homes for these families?

Apart from fisheries, I don't see any of that money go back into housing.

Also, landlords need to realise that asking for exorbitant rents is contributing to our plight. They need to be regulated so hard working families can have a roof over their heads.

RAEWYN MILLS Maungatapu

TIME TO MOVE ON

I note that the Human Rights Commissioner, Maori Party and others are still chasing a commission of inquiry into children in state care some 50 years ago.

This is despite the Government having a mechanism whereby those who believe they have suffered unduly can receive a hearing and redress. I believe the social welfare agencies 50 years ago were as good as those we have today.

Yes, there were some who fell below the standards with bad results, but no more than what slips through the cracks today. While the criteria in the old days may have been different, particularly as regards smacking, we need to remember that, overall, children 50 years ago were far better disciplined and under control than the mayhem we have these days.

The Maori Party co-leader who is alleging a “stolen generation” would do far better for her people by spending time on today’s problems than simply stirring up trouble around election time. To me, media reports about the emotive words “physical”, “sexual”, “emotional abuse and neglect” apply much more in today’s world than it ever did in my younger days. BILL CAPAMAGIAN Tauranga

Northern Advocate 6/6/17

SAVE OUR COASTS

In the last month around 600 claims for tribal customary rights to our coastline, from the high water mark out to the edge of the Territorial Sea, were lodged, just before the six-year deadline for claims under National's Marine and Coastal Area Act.

If approved, tribal claimants will gain rights akin to ownership, including being able to veto Resource Management Act applications, declare wahi tapu to prevent public access, and mine the non-nationalised mineral resources in the area.

Many of the claims were made to the High Court and were advertised in newspapers nationwide. They can be seen on the NZCPR website here: http://tinyurl.com/ybo21p39

Since the public can register their objections to those claims, which cover most of our coastline, it should be a priority for anyone with an interest in our coasts to examine the claims and register as an interested party with the court, so they can object to the claims further down the track. If no-one objects, the Court may well find in favour of the claimants.

Apparently the High Court has told some that the closing dates advertised on the claim advertisements are indicative only. Therefore it is not too late to register as an interested party even if stated deadline has passed.

Googling these two articles will help refresh readers' memories of what this dreadful legislation and the avalanche of claims are about — "A Tsunami of Claims Hits the Foreshore and Seabed" and "Will the 2011 Marine and Coastal Area Act now start stealing our beaches?"

Doing nothing is not an option as our coast and all the wealth that it contains is under threat from tribal opportunists. Kiwis must act now, it is vital that we keep our coastline under public control to benefit all New Zealanders.

GEOFF PARKER Kamo

Northland Age 6/6/17

CORRUPTION

I have just heard Kim Hill interviewing Professor Idelbar Avelar, of Spokane University, on corruption in Brazil, gross corruption so endemic that it seems almost half of all members of government and the bureaucracy are involved.

Surely the collusion between the National Party and the Maori Patty, the consultation with little or no public participation, is a form of corruption.

By affording special treatment to Maori surely corrupts democracy in New Zealand by not granting equal rights to all citizens, irrespective of ethnicity, and creates a form of apartheid.

If the special treatment is given because Maori are considered inadequate and need and deserve special treatment it displays a patronising attitude that thinking Maori should resent and repudiate.

It is time the whole population became involved and individuals reflected on this state of affairs.

It is also time that the derogatory reports and snide comments about the Hobson's Pledge movement and the disparaging of Don Brash made by the media were scrutinised by the public and seen as the biased, politically-motivated agenda that it is.

The public should know that the aim of Hobson's Pledge is to promote awareness of the erosion of democracy that is now occurring. There is no time for complacency and delay.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

BOLD AS BRASS

Your unfortunately regular columnist, Te TaiTokerau MP Kelvin Davis, has continued to purvey his racist ideology in your issue of May 30.

It is, perhaps, useful, when considering the views of Mr Davis, to remember that he was thrice defeated in elections by the execrable Hone Harawira (John Hatfield) before being elevated to the status of a Member of Parliament from the Labour Party list.

One would like to think that this could bring some humility to Mr Davis, but not so. He is as bold as brass. His latest appalling complaint is that the recently announced government Budget will provide "only $25 million (of taxpayers' money) to keep us (Euro-Maori) out" of prison. Hey, my Mum never spent a penny to keep me out of prison. What a ratbag she must've been!

Mr Editor, isn't it really time that you took away your podiums (podia?) from columnists who exploit them to promote racism and disinformation?

I note, in regard to Mr Davis' position, that Conservative NZ will get rid of part-Maori electorates if they get to hold the balance of power after September.

LEO LEITCH Benneydale

THE GREEK THEORY

Was Maui an ancient Ionian Greek? And if so, are the Maori people of New Zealand today from the eastern Mediterranean as well?

I have some interesting data which state that this could well be so. If not, each item creates some interesting parallels.

Ammourae in ancient Greek means sand. By putting an 0 at the beginning of the word, it means a place of sand - Oamaru. Marama means rocks in Greek. With an 0 at the beginning it becomes Omarama. Opagou is a place of ice in Greek. Change the P to a T and it becomes Otakau, Otago in English.

The Greeks were seafaring people. Their ships were called vaka, Maori waka. Achae means to shout loudly and with meaning, haka in Maori.' Haere Tai in Greek means hello and welcome— haere mai. Ancient Romans were known as Pakhea (Pakeha), because they are not "one of us".

Some words come from English. Te Kauwhata means "the cow (aah) broke wind". Taihape means die happy. The Scots were responsible for laying the railway through that part of the country. They gave Maori scotch whisky, and they went away to "die happy".There is no mention of the hangovers on their returning to sobriety.

A place in Marlborough is called Nonoti. It is not Maori. The last spike for the railway between Christchurch and Picton was laid. Various dignitaries were there, and the local MP was asked if he would like to name the area, to which he replied: "No, not I. Hence Nonoti.

I was informed by an elderly Maori man, who learnt from an elderly Maori lady, that Aotearoa simply means Long White Cloud. The Maori language of today is not the Maori that was spoken 170-odd years ago.

A Maori colleague told me about a nice, fine, hot, windless summer day in Auckland. Two waka arrived from the north about mid- afternoon, and a chief hopped out wearing nothing but his piupiu, and sat down on a piece of black scoria. He immediately launched himself into the air, placed his hands on the cheeks of his rear, and shouted out: "Remuera"! No prizes for guessing, in English, what he meant It is interesting to find out how various places got named.

KEVAN G MARKS Kaipara

IS HISTORY BUNK?

It is worth remarking that local historians, for example Dame Claudia Orange, James Belich and Vincent O'Malley, in recording our history, judiciously avoid those aspects of pre-European Maori history that do not fit their agendas. They lack the objectivity essential for their credibility.

In many cases they present opinions as facts. They make no mention of the crude, brutal and brief lives that were the lot of most Maori before the arrival of Europeans, or the destructive savagery of the Musket Wars that caused the deaths of over 40,000 in inter-tribal conflict, with thousands more enslaved.

They ignore these threats to the survival of the whole native population, from which they were only saved by colonisation and the Treaty. Instead their quasi-history concentrates solely on the alleged oppression by the land-grabbing settlers of the noble natives.

This one-sided view is substantiated by Treaty revisionists, Maori politicians, and, in many cases, by a media compliant, possibly fearing censure by the Human Rights Commission or Dame Susan Devoy.

By the articles it publishes it is easy to see the editorial agenda of The Listener and which side it listens to.

Fake history is more damaging than false news, more pervasive and seemingly authentic, and becomes readily accepted. Re-defining the Treaty and introduction of 'principles' and 'partnership' for political expediency are prime examples, as are the sententious claims of the Waitangi Tribunal.

It is high time that the public became aware of these deceits and voted for politicians whose integrity supersedes their political loyalties, if such persons exist, to prove that Henry Ford was wrong and that truth will out.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Otago Daily Times 5/6/17

VOTING MAORI

ISN’T it kind of laughable, nay, almost pathetic, that partMaori part-Pakeha citizens of this country wish to identify as ‘‘Maori’’ and be on the Maori electoral roll, thus ensuring major political parties part with megamillions in cash and kind to secure Maori votes.

‘‘I’m proud of my Maori heritage,’’ goes the cry. What about being proud and feeling lucky that a tiny European nation that once ruled over one of greatest civilisations known to humankind, came, saw and conquered, and then made every effort to ensure the wellbeing and survival of said native persons.

It’s time for Maori of all shades to cut adrift from the lifeboat and swim on their own. A ‘‘one electoral roll for all’’ policy might translate into a landslide win for the political party with the intestinal fortitude to adopt it.

I. WILLIAMS Dunedin

Dominion Post 5/6/17

ON THE MOVE

So, Peter Dunne, Minister of Internal Affairs, sees no problem with shifting the historic Treaty of Waitangi from Archives, 100 metres down the road to the National Library at a removal cost of $155,000. Some $20,000 of that was spent on a lavish breakfast for the 560 ‘‘secret’’ viewers/invitees at Pipitea Marae based on Maori tikanga ‘kai’ principle – general catering of $2255 plus translators’ payment of $4564 then another $3600 koha payment.

Well, what about the other $7 million? Just spell out exactly how that is to be applied, to make the National Library fit for purpose to house this historical relic.

In that regard a recent signed letter from two well-respected former Chief Archivists is a damning indictment of what has gone on and questions the rationale and possibly the legality of moving the thing from its natural and proper home at Archives, where it was safely housed and on full public display.

ROB PATERSON Mt Maunganui

Waikato Times 5/6/17

WHAT DEMOCRACY?

While everyone is being distracted by the election year pork barrel budget, National is doing further damage to the country’s collective interests through its procedures under the Marine and Coastal Area Act. In short, they are making $8.45 million of taxpayer funding available to the approximately 580 iwi claimants, while charging a $110 fee to anyone who wishes to file an objection with the High Court. If one were to object to all 580 applications, the fees would be nearly $63,800. Donald Trump would probably call this democracy. I most certainly do not.

HUGH WEBB Hamilton

Wanganui Chronicle 3/6/17

DUTY TO STAND UP

Regarding the Derrick Storey letter in the May 22 issue, "Apathy costs", Derrick is right to say it is our duty to stand up and be counted.

The Tiriti o Waitangi was an agreement between Queen Victoria and tangata Maori who were given the "same rights as the people of England" (Article 3).

The Treaty was ratified by the borders of New South Wales being extended to encompass "all of the islands of New Zealand" and Maori became instant British subjects.

As British subjects cannot be in partnership with their monarch, the word "partnership" is absent in the Treaty and racial privilege is non-existent in English law.

The Treaty isn't our founding document. Queen Victoria's Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, ratified on 03-05-1841, the day New Zealand was born, separated us from New South Wales, gave us our first constitution, our own courts to oversee English law only and our own flag. It contains no racial privilege. (Edited)

IAN BROUGHAM Tawhero

Bay of Plenty Times 3/6/17

TREATY CLAIMS

We are facing the second largest single event in the creation of a racially divided country.

The first was 1975, when a, in my view, bogus English version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was created as law.

The second is the upcoming rash of Customary Rights' applications before the courts and directly with the Crown. Maori are claiming huge tracts of New Zealand coastline out to 12 nautical miles, extending to the 200 mile Economic Zone.

These claims are the consequences of the Marine and Coastal Act (Takutai Moana). There are two avenues for claimants. The High Court, and direct Crown engagement.

High Court claims can be opposed, but there is no public objection process for claims to the Crown.

It is no surprise to find that 381 claims are for 'direct negotiations with the Crown' (read Solicitor General Treaty Minister, Chris Finlayson) with no ability for claims to be opposed. The Crown process could be seen to be a conflict of interest. (Abridged)

MAUREEN J ANDERSON Pyes Pa

Dominion Post 3/6/17

WE SHOULD LET THEM EAT CAKE

Hutt City councillor Campbell Barry's stand against free council sumptuous lunches is laudable, I guess, as is a living wage.

The situation may be more acceptable if councillors were offered a simple choice of sandwiches. savouries. biscuits. fruit and the like, contributing something themselves.

A total cost of say $150 with the option to bring their own lunches if they wished with only full day meetings qualifying and at say 2 meetings per week that's $15.000 a year.

There are possibly good reasons to have an informal chat over lunch - it makes for conviviality and comradeship.

This all pales into insignificance when put beside the sumptuous breakfast (kai) provided for 500 attendees at $40.000 at the secret Treaty move from Archives to the National Library.

So don't sweat the small stuff. let's concentrate on the big extravagances like moving treaties. Marine and Coastal Area Act claims, Budget handouts and the like.

So, apathetic Kiwis, stop swallowing the red herrings and if we are going to cut it out things let's be consistent everywhere - national politics, local politics, hui and hearings. ROB PATERSON Mt Maunganui

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 2/6/17

APRIL 25 AN AUSPICIOUS DATE

Each one of the more than 500 Maori claimants for customary rights and title to the foreshore, coast and marine areas can apply for up to $412,000 of taxpayers' money from the National government, under the auspices of Chris Finlayson, for each claim.

Should you wish, as a taxpayer, to challenge the claim it could cost you $55,000 in unsubsidised court fees. Maanu Paul of the Maori Council believes that 14.6 per cent of our population are entitled to control the entire coastline. Your objection must be made within 20 working days of April 25, 2017. An auspicious date. How would the Gallipoli veterans view such blatant racism?

B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.

NOT TOO LATE TO REGISTER INTEREST

Recently around 600 claims for tribal customary rights to most of our coastline were lodged under National's Marine and Coastal Area Act.

If approved, tribal claimants will gain rights akin to ownership, including being able to veto Resource Management Act applications, declare wahi tapu to prevent public access, and mine the non-nationalised mineral resources in the area.

Many of the claims were made to the High Court, see: http://tinyurl.com/mmz8kzj

Since the public can register objections to those claims, citizens with an interest in our coasts should register as an interested party with the court asap, so they can object to claims later. If no-one objects, the court may well find in favour of the claimants.

It appears the closing dates on the claim advertisements are indicative only. Therefore it is not too late to register as an interested party even if the stated deadline has passed.

Googling these two articles will refresh readers' memories about this dreadful legislation and the avalanche of claims, ‘A Tsunami of Claims Hits the Foreshore and Seabed' and

‘Will the 2011 Marine and Coastal Area Act now start stealing our beaches?'

Doing nothing is not an option – our coast and all the wealth that it contains is under threat from tribal opportunists.

G PARKER, Whangarei.

Northland Age 1/6/17

BLIND-SIDED

Let's look at the background to the Foreshore & Seabed Act 2004 and Marine & Coastal Area Act 2011 (MACA).

Around 2003 a Marlborough Sounds customary land issue came before the Court of AppeaL The court only granted the right to pursue a claim, inferring inter alla there could be some cases in New Zealand where native customary title relating to the foreshore and seabed may not have been extinguished by common law, but these would be few and far between.

In 2004, Helen Clark knee-jerked and overreacted to this threat by passing the Foreshore & Seabed Act 2004, vesting all the foreshore and seabed in the Crown (which in reality was the legal position anyway), but reserving to Maori interests the right to make application for customary rights if they could prove continuous use by way of occupation and had territorial association with the area.

Well that seemed to be the end of the fiasco, and in retrospect possibly made the best of bad options, drifting along without incident or claims being lodged. Then in 2011 the National Party, in cahoots with the Maori Party, despite fierce opposition, stepped up to the plate, belted Clark's Foreshore & Seabed Act for six with MACA the main difference, being rights watered down to substantial continuous occupation and the abutting land requirement removed ,making it sky's the limit for claims.

Messrs Key and Finlayson inferred it was a non-event, and that very few claims would be made. Well they were either duped fools or craven politicians, because recently, encouraged by Mr Finlayson, out of the woodwork have appeared somewhere around 550 claims, either with the Minister of Treaty Negotiations or the High Court, effectively for the whole New Zealand coastline, on nebulous grounds to say the least.

Most court applications were filed at the last minute, viz March 31- April 3, 2017 (six-year time limit final day), and that reeks of collusion. Several applications look defective, and Public Notices consistently do not meet the criteria.

Mr Finlayson has had meetings with iwi representatives, explaining rights to claim and providing a legal assistance fund of around $13.4 million to assist with the costs of lodging and fighting claims.

The irrelevant majority (85 per cent) of Kiwis have as usual been shafted, marginalised and blind-sided by these events. 'They need to rise up and take their country back before it is too late.

Every Kiwi should be appalled by what has occurred, the mistruths, misinformation being bandied about and the government's duplicity over this aberration.

ROB PATERSON Matapihi

A BONANZA GOES BEGGING

What a bonanza the international Press would have. How the American media, especially the anti-Trump brigade, would enjoy a heyday if it could be proved that not only did Donald Trump lack any knowledge of the American Constitution but that he was completely ignorant of the Declaration of Independence, and didn't know such a document exists. That is a fiction.

But in New Zealand we have a similar scenario. It appears that the majority of members of the government, the bureaucrats, judiciary and academia, from the Prime Minister down, are completely ignorant of Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/Letters Patent of November 16, 1840. That would be of little consequence were it not for the fact that it is New Zealand's founding document, the decree that severed those ties as a subsidiary of the Colony of New South Wales, forged by the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, but that it is the legal proclamation that made New Zealand a self-governing colony with its own governor, parliament, judiciary system, and established its international status.

The Prime Minister, Bill English, said he had no knowledge of its existence. Some in officialdom may have known about it but have judiciously remained silent, because to acknowledge the Charter would necessitate its official acceptance, thus nullifying the power and purported principles of the Treaty.

The chiefs, in granting Queen Victoria full sovereignty, enabled her to establish laws that ended internecine conflicts and civil unrest, the purpose for which it was intended.

Te Papa refuses to acknowledge its existence and its place in the history of our country. It has been removed from public scrutiny to the vaults of New Zealand Archives while the Treaty has been exalted to the National Library. To verify this matter just Google 'Queen Victoria's Royal Charter.'

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Dominion Post 1/6/17

TREATY BALANCE

Whoever wrote In praise of... the Treaty house (Editorial, May 27) needs to curb their youthful enthusiasm and take a long, hard look at history and language.

Apart from using puzzling terms like "posse" (sheriff and townsfolk on horses chasing after bandits come to mind) and "bureaucrats' corridor" (please explain?), they suggest the Treaty is an emblem of "colonial failings".

Just what failings did this breathless writer imagine? Stopping tribes killing each other? Bringing a means of writing their language? Establishing a nation where every effort is made to apologise and pay back, irrespective of rights or historical truths?

Or perhaps they meant failure on the part of some Maori to accept that they ceded sovereignty and to wilfully misunderstand what the Treaty actually represents?

The fact that a piece of apparently rat-gnawed (by kiore perhaps?) paper (and various copies) is of such nowadays importance is because it was kept by the colonialist power and not neglected. Can we have some balance in future please?

ALLEN HEATH Woburn

Waikato Times 31/5/17

CUSTOMARY RIGHTS

Is this fair? Each one of the over 500 Maori claimants for Customary Rights and Title to the foreshore, coast and marine areas can apply for up to $412,000 of the taxpayers' money from the National Government, under the auspices of Chris Finlayson, for each claim.

Should you wish, as a taxpayer, to challenge the claim it could cost you $55,000 in unsubsidised court fees, Maanu Paul of the Maori Council believes that 14.6% of our population are entitled to control the entire coastline.

Your objection must be made within 20 working days of April 25, 2017. BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

NZ Herald 30/5/17

OBJECTION COSTS

While everyone is being distracted by the election-year pork barrel Budget, National is doing further damage to the country’s collective interests through its procedures under the Marine and Coastal Area Act.

In short, they are making $8.45 million of taxpayer funding available to the around 580 iwi claimants, while charging a $110 fee to anyone who wishes to file an objection with the High Court.

If one were to object to all 580 applications, the fees would be nearly $63,800.

Donald Trump would probably call this democracy. I most certainly do not.

HUGH WEBB, Hamilton.

The Northern Advocate 30/5/17

NOT RACIAL

Re NZ History. The following, I emphasise, is not racially motivated.

In stating that, I dare say some people will exhibit paranoia, maybe because they are in denial of historical facts.

My curiosity is reignited by recent events shown on television. That is, the relocation of the Treaty of Waitangi to the Wellington museum. Also the well-detailed map of New Zealand, showing arrows of the alleged Maori landing points.

Those landing points would . . . without doubt prove that Maori arrived by sea, from another land? Surely that would corroborate claims/assertions made by many others?

Accepting Maori arrived by sea in waka (doubted by quite a few writers), what category would those intrepid voyagers be classified as? Colonists, immigrants, pioneers, or invaders?

As I understand, there are numerous sites throughout New Zealand that contain ancient artefacts, that could prove that New Zealand was inhabited by people before Maori.

Museums the world over house artefacts from bygone ages, some artefacts are carbondated back thousands of years.

Those historical exhibits giving us insight into our predecessors, who they were, where they came from, how they lived and their abilities to survive.

Why, one may ask, is the early history of New Zealand hidden from us, and placed under embargo?

Could it be fear that myths, legend, and fiction are so deeply ingrained in our modern day people, that the truth may rock the very foundation of society.

The crux of the matter is fear, healthy debate is not racial, unless others choose to see history in a different light.

I welcome other people’s views. Above all I would like information from government sources as to why an embargo was placed on our historical treasures.

B. J. CRAIG Whangarei

Northland Age 30/5/17

NO TIME TO LOSE

In the last month around 600 claims for tribal customary rights to our coastline, from the high water mark out to the edge of the territorial sea, were lodged, just before the six-year deadline for claims under National's Marine and Coastal Area Act.

If approved, tribal claimants will gain rights akin to ownership, including being able to veto Resource Management Act applications, declare wahi tapu to prevent public access, and mine the non-nationalised mineral resources in the area.

Many of the claims were made to the High Court, and were advertised in newspapers nationwide. They can be seen on the NZCPR website tinyurl.com/ybo21p39

Since the public can register their objections to those claims, which cover most of our coastline, it should be a priority for anyone with an interest in our coasts to examine the claims and register as an interested party with the court, so they can object to the claims further down the track. If no one objects, the court may well find in favour of the claimants.

Apparently the High Court has told some that the closing dates advertised on the claim advertisements are indicative only. Therefore it is not too late to register as an interested party, even if the stated deadline has passed.

Googling these two articles will help refresh reader's memories of what this dreadful legislation and the avalanche of claims are about — 'A tsunami of claims hits the foreshore and seabed,' and 'Will the 2011 Marine and Coastal Area Act now start stealing our beaches?'

Doing nothing is not an option, as our coast and all the wealth that it contains is under threat from tribal opportunists.

Kiwis must act now, it is vital that we keep our coastline under public control to benefit all New Zealanders.

GEOFF PARKER Kamo

AUSPICIOUS DATE

Each one of the over 500 Maori claimants for customary rights and title to the foreshore, coast and marine areas can apply for up to $412,000 of the taxpayers' money from the National government, under the auspices of Chris Finlayson for each claim.

Should you wish, as a taxpayer, to challenge the claim it could cost you $55,000 in unsubsidised court fees.

Maanu Paul, of the Maori Council, believes that 14.6 per cent of our population are entitled to control the entire coastline.

Your objection must be made within 20 working days of April 25, 2017. An auspicious date. How would the Gallipoli veterans view such blatant racism?

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Wanganui Chronicle 27/5/17

GUARDING TERRITORY

Why do Maori make up 50 per cent of the prison population?

As prison chaplain, I sometimes asked Maori inmates: "Did you do it?" Interestingly the reply was usually: "Of course."

At primary school I remember how when we were picking sides far a game at playtime, a Maori boy frequently suggested: "Maori against Pakeha."

In a conversation with Ken Mair, he explained Maori do not have fixed negotiated boundaries like Pakeha, but think in terms of areas occupied by an iwi. That is, in fact, a very ancient way of mapping the land.

And think of the haka — to Pakeha it is a spectacle, a curiosity, an entertainment, but to Maori a war dance intended to intimidate people who are intruding on an iwi area.

With the basic idea of territory in mind, it is easy to see how the gang culture developed. They are groups who set out to occupy their territory and intimidate any who challenge them.

Pakeha live in a very different world. We go to school where we learn — the aim is to acquire skills and gain qualifications that will lead to worthwhile jobs. But we are seeing people who seem to just drop out of school despite their years there, they don't know anything, can't do anything and live on a benefit.

We go to church to learn how to be "good". Instead of departmental gods of Maori — sea, forest and so on — we learn one god rules all and guides us into ways to live together in harmony. And then in prison we meet the offender and demand the Corrections Department put every-one right.

Corrections offer heaps of conrective courses and opportunities to grow, but it Is hard to turn a lifetime of crime around.

From a Corrections point of view, the men and women we see have been failed by their parents, failed by the school, failed by the church, too, sometimes. So if Maori are going to live crime-free lifestyles, it Is the iwi who must help their children to succeed in the very different world they have to face in the 21st century.

TOM PITTAMS St John's Hill

Northern Advocate 27/5/17

SPECIAL CASE?

Suicide is a big sad issue for all of us. So the Budget gives $100 million to Maori suicide. This is contemptuous of the other 85 per cent of our population. Why didn't the Maori Party exercise its influence for suicide funding for all of us? How commended it would be.

ROBIN LIEFFERING Onerahi

Weekend Sun / Sunlive letters 26/5/17

QUEEN VICTORIA’ ROYAL CHARTER

What a bonanza the American media would have if it could be proved that Donald Trump was unaware of the Declaration of Independence. That is a fiction, but in New Zealand we have a similar scenario. It appears that the members of officialdom from Prime Minister down are ignorant of Queen Victoria's Royal Charter, November 1840. That would matter little if it were not our founding document. The Treaty only made us a subsidiary of the colony of New South Wales. The charter, by Royal Proclamation, made New Zealand a fully, self-governing colony with international status.

The Prime Minister did not know of the charter's existence. Some officials may have known but judicially remained silent because to acknowledge it would have required its acceptance, thus nullifying the purported principles of the Treaty.

The chiefs, in signing the treaty, granted the Queen full sovereignty, enabling her to enact laws that ended internecine conflict between Maori and civil unrest, as it was intended to do.

Te Papa, depreciating its existence, has removed it from public scrutiny into the vaults of Archives while exalting the Treaty to the National Library at a cost of $7.2 million.

To verify, Google 'The Royal Charter.' Kiwis wake up!

B JOHNSON, Omokoroa

CUT THE GUTS OUT OF GREED

In response to B Johnson's letter in last week's edition (The Weekend Sun, May 19, 2017).

Maori exceeding the fishing quotas while using customary fishing licenses shown on ‘Coastwatch' has nothing to do with the post-colonial education system. It is just sheer greed and ignorance, and as we all know that is in every race. As for Manu Paul's promise, well let's just say I have heard too many promises lately. It can hardly be believed when a local farm run by Kahu Ma Farms /Tirohanga Farms plead guilty to dumping effluent into the sea.

We have an election coming up with the two major parties once again cosying up to the self-annexed Maori for votes. This current government says it can't afford the pension while paying out billions over the years to keep themselves in power by attempting to give water rights and coastal rights to this self-annexed group. Then if that is not enough, the Labour Party is also courting this extreme group who are intently holding themselves and the country back because they can get it given to them without too much hard work.

There is only one party who is putting New Zealand First. They say they wish to cut back on immigration and look after the elderly while standing up to Maori and the Hollywood-styled media. These promises I can believe more than the other parties only because the other parties have made promises for years and broke them. For a country that still owes $134 billion overseas, it needs a change in the other direction, away from those who have held the reins of destruction and enforced greed and ignorance in our society – a total risk-taking change for all Kiwis to have a chance to be happy and looked after educationally, health-wise, financially, and in retirement. Cut the guts out of greed and the opulent ideals of a few.

R STEWART, Te Puke.

CLAIMS CAUSING RACIAL DIVISION

We are facing the second largest single event in the creation of a racially divided country. The first was 1975, when a bogus English version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was created at law. The second is the upcoming rash of ‘customary rights' applications before the courts and directly with the Crown.

Maori are claiming huge tracts of NZ coastline out to 12 nautical miles, extending to the 200 mile Economic Zone. These claims are the consequences of the Marine and Coastal Act (Takutai Moana).

There are two avenues for claimants - the High Court, and direct Crown engagement.

High Court claims can be opposed, but there is no public objection process for claims to the Crown.

It is no surprise to find that 381 claims are for ‘direct negotiations with the Crown' (read Solicitor General Treaty Minister, Chris Finlayson) with no ability for claims to be opposed. The Crown process could be seen to be a ‘disgraceful conflict of interest'. 170 claims to date have applied to go to the High Court.

M ANDERSON, Pyes Pa.

Wanganui Chronicle 26/5/17

SCRAP THE TREATY

I feel obliged to respond to Derrick Storey (letters, May 22).

Derrick, you are so right in your comments. It seems inappropriate in today’s PC world to comment on topics not favourable to those who call themselves Maori.

That many comments made by those who are ardent Maori supporters (all of whom seem to have doctorates in creative Maori history) are racist is undeniable. The classification “racist”, of course, does not apply to those Teflon-coated wise men and women within Maoridom who can speak with impunity.

It is unfortunate that censorship also plays a part in the reasons for apathy amongst older persons who try to counter the claims of these historical experts who always manage to find another reason to dip into the country’s coffers. Why try to make factual points (albeit perhaps hard-hitting) when sentences are deleted from submissions to the newspaper? It seems that persons like those mentioned above can make offensive comments and yet equivalent comments by persons with a non-Maori perspective are “abridged”.

That Maori receive additional special treatment over and above that afforded to New Zealanders is fact.

Can you imagine the furore if a bunch of non-Maori staged a protest march deploring such things? And yet Maori want even more say in deciding what can or cannot be done in this country.

You mention “farting against thunder”. I say hurry up, because soon we will not be allowed to perform that bodily function without a permit from the local iwi.

Concerned citizens will never win the fight for racial equality until the Treaty of Waitangi is scrapped. Only Government has the wherewithal to close the divide by treating people the same. (Abridged)

D PARTNER Eastown

Southland Times 25/5/17

THE CONSEQUENCE OF APATHY

As each chief signed the Treaty of Waitangi (TOW) on the 6 th February 1840, Governor Hobson gave this greeting to them ‘‘He iwi tahi tatou’’. (We are now one people).

For the past 30 years, Governor Hobson’s declaration: ‘‘We are now one people,’’ has been slowly eroded and speeding up like a slow moving freight train, which has gained so much momentum that it is totally out of control, and heading for disastrous consequences for all who call New Zealand ‘‘home’’.

This beautiful country, which was once united under One Treaty and One Law, has become almost irrevocably divided. One People has become the Great Divide.

I know that I am not alone in thinking like this, so why aren’t more people speaking out about the daily reported situations that are constantly contributing to this Great Divide?

According to the 2013 Census Reports, 607,035 people aged 65 years plus are resident in New Zealand. The majority of these are the centre of influence to generations below them. So why are we not sharing our life experiences of the past 45 years, based on the TRUTH of the TOW, life in communities as one people, Maori myths, etc.

Why are we not expressing that, in our opinion, what is currently happening in New Zealand regarding Maori rights is wrong, and why we believe it is wrong? Recently, Leighton Smith summed it up in one word, APATHY, or the lack of interest, the absence of the wish to do anything.

It seems that the majority of people, aged 65 years plus, owning their homes, not in business or employment, aren’t concerned with the everyday happenings within the country. Further, they seem to think that whatever happens will not have a long term effect on them, so why get involved? Better to just live a quiet life and shut out what’s happening.

Why does this generation have this attitude? The constant fear of being called ‘‘racist’’ in a politically correct mad world, tired of farting against thunder, being ridiculed and verbally abused, are some of the reasons. But it is also APATHETIC, and that could cost our lovely country and its people dearly! It is our duty to stand up and be counted!

DERRICK STOREY Marton

Wanganui Chronicle 25/5/17

MISREPRESENTED

Potonga Neilson (letters, May 10) seriously misrepresents my previous letter when he says “A clue to the colonial mindset is right there at the end of Mr Robinson’s latest letter. He reckons King Potatau should have bequeathed his people to the care of the governor.”

Those were not my words but the words of Te Wherowhero (Potatau) in 1857. He said it.

Neilson continues with “the Maori people have never needed or wanted any help or care from anyone.”

There are many examples of calls for help. In 1835 northern chiefs wrote with an entreaty to the King of England “that he will continue to be the parent of their infant State”. In 1837 Wiremu Hau made the request to Marsden, “Sir — Will you give us a law?” In 1848 Tamati Ngapora asked of Governor Grey, “Reflect, O father, upon my words, that a law may be made for the native chiefs”.

One criticism of British colonialism, which I report in my recent book, was the failure to adequately respond to those requests. Better late than never, but when the call from Waikato to provide governance and assistance was answered, Maniapoto warriors forced the Government agent, John Gorst, out, in one of many acts of armed rebellion that finally led to a response from the Government of New Zealand.

JOHN ROBINSON Waikanae

Waikato Times 23/5/17

EGREGIOUS CLAIMS

Will Ngati Whatua be claiming the Sky Tower next? When will this rapacity cease?

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

NZ Herald 23/5/17

TANIWHA IN MYERS PARK

I find it unfathomable that the Auckland Council is to spend $460,000 of ratepayers’ money on a questionable “taniwha sculpture” under the bridge at the bottom of Myers Park. Who in their right mind would approve such a decision? It’s not even a beautiful statue. From the picture it would appear to be a collection of hundreds of fluttering plates of metal or similar, and a boardwalk over water. If the council thinks there are not more pressing issues that need addressing then it is seriously out of touch.

R. HOWELL, Onehunga.

Northland Age 23/5/17

BIG WORDS

'Thank you Wally Hicks for adding to my storehouse of indispensable must-know information with your learned discourse on consociational democracy (faked it, letters May 11). Such impressive nomenclature certainly warranted further investigation, so I have been struggling through an erudite gentleman's thesis on the subject.

What did I discover? Well, according to my source, the two basic subdivisions of democracy are Anglo-American (as in New Zealand) and Continental-European (consociational): "Political culture and social structure are empirically related to political stability.

The Anglo-American democracies display a high degree of stability and effectiveness.

The Continental-European systems tend to be unstable and are characterised by political immobilism, which is a consequence of the fragmented condition of the political culture, and even pose the danger of a lapse into totalitarianism as a result of this immobilism."

Lots of big words that condense into presenting consociational democracy as being progressively stagnant and socially volatile, with our existing system looking pretty good in comparison.

Apart from that, Mr Hicks, you airily dismiss Sir Apirana Ngata's An Explanation of the Treaty as being some sort of political manipulation on Sir Apirana's part. Not so, Mr Hicks; read and absorb. He was a Maori with an intellect far superior to that of today's self-styled cultural intellectuals, and stated things as they were — not as some descendants nearly 200 years later would have liked them to have been.

Similarly with your invalidation of the utterances of the chiefs attending the 1860 Kohimarama Conference. Their voiced understanding of the meaning of `sovereignty' was made abundantly clear many times over — the Queen was accepted by them as supreme Chieftain above all other chiefs. Events that occurred before and after the conference do not alter that fact.

With regard to your other questions, "Who are these Maori ... ?" and, "Which (one) law do you mean?" space does not permit a response at this time, but I can assure you that a further letter is in the offing. In the meantime, good luck with your consociationalising.

MITCH MORGAN Kaipara

THE GREAT DIVIDE

As each chief signed the Treaty of Waitangi on February 6, 1840, Governor Hobson gave this greeting to them "He iwi tahi tatou" (We are now one people). For the past 30 years, Governor Hobson's declaration, "We are now one people," has been slowly eroded and speeding up like a slow-moving freight train, which has gained so much momentum that it is totally out of control, and heading for disastrous consequences for all who call New Zealand home.

This beautiful country, which was once united under one treaty and one law, has become almost irrevocably divided. One people has become the Great Divide.

I know that lam not alone in thinking like this, so why aren't more people speaking out about the daily reported situations that are constantly contributing to this Great Divide?

According to the 2013 census reports, 607,035 people aged 65 years-plus are resident in New Zealand. The majority of these are the centre of influence to generations below them. So why are we not sharing our life experiences of the past 45 years, based on the truth of the TOW, life in communities as one people, Maori myths etc? Why are we not expressing that, in our opinion, what is currently happening in New Zealand regarding Maori rights is wrong, and why we believe it is wrong?

Recently Leighton Smith summed it up in one word, apathy — or the lack of interest, the absence of the wish to do anything. It seems that the majority of people, aged 65 years-plus, owning their homes, not in business or employment, aren't concerned with the everyday happenings within the country. Further, they seem to think that whatever happens will not have a long-term effect on them, so why get involved? Better to just live a quiet life and shut out what is happening.

Why does this generation have this attitude? The constant fear of being called racist in a politically correct mad world, tired of farting against thunder, being ridiculed and verbally abused, are some of the reasons. But it is also apathetic and that could cost our lovely country and its people dearly. It is our duty to stand up and be counted. DERRICK STOREY Marton

Wanganui Chronicle 22/5/17

APATHY COSTS

As each chief signed the Treaty of Waitangi on February 6, 1840, Governor Hobson greeted them: "He iwi tahi tatou" (We are now one people). For the past 30 years, Hobson's declaration: "We are now one people," has been slowly eroded and is speeding up like a slow-moving freight train that has gained so much momentum it is totally out of control and heading for disastrous consequences for all who call New Zealand home.

This beautiful country, once united under one treaty and one law, has become almost irrevocably divided. One people has become the great divide.

I know I am not alone in thinking like this, so why aren't more people speaking out about the daily reported situations that constantly contribute to this great divide?

According to the 2013 Census reports 607,035 people aged 65-plus reside in New Zealand. The majority of these are the centre of influence to generations below them. So why are we not sharing our life experiences of the past 45 years, based on the truth of the Treaty, life in communities as one people, Maori myths etc.

Why are we not expressing that, in our opinion, what is happening in New Zealand regarding Maori rights is wrong and why we believe it is wrong?

A couple of days ago, Leighton Smith summed it up in one word: Apathy, or the lack of interest, the absence of the wish to do anything.

It seems the majority of people, aged 65-plus, owning their homes, not in business or employment, aren't concerned with the everyday happenings within the country. Further, they seem to think whatever happens will not have a long-term effect on them, so why get involved? Better to just live a quiet life and shut out what's happening.

Why does this generation have this attitude? The constant fear of being called "racist" in a politically correct, mad world, tired of farting against thunder, being ridiculed and verbally abused, are some of the reasons. But it is also apathetic, and that could cost our lovely country and its people dearly! It is our duty to stand up and be counted.

DERRICK STOREY Marton

The Press 22/5/17

PRISON STATISTICS

Unfortunately for Jim Consedine’s argument (May 18), the stats on poverty and crime do not add up. In New Zealand, for every Maori living in poverty there are 2.5 nonMaori living in equally poor conditions. If the poverty/prison link was so clear cut we would expect the non-maori prison population to be at least twice that of Maori but this is not the case. The statistics show that poor nonMaori are not offending at anywhere near the levels that Maori are.

ANDY CUNNINGHYM Woolston

National Business Review 19/5/17

MAORI CHIEFS CEDED FULL SOVEREIGNTY

Matthew Hooton ("Labour likes its Maori dumb and docile," April 12) seems unaware that Maori also arrived in New Zealand uninvited and largely annihilated the earlier inhabitants.

He repeats the lie that the Ngapuhi dialect Treaty of Waitangi, which about 500

chiefs signed, says "Maori would remain in control." One only has to google the chiefs' speeches made before signing to see they were aware of ceding full sovereignty to the Queen of England forever. This is reinforced in the notes of Rev John Warren, who was at the signing on February 6 and by the fact that the chiefs ceased cannibalism, slavery, daughter slaughter and tribal warfare.

It is true tobacco, alcohol and sugar came with Europeans but it does not mean that people have to smoke, drink liquor and eat sugary food.

The introduction of new diseases was inevitable in an exploring era. Maori could not stay isolated. Some conveniently forget hospitals, housing, clothing, blankets and medical/surgical knowledge was also brought to New Zealand.

Mr Hooton falsely states, "that Maori were nearly wiped out" by disease. Dr John Robinson's research shows that about 42,000 lost their lives in the 1801-40 musket wars (Maori against Maori). Tribal infighting was the main cause for population decline. Female infanticide and the deaths of young warriors dramatically reduced birthrates.

GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Rotorua Daily Post 20/5/17

COASTAL CLAIMS

It would appear that with over 550 coastal claims from Maori under the Marine & Coastal Area Act 2011, the National Party has once again created a significant issue that will come back and bite them just a few months out from at election.

This all came about when the Government put claims back on the table as, in my view, another sop to the Maori Party in 2011. Six years later and a massive number of claims have been lodged by Maori. These cover the entire foreshore and territorial waters of New Zealand, and include islands, reefs, tidal rivers etc and include the airspace above. There are also claims for all species of fish, mineral extraction, control of the launching of vessels etc.

I note that Ngati Whakaue have lodged a claim for the "territorial land described by the Maketu Toa Boundary of 1875".

Whilst Maanu Paul and Sir Toby Curtis have given an assurance that the massive claim for the entire foreshore and territcrial waters of New Zealand is "not so much an ownership claim, it's more custodial", the huge number of claims by Maori would give one reason to question what could be the biggest resource grab in the country's history.

Once again the National Party's unprincipled hypocrisy is revealed for what it is. After all it was Nick Smith who in 2004 stated: "Anyone who wants to divide up the shore-line for one exclusive group of citizenship must be stopped".

MIKE MCVICKER Rotorua

ENGLISH NEEDED

In his letter (May 17). Wairangi Jones does not agree with what I said about the English language and that is his right in a democratic society.

However, while a lot of what he says I agree with, they are in the main political problems to be resolved by political means.

The cause of much of what he mentions can be put down to one factor in my view and that is greed for the almighty dollar. That, too, I believe has a lot to do with whether his language can survive, as it should be allowed to In the meantime, both our mokopuna will have to live in an increasingly commercialised world to earn a crust. For that they will need a good understanding of English just to keep their heads above water, because both science and technology are now the dominant cultures, if I may call them that.

Neither belongs to any one people or culture l. To swap information and the use commerce makes of it, they use the English language.

If Wairangi does not like some of what is happening -- as I don't — he must work with his fellow man regardless of race to try to counter-act this greedy headlong rush to commercial destruction.

To do it, English will be the language he and his kin will have to use in the courts, Parliament, trade, or what-ever, to accomplish a better world.

A J MACKENZIE Rotorua

Northern Advocate 20/5/17

ANCIENT GREEKS

Was Maui an ancient Iranian Greek. and, if so, are the Maori people of New Zealand today from the eastern Mediterranean as well? I have some interesting data which states that this could well be so. If not, each item creates some interesting parallels.

Ammourae in ancient Greek means sand. By putting an O at the beginning of the word, it means a place of sand Oamaru.

Marama means rocks in Greek With an 0 at the beginning it becomes Omarama. Opagou is a place of ice in Greek. Change the P to a T and it becomes Otakau, which becomes Otago in English.

The Greeks were seafaring people. Their ships were called vaka, Maori waka. Achae means to shout loudly and with meaning. That is haka in Maori.

Dr (later Sir) Robert Falla (1901-79). ornithologist, director of the Dominion Museum and Canterbury Museum, while on a trip to England. visited Egypt and noted that women had the moko, and a smiling stone god that they called Bes, which was to protect women and children. Maori had the hei tiki tiki.

The Book of Exodus in the Bible relates the story of blackness and thunderous noise which lasted for four days in Egypt. This story may well be part of a huge cataclysm which tore the heart out of the entire known world at that time, sending people from everywhere fleeing from the tumult. Could that cataclysm have been the eruption of Santorini, in the Aegean Sea. 3500 years ago and where Maori started their journey from?

KEVAN G MARKS Kalpara

Southland Times 20/5/17

NEW ZEALAND’S COASTLINE

Following the government’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, Maori tribes and hapu from around the country have reputedly lodged around 550 claims to New Zealand’s coastline (from the beaches out to the 22km mark).

This is despite the ex-Prime Minister stating there’d only ever be a handful of claims made.

One particular claim is for the country’s entire coastline; In fact, most of New Zealand’s harbours, bays, beaches, inlets, peninsulas and Islands are now subject to multiple, overlapping claims.

The claims are being lodged with either the High Court or direct with the government (where they’ll be negotiated in secret, behind closed doors).

As the claims are only briefly advertised in the public notices section of newspapers, two private websites are recording them.

The High Court ones are displayed on: http://tinyurl.com/ ln8crnd or http://tinyurl.com/ kkx2pfd). The Crown claims can be seen at: http://tinyurl.com/ mxjoefy

Despite soothing noises from the National Party, this is a serious situation.

Customary Marine Title is akin to full ownership. Successful claimants could deny access to our beach playgrounds by imposing ‘wahi tapu’ and fines on those breaching it. Fishing may be restricted by the placing of ‘rahui’ on favourite spots. There may be charges placed on those using boat ramps, moorings and wharfs.

Then there’s all the wealth that the foreshore and seabed used to offer the public purse for health, education and welfare. This might include mining, iron sands, minerals, offshore gas, petroleum deposits, marine farming and resource consents.

Objectors need to urgently register their intentions with the High Court. Only a very small window has been offered to Kiwis wanting to retain public rights to the coastline. (Abridged: editor)

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 19/5/17

VALUE OF LAND OWED TO HARD WORK

One Peter Dey appears frequently in your columns with grossly false statements about our colonial past. His latest outrageous claim (The Weekend Sun, page 47, May 5, 2017) is that “more than $30 billion of land [was] wrongly taken [from Maoris], with no allowance made for lost income”.

The truth is that once the tribes learnt that they could live by agriculture, much land became useless to them and they willingly exchanged it for European material goods (taonga). By 1840 they had freely sold almost all the South Island and the North south of a line from Castlepoint to the Mokau River mouth and much that was north of it as well. Only a few per cent of the land was fairly confiscated from rebel tribes, as they had been warned it would be.

This land, said to be worth $30 billion today, is in nothing remotely like the condition in which it was originally sold; its value almost entirely owed to the hard work and capital of early settlers and their descendants.

Today, 5.6 per cent of the land is held under Maori title, but also with many Maori owners of freehold land under individual title. Ahuwhenua Trophy winners, Dean and Kristen Nikora (2008) and Barton and Nukuhia Hadfield (2015) will be amongst them. Dream on, Mr Dey.

B MOON, Nelson.

The Northern Advocate 19/5/17

MARAE FUNDING

It is loathsome to the principles of democracy that “deals” are done to secure power, which don’t benefit all New Zealanders.

This latest $27 million to upgrade marae?

What about memorial community halls, so many of which have fallen into dis-repair?

Wouldn’t it be great, when the Maori Party are negotiating deals, if they would include others of like kind?

They would be admired by everyone.

ROBIN LIEFFERING Onerahi

Waikato Times 19/5/17

CUSTOMARY MARINE TITLE

Maori tribes from around the country have reputedly lodged around 550 claims to New Zealand’s coastline (from the beaches out to the 22km mark).

One particular claim is for the country’s entire coastline, in fact, most of New Zealand’s harbours, bays, beaches, inlets, peninsulas and islands are now subject to multiple, overlapping claims.

Claims are being lodged with either the High Court or direct with the government. As the claims are only briefly advertised in the public notices section of newspapers, two private websites are recording them. The High Court ones are displayed on: http://tinyurl.com/ln8crnd or http://tinyurl.com/kkx2pfd. The Crown claims can be seen at: http://tinyurl.com/mxjoefy

Despite soothing noises from the National Party, this is a serious situation. Customary Marine Title is akin to full ownership. Successful claimants could deny access to our beach playgrounds by imposing ‘‘wahi tapu’’. Fishing may be restricted by the placing of ‘‘rahui’’ on favourite spots. There may be charges placed on those using boat ramps, moorings and wharfs.

Then there’s the wealth that the foreshore and seabed contains. This might include mining, iron sands, minerals, offshore gas, petroleum deposits, marine farming and consents.

What is blatantly racist and unfair is the full funding of tribal claimants (hundreds of thousands of dollars per claim). Yet, those who wish to object to a High Court claim have to dig deep to fund themselves.

Objectors need to urgently register their intentions with the High Court.

GEOFF PARKER Kamo

CUSTOMARY MARINE TITLE 2

[Attorney General Chris] Finlayson, I get little comfort from your vague suggestion ‘‘ that few of the Maori coastal claims will succeed’’ because of the many millions of taxpayers’ dollars you have freely distributed for often inconclusive tribal claims on the recommendation of an ethnically exclusive Waitangi Tribunal. Claims that are rarely refused.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Waikato Times 18/5/17 (Also in the Northland Age 18/5/17)

CUSTOMARY RIGHTS

We are facing the second largest single event in the creation of a racially divided country. The first was 1975, when a bogus English version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was created at law. The second is the upcoming rash of ‘‘customary rights’’ applications before the courts and directly with the Crown.

Maori are claiming huge tracts of NZ coastline out to 12 nautical miles, extending to the 200 mile Economic Zone. These claims are the consequences of the Marine and Coastal Act (Takutai Moana).

There are two avenues for claimants – The High Court, and direct Crown engagement. High Court claims can be opposed, but there is no public objection process for claims to the Crown.

It is no surprise to find that 381 claims are for ‘‘direct negotiations with the Crown’’ with no ability for claims to be opposed. 170 claims to date have applied to go to the High Court.

MAUREEN J ANDERSON Tauranga

Northland Age 18/5/17

ONE SMALL WINDOW

Following the government's Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, Maori tribes and hapu from around the country have reputedly lodged around 550 claims to New Zealand's coastline (from the beaches out to the 22km mark). This is despite the ex-Prime Minister stating there'd only ever be a handful of claims made.

One particular claim is for the country's entire coastline; another is for the Kaipara Harbour. In fact, most of Northland's harbours, bays, beaches, inlets, peninsulas and Islands are now subject to multiple, overlapping claims. The claims are being lodged with either the High Court or direct with the government (where they'll be negotiated in secret, behind closed doors).

As the claims are only briefly advertised in the public notices section of newspapers, two private websites are recording them. The High Court ones are displayed on: http://tinyurl.com/ 1n8crnd or http://tinyurl.com/ kkx2pfc1). The crown claims can be seen at: http://tinyurl.com/ mxjoefy

Despite soothing noises from the National Party, this is a serious situation. Customary marine title is akin to full ownership. Successful claimants could deny access to our beach playgrounds by imposing wahi tapu and fines on those breaching it. Fishing may be restricted by the placing of rahui on favourite spots. There may be charges placed on those using boat ramps, moorings and wharfs.

Then there's all the wealth that the foreshore and seabed used to offer the public purse for health, education and welfare. This might include mining, iron sands, minerals, offshore gas, petroleum deposits, marine farming and resource consents.

What is blatantly racist and unfair is that the poor old taxpayer is being obliged to fully fund tribal claimants (hundreds of thousands of dollars per claim). Meanwhile, those of us who wish to object to a High Court claim over our local area have to dig deep to fund ourselves. (Note: There is no way to object to claims made directly to the Crown).

Objectors need to urgently register their intentions with the High Court. Only a very small window has been offered to Kiwis wanting to retain public rights to the coastline.

GEOFF PARKER Kamo

ONCE BITTEN

Mr Finlayson, I get little comfort from your vague suggestion that few of the Maori coastal claims will succeed, because of the many millions of taxpayers' dollars you have freely distributed for often inconclusive tribal claims on the recommendation of an ethnically exclusive Waitangi Tribunal. Claims that are rarely refused.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

OWN GOAL

Re Wally Hicks' interesting letter (Faked it, May 11). His esteemed writer Catherine Murupaenga-lkenn's 'Apples and apples' (March 28) refers to the legal principle of Contra Proferentem, which is a self-serving argument used by treatyists. It is a doctrine of contractual interpretation, providing that where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

The unfortunate reality for treatyists is that there is no ambiguity in Te Tiriti. The only ambiguity is that introduced by 1980s re-interpretations. So if the contra proferentem doctrine is used on those 1980s interpretations, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording, which would be, in those cases, against the interpretations provided by Hugh Kawharu and the Waitangi Tribunal.

Hicks infers that armed conflict at Waitara was "forced" upon Maori by provocation from the settler government. The reality is that it was inter-tribal squabbling over the selling of land that sparked the Waitara conflict. The settler government stepped in to restore law and order and various skirmishes throughout the 1860s over the mid North Island escalated from that point.

GEOFF PARKER Kamo

SCROUNGER'S PARADISE

New Zealand is a scrounger's paradise and the Treaty of Waitangi is like crystal meth to the Waitangi Tribunal, National Government and their partners in crime, The Maori Party, who National really represent. Internally National are now known as the Natouri party. They are sucking this country dry, and living off KIWIs like parasites. They couldn't get through a day without it.

REX ANDERSON Lower Hutt

Dominion Post 18/5/17

FRY AND TABOOS

An interesting point to consider as a result of the Maori renaissance is that any profanity committed on Mt Taranaki is taboo according to their spirituality. Conversely, in light of the recent accusation of blasphemy against Stephen Fry in Ireland, our politicians are considering removing an ancient law which breaks the 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of Our Lord God in vain." This may be a moot point, just the tip of the iceberg, but moral guidance surely deserves some deeper consideration.

KATHLEEN KUZMICICH Miramar

The Northern Advocate 17/5/17

COASTAL CLAIMS

Following the Government’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, Maori tribes and hapu from around the country have reputedly lodged around 550 claims to New Zealand’s coastline (from the beaches out to the 22km mark). This is despite the exPrime Minister stating there’d only ever be a handful of claims made.

One particular claim is for the country’s entire coastline; another is for the Kaipara Harbour. In fact, most of Northland’s harbours, bays, beaches, inlets, peninsulas and islands are now subject to multiple, overlapping claims.

The claims are being lodged with either the High Court or direct with the Government (where they’ll be negotiated in secret, behind closed doors). As the claims are only briefly advertised in the public notices section of newspapers, two private websites are recording them.The High Court ones are displayed on: http://tinyurl.com/ ln8crnd or http://tinyurl.com/ kkx2pfd). The Crown claims can be seen at: http://tinyurl.com/ mxjoefy

Despite soothing noises from the National Party, this is a serious situation.

Customary marine title is akin to full ownership. Successful claimants could deny access to our beach playgrounds by imposing “wahi tapu” and fines on those breaching it. Fishing may be restricted by the placing of “rahui” on favourite spots. There may be charges placed on those using boat ramps, moorings and wharfs.

Then there’s all the wealth that the foreshore and seabed used to offer the public purse for health, education and welfare. This might include mining, iron sands, minerals, offshore gas, petroleum deposits, marine farming and resource consents.

What is blatantly racist and unfair is that the poor old taxpayer is being obliged to fully fund tribal claimants (hundreds of thousands of dollars per claim). Meanwhile, those of us who wish to object to a High Court claim over our local area have to dig deep to fund ourselves.

(Note: There is no way to object to claims made directly to the Crown).

Objectors need to urgently register their intentions with the High Court. Only a very small window has been offered to Kiwis wanting to retain public rights to the coastline.

GEOFF PARKER Kamo

Taranaki Daily News 17/5/17

A CHALLENGE

In your newspaper's editorial headed 'Relationships are built on mutual respect,' the writer claims that "The Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between Maori and Pakeha."

However, as an historian of some years of experience, I can find no reference whatsoever to 'partner' or 'partnership' in the 1840 treaty documents. So are the claims of a treaty partnership true or false?

Here is a chance for your staff and readers to benefit from their knowledge of New Zealand history. Discover the words 'partner' or 'partnership,' or any reference to these words, in any contemporaneous versions of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi documents, and I will gladly donate $5000 to a nominated charity, via this newspaper. My one and only condition is that the words must have been found in the actual, formal Treaty as written and signed in 1840. They cannot come from some other, later interpretation, opinion, document or material.

PAUL VERDON Auckland

WHO'S INDIGENOUS?

Re the article on the Egmont nudie - so Mr Kelvin Day is bemused by Cook's (the nudie) outburst. Doesn't a 'migration of people' to another land make them immigrants in that land or is my knowledge of the English language deceiving me?

Also there is enough archaeology and DNA evidence (forget the oral - can't believe everything you hear) that points to other cultures visiting, and inhabiting, New Zealand pre-Maori - the Waipoua Forest stoneworks is a prime example -but we have never had a government with big enough balls to admit it.

I would be interested to know from Mr Day what year after their arrival had the immigrant Maori developed a good enough 'distinctive culture' to be recognised as indigenous - my guess is 1975 when the Waitangi Tribunal was established.

But one positive thing that I take from Mr Day's comments is the fact that by the year 2680 my family will also have developed a 'distinctive culture' to be "officially" recognised as indigenous to New Zealand...hurrah for that.

RUSSELL W GILMER New Plymouth

Dominion Post 17/5/7

CONSIDER CHRISTIANS

The move to revoke the old law against blasphemy is another sign of our Godless Western society. It takes no note of the offence to Christians who hear and see the name of our lord and saviour used as an expletive in books, in the media and in everyday use. The laws of political correctness say we should respect the feelings of women and Maori by using non-sexist language and pronouncing Maori names correctly, but have no consideration for Christians. We don't need a law against blasphemy, but just some thought for our feelings.

BILL LAMBERT Paraparaumu

MOVING THE TREATY

The hoopla surrounding the $7.2 million move of the Treaty of Waitangi to the National Library raises questions. Under the Public Records Act 2005, Archives New Zealand has custody of government archives -including the Treaty. Shifting it from Archives New Zealand divorces it from its evidential and constitutional contexts.

The Archives' Constitution Room was constructed to absorb the force of an exploding bomb; bullet-proof glass was imported from the United States; carefully controlled lighting, temperature and humidity installed; and a respectful ambience in which to view New Zealand's founding document, provided.

Apparently upgrading the room would not be worth carrying out. Yet we are not told what upgrading is required. If the Treaty's accommodation in the Archives building has suffered from neglect, why did this happen? Is the rationale behind this transfer the desire to fill an embarrassing vast empty space on the entry floor of the National Library?

To suggest that moving the Treaty will improve public accessibility ignores the fact that the Treaty and other important documents have been on display to all since the opening of National Archives (now Archives New Zealand) in its new premises in December 1991.

The cost also makes a mockery of the "substantial savings" that the National Government of 2010 claimed would result from the forced reincorporation of Archives New Zealand into the Department of Internal Affairs.

KATHRYN PATTERSON Director, Chief Archivist 1991- 1998

RAY GROVER Director, Chief Archivist 1981-1991

Nelson Mail 16/5/17

MAKE A CASE

Gary Clover, who accuses the Hobson's Pledge group “anti-all-things Maori racial bias", should make a case to the Human Rights Commission on exactly how that group breaches what part of the 153-clause Human Rights Act.

My name and photo is on the Hobson's Hedge website as a supporter and I am keenly interested in people like Clover who are quick to smear without evidence with allegations of illegal attitudes, comments, or behaviour.

And, for the umpteenth time, Clover gets it wrong on the Treaty of Waitangi. If he put the English and Maori texts side by side he would see that "tino rangatiratanga" translates to "complete ownership" and not "chiefly tribal rule".

MIKE BUTLER Hastings.

NZ Herald 16/5/17

RACIAL DIVISION

We are facing the second largest single event in the creation of a racially divided country.

The first was 1975, when a bogus English version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was created in law.

The second is the upcoming rash of Customary Rights applications before the Courts and directly with the Crown. Maori are claiming huge tracts of New Zealand coastline out to 12 nautical miles, extending to the 200 mile Economic Zone.

These claims are the consequences of the Marine and Coastal Act (Takutai Moana).

There are two avenues for claimants. The High Court, and direct Crown engagement.

High Court claims can be opposed, but there is no public objection process for claims to the Crown.

It is no surprise to find that 381 claims are for "direct negotiations with the Crown" (read Solicitor General and Treaty Minister, Chris Finlayson).

A further 170 claims to date have applied to go to the High Court.

MAUREEN J. ANDERSON, Tauranga.

Dominion Post 16/5/17

CONFUSING ARGUMENT

Duncan Garner's heart may be in the right place but his brain is somewhere else. How does he think all-Maori prisons will help Maori prisoner rehabilitation, while at the same time he blames Maori for their own problems?

His argument is very confusing. If their own culture and beliefs are failing them, and the remaining amorphous lump comprising "other cultures" is not working, what in fact will?

It is about time too that colonisation was dropped from the large list of reasons trotted out to explain why Maori are over-represented in all the more alarming social statistics.

In the nearly 200 years since the first missionaries and other English settlers starting living here, around 6 to 7 generations have passed. How long is it going to take for the griping and blaming to go away and for everyone in this country to try to take individual responsibility for their own wellbeing and advancement?

ALLEN HEATH Woburn

REHABILITATION FOR ALL

I agree with Duncan Garner that a Maori prison could help the 52 per cent of Maori inmates. However, I wonder if a non-Maori prison for the other 48 per cent could be beneficial too?

They too could have reading/ writing difficulties, drugs, alcohol and violence issues.

Reconnecting them with their families, their culture, and their place in life would be an immense aid in reducing repeat offending.

Everyone in prison deserves a chance at effective rehabilitation, to come out of the experience a better person, and be able to contribute to their society.

TRACEY CRAIG Hastings

Rotorua Daily Post 16/5/17

MAORI DIALECTS

Like English, Maori has regional dialects. In pre-European New Zealand there were seven distinct regional accents, and each of variations.

In written Maori the “wh” digraph covers more than one pronunciation.

The “wh” can be the w in weather; the wh in whether, the h in health, the f in full, or it can be dropped off all together.

I hope this information is of use to your correspondent.

CC MCDOWALL Rotorua

The Northern Advocate 15/5/17

STOP HANDOUT

As yet another election comes around in four months’ time, it would be interesting to find out just what both National and Labour/Greens coalition plan to do about that bastion of democracy, the Waitangi Tribunal.

Assuming that one or other would take on the treasury benches, will the outcome of the election depend on which party gives the “partnership”, (that is, funds from the New Zealand taxpayer, and for how much longer) the greatest handout?

The tribunal is a noose around the nation’s neck, and we are going nowhere while they continue to trumpet their stories of abject misery.

Indeed, we are now going to have a “Land Wars” commemoration day on October 28 this year, and for the following three years, thanks to the National Government stumping up $4 million of taxpayers’ money. That is $1m per year for yet another “celebration”.

Let the truth be told. British soldiers and friendly Maori wiped out some 2000 Maori. Maori wiped out some 1000 British soldiers, plus some 40,000 Maori!

I call upon our gutless powers that be to abolish the Waitangi Tribunal, and get rid of the racist Maori seats.

The Maori elite have no right to make such claims that they were the first people in New Zealand, because it is documented that when they started arriving, they found the country well populated. And what happened to these first people?

They slaughtered them, but there are still several thousand left to tell their tales. Perhaps we should listen to them!

KEVAN G MARKS Kaipara

Herald on Sunday 14/5/17

THREE RS BEFORE TE REO

I helped teach literacy many years ago and it amazes me people want Te Reo made compulsory in schools (Give Te Reo a chance to survive, May 7). I mostly helped 15-year-old boys wanting to get a driver license. If teenagers can slip through the system, where, I would like to know, does one find enough teachers to impart Maori?

EVE BARRY, by email

Northern Advocate 13/5/17

MAORI LAND

Minister of Maori Development Te Ururoa Flavell in an opinion piece in the Northern Advocate described the imminent passing of his Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill as change that will provide the biggest improvement to Maori land law in 20 years.

Maori land has always been subject to special legislative restrictions, none of which have helped Maori land owners.

Replacing one law for another will not achieve the benefits removing it will.

Instead Flavell and his Government cling stoically to their belief that they know what is best for Maori people and a new law to control them in a different way is the answer.

The only reason anyone could believe a law is needed to ensure Maori land is retained in Maori hands is if they do not trust Maori land owners enough to preserve it themselves.

Such a patronising attitude smacks of colonialism.

It is intriguing that Maori accept legislation that effectively breaches the Treaty of Waitangi by denying them chieftainship over their own land.

It also belies any notion that tino rangatiratanga was ever a serious concept because this acceptance by Maori of inferior property rights over their land indicates that it is not just the Government which does not trust Maori enough to preserve their own land.

ROBIN GRIEVE Whangarei

Dominion Post 13/5/17 (To the Point section)

How could it possibly cost $7.2 million dollars to move the Treaty of Waitangi just 300 metres (Documents moved in stealth operation, April 22)? Have we all gone mad or was most of this ‘‘koha’’? Perhaps a documentary movie could be made of this epic journey?

NEIL HARRAP,

Rotorua Daily Post 13/5/17

ENGLISH CRITICAL

I agree with Julie Calnan (Letters, May 9) on the importance of correct spelling, usage and pronunciation of English. Like it or not, despite its evolution, spelling, rules (and exceptions!) and pronunciation complexities English remains the language of business and communication throughout much of the world.

Lack of the necessary skills in its usage places a user at a serious disadvantage. I was fortunate: I learned young to spell korrectly and talk proper, eh?

RONALD MAYES Rotorua

ENGLISH A GIFT

Julie Calnan is spot on (Letters, May 9). Regardless of ethnicity, the best gift we can give all our children is a good command of the English language.

Should they wish to travel or seek employment overseas, fluency in Maori is not going to cut it. Nor is the preponderance of the use of the F word as an adjective which peppers most conversations we overhear from the mouths of the young these days.

Lizzie Marvelly mentions the pronunciation of Wh as F. I can remember years ago before the advent of television, a man named Kingi Ihaka used to have a radio programme about the Maori language. On one occasion someone wrote to him and asked how the Wh was pronounced and his reply was that it was a "blown" Wh. Not F as a lot of young Maori were using it. He considered their pronunciation was just plain lazy and incorrect. So that was his view and although not an expert on the subject I am inclined to agree with him.

My reason is that in other Polynesian versions of the language there is a letter F and it is pronounced so. Why then did the Maori who helped the English language professor at either Oxford or Cambridge Universities draw up a written language speak in such a way that he decided to spell these words with a Wh, but differed when he drew up the written languages for other Polynesian peoples?

A.J. MacKENZIE Rotorua

Sunlive / Weekend Sun 12/5/17

EDUCATION’S FAILURE

Those who have a cynical regard for Manu Paul's promise that Maori will look after the foreshore, beaches and their fauna and flora should consider the over-representation of Maori for exceeding the fishing quotas as shown on ‘Coastwatch' on TV.

It may be the result of the post-colonial education system not addressing the particular needs of Maori in numeracy programmes.

B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.

SEABED RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO ALL OF US

Tamati Waka Nene and Sir Apirana Ngata must be turning in their graves to see the shenanigans going on over the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

The foreshore and seabed rightfully belongs to all of us and to legislate otherwise and then use it to grab political power by buying off the Maori party by John Key and his mates beggars belief - and at the expense of us Kiwis. Treaty Settlements Minister Christopher Finlayson then says most of the claims will likely to fade away anyway. Is there going to be settlements to make the claims fade away unbeknown to the public?

The successful claims, they say, public access must be maintained but there is no mention how much we will pay? If I decide to fish will I have to go 12 miles out to sea before I can put a line in the water as the prime fishing areas are all in close and under iwi trust control? The Marine and Coastal Area Act is not about fairness and equity it is about greed and political power. Time for us Kiwis to speak up and say: ‘Enough is enough'.

M LALLY, Te Puke

The Press 12/5/17

BOOT ON OTHER FOOT

Ngai Tahu never hesitated for a second to dredge the Kaikoura harbour to enable its cash flow to continue through it’s Whale Watch venture. Where was the environmental concern during that seabed butchering? $5.7 million taxpayer money was allocated in a heartbeat without deploying scientists and traditional food gathering experts for this fragile slice of coastline.

Suddenly the boot is on the other foot when it comes to Lyttelton Port Company’s desire to dredge the Lyttelton harbour to enable the 10,000 container ships to berth. Ngai Tahu is now the sacred guardian of 2 metres of mud and the dire implications surrounding its removal. How ironic.

ROB BEECHEY Cashmere

NZ Herald 12/5/17

MAORI PLACE NAMES

It seems ironic that Pakehas should be criticised for not pronouncing Maori words the “Maori way” when you consider that so much of the so-called “te reo Maori” is made up of mispronounced English names and words. For a start, Te Tiriti is a mispronunciation of “The Treaty”, puka should be pronounced “book” and even names such as Tipene and Hone are mispronounced. They should be “Stephen” and “John”.

If it’s acceptable for Maori to have their own pronunciation of English words, why then is there a fuss when Maori words are Anglicised? Is it irony — or hypocrisy?

JOHN NEAVE, Hamilton.

Bay of Plenty Times 12/5/17

NATIONAL REPEALED ACCESS LAW

Peter Dey (Letters, May 6) says the present government was not treacherous to the rest of us New Zealanders with the Marine and Coastal Area Act.

Helen Clark's Labour Government in 2004 of the Foreshore and Seabed introduced legislation so it was owned by the Crown and became public estate and all New Zealanders walking along the coast would be free to go without being told to "get off my property".

The National Party had different ideas, and grasps for power had no end, and it made a deal with the Maori Party and repealed the law at the expense of the rest of us fair-minded New Zealanders and to grant rights to a privileged few. Iwi but not Kiwi.

What Mr Dey has failed to mention is these race-based demands for resources and land, and tribal groups granted claims will have the power to impose a "rahui" to ban fishing and to declare "wahi tapu" which prohibits access to the beach which is a God-given right to all of us.

MIKE LALLY Te Puke

Bay of Plenty Times 11/5/17

MARINE ACT

In 2011, John Key’s National Party at the behest of the Maori Party changed the Foreshore and Seabed Act into the Marine and Coastal Area Act. That act gave Maori six years to apply for “customary rights”.

The expiry date for applications was April 3. The public now has until May 30 to file objections at the High Court, Wellington.

Some media are saying as many as 550 claims have been made.

Those claims cover the entire foreshore and territorial waters of New Zealand and include islands, reefs, tidal rivers, tributaries, estuaries, springs, wetlands and the airspace above.

There are claims for “taking” dolphins, whales, penguins, seals, seabirds and their eggs. All species of fish including deep sea varieties. All shellfish, oysters, snails, kina, paua, and crayfish.

Many claims prioritise mineral extraction and mining of sand, peat shingle, aggregate, rocks, stone and ochre.

Others want control of the landing, launching, anchoring and mooring of vessels, all boatsheds and all aquaculture developments.

Many claimants wish to impose “rahui” to ban others from fishing, and most are planning to declare “wahi tapu” to prohibit pubic access to the coast.

The consequences of that 2011 act is that the New Zealand citizens “rights of access” to the playgrounds of our shoreline will be either lost or charged for.

The ability to object is tortuous and will take a competent policy and legal analyst two years work to unscramble. An ordinary citizen has no chance in the process.

The very worst element of this farcical process is that the taxpayer is funding the huge application documents and legal fees attached to those applications.

MAUREEN J ANDERSON

Pyes Pa

Northland Age 11/5/17

SAD AND WRONG

We have a grievance industry, not to be mistaken for a grievance process. Once you get your head around that it makes it all a lot easier to understand.

To iwi and their treaty-troughing Klingons it's big business. Let's look at this not from an angry taxpayer, but from the business side of things. Claims are supposedly nearing an end. Remember we are talking about a multi-million dollar business. Would you walk away from a business that earned you millions of dollars a year, and was completely paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer? Do you really think treaty-troughing lawyers are going to let that happen?

Think about this real carefully. Troughing will go on forever. Think any of our present political parties will stop it? National got in on promises to sort out all this race-based nonsense, but now they rely on treaty-troughing to stay in government. They are now the Maori Party.

Just today Maori have lodged claims on all "our" coastline, and out to 12 nautical miles. Under a government for all KlWls this would be laughed off, as it should be, but not under National. They won't get all the coastline, but they will come away with part of it, and a truckload of koha.

This gets worse by the day. We make up 85 per cent of the population. What's going on here? The Maori Party barely got past the mark last election, and the National government cowers down in front of them at the expense of all other New Zealanders. It's sick, sad and wrong.

If you think the claims are nearly at an end, think againAlundreds of new claims are being planned right now. These will challenge the Crown and seek compensation for the handling of the current settlement process. Too many people have too much at stake for the claims process to end, ever.

REX ANDERSON Lower Hutt

YOU CHOOSE

In your issue of May 9, Anahera Herbert-graves writes of her fanciful tiriti-based constitution. She writes, inter alia, of upholding "a coNciliatory and consensual democracy rather than an adversarial or majoritarian one". Is this Tiriti-speak for the kind of democracy sought by those whose preferred option failed in Britain's Stay or Leave plebiscite and in the US Presidential election?

When the majority of Britons voted to leave the EU, the self-deluded Stay fanatics wouldn't accept that result, and demanded a fresh vote. When Mr Trump triumphed over Mrs Clinton in the USA, Mrs Clinton's fanatical supporters wouldn't accept that either. And they demonstrated their conciliatory nature by rioting and destroying property and calling for killings.

Would you prefer a democracy whereby the majority choice emerges? Or would you prefer a 'democracy' where certain self-appointed conciliatory persons reach a consensus as to which choice emerges?

The latter form of 'democracy' is in place in mainland China, in Cuba and in North Korea. Likewise in Zimbabwe and Iran.

I'm confident that New Zealanders will always want a real democracy, and would recognise an impostor despite the obfuscations of Mrs Herbert-Craves.

ALAN JONES Invercargill

HISTORY SUBVERTED

It is way past the time for New Zealanders to be made aware of a coercive political agenda and the collusion between the National Party, the Maori Party, Maori councils and the Waitangi Tribunal that has successfully subverted the true record of our history at all levels, insinuating educational curriculums and misleading the public.

Recently, with Maori tikanga, full ceremony and strong media coverage, three documents, the copy of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Declaration of Independence of the Tribes of New Zealand and the Women's suffrage petition, were moved to the National Library to form the Te Tohu exhibition. The disproportionate control afforded to Maori, 14.6 per cent of the population, is clearly evident here, as it is in the operation of Te Papa, Our Place.

Have the media been intimidated by threats from the Council of Civil Liberties to label them racist, or coerced by official or political pressure, or by media companies' ideologies that prevent them from publishing alternate or contrary views of this event?

How truly representative of our history are these documents?

Firstly, the Treaty of Waitangi is not the original translation but is the one used to replace Hobson's final draft, which had gone missing but has subsequently been recovered. This was the version, in the Ngapuhi dialect of Maori, that the chiefs signed. This document has been left in Archives.

Secondly, the Treaty was not our founding document, as it only made us subordinate to laws of the colony of New South Wales. It established acceptance of the Queen's sovereignty and Maori becoming subjects of the Crown. No more. Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/ Letters Patent dated November 16. 1840 and enforced on May 3, 1841, made New Zealand a self-governing colony, with its own Governor, judges and laws, flag and international identity. This document has been completely officially ignored, to the extent that the Prime Minister, John Key, did not even know of its existence. Its acceptance would nullify any claims made under the Treaty, embarrassing both the government and Maori. Our historians, Michael King, Claudia Orange and co made no mention of its existence, and our school children have certainly not been informed. This document also remains in Archives.

Thirdly, the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes was only signed by 52 northern chiefs, hardly a majority, which apart from adopting a British mercantile flag was a complete disaster. The lawlessness and internecine slaughter continued. All New Zealanders need to be informed of these matters, but who in the media is willing to put his head above the parapet?

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

NZ Herald 11/5/17

MAORI PRISONS

Labour can kick the election goodbye with this Maori prison policy. When Maori obey the law there will be fewer of them in prison. The laws of this country are for all to follow, not to be judged by your ethnicity. How will it ever be possible to sentence people for the same crime if the rules are not the same for all?

Don’t make excuses, start with sorting out the families who are bringing up these future criminals before they ever start coming before the courts. This nonsense of them being too young and there are no laws to cover them, perhaps this is where to start.

SUE GALLAHAR, Mangere.

NZ Herald 11/5/17 (Short & Sweet section)

ON HOUSING

Well done to He Korowai Trust, giving their people a leg up to own their own homes. It is a great example of the use of money they have, an example to other Maori trusts to help their own people.

BARRY WOOD, Howick.

Rotorua Daily News 11/5/17

SPOKEN ENGLISH

I write in support of Julie Calnan ( Letters, May 9) in which she suggests it might be a good idea to concentrate on the English language and improve the way that is spoken.

I, for one, would wholly support those who wish to learn and speak the Maori language. But I think “toe paw” for Taupo is utterly ridiculous.

I have no wish to speak any language other than English and the Rotorua Library will remain just that — the Rotorua Library, not some Maori name which means little to me.

A N CHRISTIE Rotorua

Hawkes Bay Today 11/5/17

HOUSING SCHEME

More interesting news in our daily paper (May 9), especially as the Government is giving $27 million to sustain the marae and promote Maori ownership to purchase their own homes.

Why isn't the Waitangi Tribunal funding these necessities for our Maori people? They receive large sums from the government to help the people who need it. Where is this money going? We need to know.

There are many Pakeha who are in the same predicament and have no hope of owning their own homes either— and no tribunal.

To me this sounds racial, as all our people in these circumstances need help if they want to purchase their own home and they all need to work and save their money as welL

VAL KING Clive

NZ Herald 10/5/17

PRONOUNCING MAORI

Like your correspondent Dave Wilson I have mild concern about the implications for the Maori language of Lizzie Marvelly’s article last Saturday.

I was taught Latin at school. We were told we were learning to pronounce the language in its “pure“form as spoken by the ancient Romans (apparently deduced from their poetry). I understand that this pronunciation has been used unchanged for the last 400 or 500 years since it replaced the mediaeval style. The reason that the pronunciation has never changed over that period? No one speaks the language.

My understanding is that what we in the North Island think of as the “Kawarau” River has a namesake in Otago called by the locals the “Kawarrah”, and Waingaro Springs is likewise referred to by locals as “Wynarrow”, the emphasis in each case being on the second syllable. No doubt there are many other examples of local usage of place names varying from what is thought to be the classical Maori pronunciation. Which is the more authentic?

JOHN HOLMES, Freemans Bay

Nelson Mail 9/5/17

ONE PEOPLE

I attended the Hobson's Pledge presentation and find Gary Clover's assertions outrageous and unbelievably disturbing. To describe his letter as irrational is almost to praise it.

Everyone present would attest that the theme of Alan Brash's and Casey Costello's presentations arose from Waka Nene's statement following his signing of the Treaty, "we are now one people," which is exactly what Brash and Costello want upheld today. They seek to reestablish the one people, Maori/non-Maori closeness that existed prior to 1985 Labour's atrocious, race-dividing invention of "Treaty principles" which triggered the yet-to-be-concluded even 32 years later, "full-and-final" third round of Treaty "settlements."

Anyone who's read the Treaty knows its points are simple and straightforward. In parliament back in 1948, Sir Apirana Ngata heaped praises on the then government for the generosity of its second "full and final" Treaty "settlement."

Clover fatuously stated that iwi were "excluded from local council decision-making," yet Nelson has freely elected Maori city councillors over the years - Ben Hippolite and Jason Wawatai - our deputy-mayor, Paul Matheson, is part-Maori. Even more significant, NCC employs an iwi-liaison officer: no other organisation privileged to enjoy such unjustifiable council-funding. Mr Clover should reflect, far more deeply, upon all that Maori have gained since 1840.

JIM CABLE Nelson,

Waikato Times 9/5/17

EDUCATION’S FAILURE

Those who have a cynical regard for Manu Paul’s promise that Maori will look after the foreshore, beaches their fauna and flora should consider the over representation of Maori for exceeding the fishing quotas as shown on Coast Watch TV. Maybe the result of the post colonial education system not addressing the particular needs of Maori in numeracy programmes.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

The Daily Post Rotorua 9/5/17

POOR ENGLISH A PROBLEM TOO

Lizzie Marvelly takes a big stick to most of us in her latest narrative over our poor pronunciation of Maori place names ( Rotorua Daily Post, May 6).

She is clearly passionate about this and I can understand how she feels. Language is precious to those who own it and many have fought hard to make sure that their own tongue is not lost to future generations.

However, for me, our anglicised versions of Maori names are nowhere near as offensive as the outright butchery of the English language made by many who were born and bred in New Zealand, especially our youth.

If I mispronounce ‘Toe Paw’, I apologise, but doing so probably won’t affect my job prospects. However, a future employer may think twice about employing someone who “aks” for a job. Of course, the two aren’t mutually exclusive; we could all try harder, but please, let’s concentrate on getting our local youth speaking English correctly first, because it’s their futures at stake.

We are judged in the first instance largely on how we present ourselves with our use of language being a very large part of that, and like it or not 99 per cent of the time that language will be English.

JULIE CALNAN Rotorua

GPS ELOCUTION

I was interested in the remarks by Minister Flavell on Rotorua becoming a bilingual city ( Rotorua Daily Post, May 8).

May I suggest he starts with the makers of the GPS systems in cars. These are widely used by Kiwis and visitors and yet the pronunciation of our Maori street names is deplorable. How can we be expected to pronounce Maori correctly when we are listening to this bastardising of the Maori language over our GPS system? I suggest he listens to one in Rotorua.

ALFRED HOYLE Rotorua

Wanganui Chronicle 9/5/17

TRIBUNAL FLAWS

Peter Rochford’s (letters, March 4) esteemed Waitangi Tribunal is a pro-Maori lobby group that can only make recommendations. Unfortunately, this handful of unelected tribunal members has the exclusive authority to interpret the Treaty to suit agendas.

A Ngapuhi elder, David Rankin, had this to say about these so-called pillars of society, “The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along, it is a bully; go against it and you will be labelled a racist or worse. It has turned out to be a body that is bringing in apartheid to New Zealand.”

[Noted journalist and media critic] Brian Priestley MBE said: “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth".

Dr Giselle Byrnes said: “Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause."

Other notable historians who have questioned the academic integrity of the history produced by the Waitangi Tribunal are Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, Bill Oliver and Michael Bassett.

An increasing number of New Zealanders are now questioning the transfer of wealth to Maori elite, often on the unchallenged findings of this biased tribunal.

To my knowledge, no outsider is permitted to attend hearings or have any input into these claims, only the opportunist claimants, the Waitangi Tribunalists and the former Ngai Tahu lawyer Chris Finlayson for the Crown. Fait accompli, you might say.

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

Northland Age 9/5/17

HOPPING MAD

Thursday's headline has me hopping mad. Iwi lay claim to coast. So far I have not read further. By what right does the Maori race think they have more right to this country and all it contains than the rest of the citizens?

Admittedly they arrived on these shores two or 300 years before the bulk of the Europeans, who also arrived in boats just as they had. But when the Maori race came they killed, enslaved and/or banished the resident population. Then they took only 200 years to completely wipe out the giant moa and native eagle, which had been living with the Moriori people for thousands of years.

Even now some Maori think they have a right to go against the conservation laws and take let us say, the wood pigeon and toheroa while the rest of us leave them to build up numbers.

When the English were asked to rule this country (yes, they were asked to take over because the small tribes were being wiped out by the stronger tribes, and English law forbade murder etc.) they gave the Maori people rights and benefits that had not been given to other indigenous races around the rest of the globe.

Let us stop this division of peoples and property and live as one nation, every person equal under the law.

SYLVIA BRYAN Motutangi

Taranaki Daily News 9/5/17

MYTH BUSTED

Joe Goodin (letters TDN, May 4) wants a definite answer to, who arrived first in NZ, Maori or Moriori? And what is being done to compensate Moriori for their lost ancestral claims?

NZ historians James Belich and Michael King plus the Te An Encyclopedia of NZ History are in agreement, Maori arrived first in NZ. And the theory that Moriori were here first is erroneous. Furthermore, the New Zealand school history curriculum was amended in 2011 to ensure this historical myth was not perpetuated.

Joe Goodin is right about the persecutions Moriori suffered, especially those inflicted by displaced people from (Taranaki iwi) Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama. They killed and enslaved Moriori in and around 1835 -thanks to ready availability of muskets. Regrettably at the time Moriori had taken a solemn vow of peace (passive resistance) called "Nunuku's Law" and that made them vulnerable to exploitation.

This is a sad and murky part of our history. We must acknowledge though: that both Pakeha and Maori have done shameful things. It behoves us to learn from our past. The late Michael King was a great friend and advocate for the Moriori people. But more needs to be done--and their sad story never lost.

BRYAN VICKERY New Plymouth

NZ Herald 9/5/17

CORRECT PRONUNCIATION

Teachers know to get people to learn —work with them and not bully them. The article by Ms Marvelly is the most arrogant and abusive article I have ever read.

For the first 40 years of my life everyone was happy in the way Maori names were pronounced, then a few said we were all wrong. All languages change so why would Maori be any different?

If Ms Marvelly wants to get people to pronounce names the way she does, then promote simple names to get people started.

DENNIS MCLEOD, Hamilton.

KIWISPEAK

Lizzie Marvelly mocks those who mispronounce Maori place names but I wish her to know that, by the standards of many New Zealanders. I cannot pronounce English words to their satisfaction, even after three decades living here.

Each time I open my mouth I brand myself as tauiwi, a foreigner. As one shop assistant unhelpfully advised me, "If you're going to live in our country you have to talk like us.". Well, I can't. If I cannot pronounce my home language correctly, what chance do I have with te reo? Instead of berating those who pronounce te reo imperfectly, how about thanking those who give it a go?

DAVID BLAKER, Three Kings

Hawke's Bay Today 9/5/17

GANGS MUST EARN FUNDING

Paula Bennett was bang on when she spoke against continued funding of the notorious Mongrel Mob’s alcohol and drug rehabilitation programme.

A non-government review of the programme noted that confusion and differences of opinion about the roles and responsibilities have affected recent programmes. The much touted 90 per cent success rate is based on “improved outcomes”. One of these outcomes is that “participants were less likely to commit crimes or had reduced the rate and severity of their offending”.

In fact, 45 per cent faced new charges in the two to six year period from 12 months after completion. Reducing the rate and severity of further crime does not indicate success.

I would openly support increased funding in helping those that have succumbed to the horrors of P addiction. In many cases rehabilitation, not prison, is the more constructive option and a better outcome.

But there are many people who deserve funding help ahead of those who have already abused a welfare state and terrorised its citizens.

If gangs want funding for helping their members they can earn it.

That means stopping criminal activities. That means helping the police put away the dealers and suppliers. If they help stop the flow of drugs into our society they will earn the respect of the communities they live within.

It is a two-way street.

DAVID ELLIOTT

Nelson Mail 8/5/17

READING IT RIGHT

Gary Clover (Nelson Mail, May 5) is at it again with his extremist objections to "Hobson's Pledge" which supports equal rights and privileges for all the people of New Zealand. That is exactly the sub-stance of the Treaty.

Clover's claim that "Hobson pledged also to protect Maori custom, and Maori land and treasures, and promote tribal self-government tino rangatiratanga" is a gross misinterpretation of Article second which guaranteed the property rights of "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani" that is "all the people of New Zealand", a point which Clover seems unable to gasp.

The "iwi partnership" which he praises is blatantly racist and un-democratic. There is no reason for his "iwi" to be involved in local council decision-making indeed "iwi" are not even mentioned in the Treaty.

However, individuals with some Maori ancestry have exactly the same rights as everybody else to stand as candidates and if they are good enough, they will be elected. This happens. That is democracy.

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

Bay of Plenty Times 6/5/17

RACHEL'S LABELS

Regarding Rachel Stewart's latest column (Opinion, May 3) criticism, it seems, is something she doesn't take too kindly. Instead of defending her position by addressing her critics' claims, she reaches for the ad hominem calling them "elderly Caucasian gents". This, in my view, is a portmanteau insult covering all bases.

She claims to be "nothing, if not an equal opportunity annoyance" so I look forward to her writing at ageing kaumatua and calling them "elderly brown gents".

Right now, the opportunity is there for her, with all the silliness of cultural offence by a nude model on top of Mt Taranaki. I look forward to her column including the ad hominems but I suspect for Rachel this may be a bridge too far.

As for her claim that democracy is dying, she is spot on. The current changes to the Resource Management Act and hundreds of claims for the foreshore and seabed show we are moving towards a separatist society.

It is good to see there still are people, be they "elderly Caucasian gents", who are prepared to stand up for the democratic principle and make their views known. (Abridged) RICHARD PRINCE Welcome Bay

Southland Times 5/5/17

MAORI CLAIMS

Every few months or so, Maori-dom put forward yet another claim to sole rights to our land. Their latest is to claim the entire shore line.

Maybe they have a point as their legend based on the travels of Maui say that he fished up this very large flat fish which he and his crew used for food.

Years later, when Maori did arrive to settle this little piece of paradise that nature had developed over many hundreds of years, they Just claimed it by killing off and eating the few who had got here first.

This was the paradise the white man found and thought he could improve on. They did, however, water down the rich blood line to the point that less than 15 per cent of the population can claim Maori blood and a great number of them would lose it all from a bloody nose. ( Abridged)

JIM FISH Invercargill

Northland Age 4/5/17

BLATANTLY FALSE

It would be quite difficult to find a letter more bitter and twisted than that of Wally Hicks (Racist all right, April 27). Thus his claim that Article Second of the Treaty is "the guarantor of certain rights to iwi and hapu of control of their properties and taonga and of a place in the control of some national and local resources" is a fabrication, whoever said it.

The Treaty says nothing at all about Hicks' "control of some national and local resources". It does not even mention "iwi," while "taonga" meant simply ordinary possessions - or chattels - and nothing else.

Even more importantly, its guarantees were made to "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani," which means "all the people of New Zealand". Quite clearly "all" means "all," and "Nu Tirani" is not Hicks' imaginary "Aotearoa".

It is a disturbing fact that much of Hicks' "modern scholarship and jurisprudence [on] the subject of Te Tiriti" is blatantly false. One example is that he quotes "Ngapuhi scholar Manuka Henare's 2010 testimony before the Waitangi Tribunal, "that Maori who signed the Treaty expected the British to help them build a state, rather than seize power". This is nothing but Henare re-writing history in his own privileged Maori image.

The recorded words of the chiefs at Waitangi state perfectly dearly that they knew that they would become subordinate to the Governor and hence to the Queen, like all other British subjects. As such, they had the opportunity to contribute to the development of what became the new nation of New Zealand, and those such as Tamati Waka Nene were notable for doing so.

Sadly, today there is a range of racist and separatist legislation, too numerous to mention here, being foisted upon us by successive governments. It is the mission of Hobson's Pledge to arrest and correct this, and maintain equality of privilege and rights for all New Zealanders about which once we were justly proud.

BRUCE MOON Nelson

CRADLE TO JAIL

Recent statistics indicate a disproportionately high percentage of Maori in prison. This should not come as a surprise to any thinking New Zealander. `The most pernicious combination appears when over-generous bureaucracy and political correctness combine with a lack of self-control and any shred of social conscience."

This prediction was made some years ago by the visiting eminent British criminologist Theodore Dalrymple (his nom-de-plume), when he learned of our generous welfare payments, whereby predominantly young, single, uneducated women were making a career choice to have multiple children and live off the indulgent DPB benefits. As their offspring were certain to be socially and financially disadvantaged with no reliable male role models, then this assured a `cradle to jail' scenario.

JAMES WRIGHT Tauranga

NZ Herald 4/5/17 (Short & Sweet section)

ON FORESHORE

Manu Paul on behalf of all Maori has claimed the total coastline of New Zealand, stating they wish to take over the care and maintenance of the land and fisheries. Has he never watched Coastwatch on television?

GREG MOIR, Kerikeri.

Taranaki Daily News 4/5/17

CLEAR IT UP

Howie Tamati and Bill Simpson have kindly covered a variety of historical points with us recently, and that Maori were severely wronged and ripped off by the early colonial law makers is without question.

However, can anyone help me here as it is still unclear - to me at least - where Moriori sit in the food chain of grievance remediation with the crown?

What is the definitive last word on who arrived in Aotearoa first? Moriori or Maori?

Who is pushing the case for Moriori to not be lost in the opportunity to regain their ancestral lands?

Be nice to get a better understanding of this.

JOE GOODIN New Plymouth

Bay of Plenty Times 4/5/17

WAVE OF CLAIMS

It is with cynicism that I note varying applications to the courts for ‘customary marine title and protected customary rights’.

Bay of Plenty applications are for ‘in and around Te Tahuna o Rangataua, the Maungatapu peninsular, the Waimapu Estuary, Te Papa peninsula, Te Awanui to Mauao, from Mauao to Te Tumu and out to sea. The Waikaraka Estuary, Te Puna, Tauranga Harbour, Ihaka Tangitu Reserve. Motunau Island and adjacent waters, Pukehina Coast from Ngawhara to Pokare and the Waihi and Maketu Estuaries’.

These are some of the 150 claims for ownership of thousands of kilometres of our coastline filed in the High Court and advertised over the past week with 20 days for anyone to object.

This treachery, in my view, that the National Party, Maori Party, the Greens, Chris Finlayson and tribal elite have perpetrated upon a majority of citizens without their agreement finally denotes the demise of democracy and a yawning racial divide.

MAUREEN J ANDERSON Tauranga

Northern Advocate 4/5/17

RACISM REMAINS

“Racism occurs when a group of prejudiced individuals get together to create a system of special privilege affording them unearned superior, separate, or different rights to everybody else solely on the basis of group membership.” Sound familiar? This has all the hallmarks of that august body, the Waitangi Tribunal, and as such, it should be scrapped forthwith. The Race Relations Conciliator, Dame Susan Devoy, should set out about its demolition because it exists for one race only!

The temporary Maori elite seats in Parliament were granted to them until they understood just how the system works. After 176 years, they have mastered the system exceptionally well, and, as such, they should now be abandoned, otherwise they just might become permanent! To many New Zealanders, including many Maori, they have long since passed their usefulness. The longer these iniquities remain, the more the Crown, ie the New Zealand taxpayer, will have to continue fronting up to them!

Yet it continues. October 28 this year will be the start of an annual day for celebrating the "land wars".

What they should be celebrating is the fact that they were given British citizenship before the "Tribe of Marion" got his hands on the country.

I am informed by somebody that the Waitaha (and Patupaiarehe?) is a myth. Perhaps that person could explain why most of the islands of the Pacific were inhabited by humankind for several thousands of years, and that New Zealand was completely missed before the coming of Maori!

KEVAN G MARKS, Kaipara.

Nelson Mail 3/5/17

MMP MEDDLED WITH

Neville Male writes a good letter (April 13) about the flawed amendments to the Resource Management Act but he is mistaken in blaming MMP.

The recommendations for MMP of the Royal Commission introduced by the Bolger Government were well considered and balanced but Parliament itself meddled with them in two significant ways.

The first was the ridiculous ‘‘coat-tailing provision’’ by which a party with one electorate member does not have to reach the threshold of 5 per cent of party votes to get list members. It is the only reason Marama Fox is in Parliament.

The second was the decision not to abolish Maori electorates, well past their ‘‘use-by’’ date.

The Commission foresaw correctly that under MMPthere would be a fair share of Maori members anyway.

Instead the number of Maori seats was increased with smaller quotas of electors – and hence more members – that for general seats.

Under the review of MMPand in response to many public submissions, the Royal Commission recommended that these anomalies be removed.

Its report was arrogantly dismissed by John Key who claimed that he would never get sufficient votes in Parliament for it – this from the man whose successor required the vote of Marama Fox to pass the RMA amendments. Enough said?

BRUCE MOON

Nelson

NZ Herald 3/5/17

FORESHORE CLAIM

Having just read of the latest public funded claim by Maori to own the foreshore I have to regretfully say, they are right.

For far too long this oppressive colonial Government has ruined our marine resource when all the time rightful managers and caretakers have been there to do the job properly.

For many years I have seen Maori ride up and down the beach, day and night on their customary quad bikes, and return with bin after bin of what must obviously be dead and decaying shellfish.

Nobody else would be that vigilant cleaning up the foreshore.

I would be pleased to pay to use the beach, it is all for a very good cause.

All beaches clean, all water pure, all Pakeha allowed on the beach for free and all pigs fed and ready to fly.

ROD KANE, RD Henderson.

Waikato Times 3-5-17 (Also in Northern Advocate 3/5/17)

CRADLE TO JAIL

Recent statistics indicate a disproportionately high percentage of Maori in prison. This should not come as a surprise.

‘‘The most pernicious combination appears when over-generous bureaucracy and political correctness combine with a lack of self control and any shred of social conscience.’’

This prediction was made some years ago by the visiting eminent British criminologist Theodore Dalrymple (his nom-de-plume) when he learned of our generous welfare payments whereby predominantly young, single, uneducated women were making a career choice to have multiple children and live off the domestic purposes benefits.

As their offspring were certain to be socially and financially disadvantaged with no reliable male role models, then this assured a ‘‘cradle to jail’’ scenario.

JAMES WRIGHT

Tauranga

Rotorua Daily Post 3/5/17

JESUS THE ANSWER TO ISSUES

As a Maori man here’s the simple answer and solution to Maori problems and social issues.

First of all, 28 years ago as a young family man with a partner and two infant daughters my life was in a mess. I had personal issues, I couldn’t hold down a fulltime job, my relationship with my partner was insecure, we were always broke, always fighting, we lived to party, our family was dysfunctional and the future for us at the time wasn’t looking bright.

The simple answer and solution was Jesus. He turned our despair into hope, our poverty into prosperity, he calmed our fears and gave us power to live a victorious life.

If there are social problems today Jesus shows us the way to a better tomorrow, if there are prison problems today Jesus can set the captives free.

Now 28 years on my life has changed for the better, I’m in a better space now, I’ve held down a fulltime job for 18 years, I have a happy and stable marriage to my wife of 28 years, we own our own house, we’ve raised a family who are educated and career-minded and all this thanks to Jesus, now my world is filled with dreams, hopes and aspirations.

The answer to Maori problems and social issues is Jesus, just call him now freephone he’s waiting to pick up.

DARREN BROWN Rotorua

Nelson Mail 2/5/17

POLITICAL NONSENSE

‘‘Democracy’’ is an abused word today. Abused, because it’s misunderstood. New Zealand is a democracy because we have threeyearly elections, enabling the choice of whatever government we want. Democratic process fills our parliament — the most successful party(s) become government; alsorans become opposition.

Under FPP it was a reasonable system because every single MP was the choice of his/her electorate. Foolishly, we tossed that safeguard with MMP. Today 51 MPs, 42 per cent of parliament, are there solely because their party, not the electorate, appointed them.

Electors got to appoint only 70 MPs. This pretence of ‘‘democratic’’ process is failing us.

What’s democratic about empowering unelectable minorities to impede the efforts of elected government, when all but 2 of those 51 are non-elected, partyselected List MPs?

Why should the elected government’s policies, endorsed by electorate majority, be impeded by non-elected MPs?

The overblown, expensive nonsense that is MMPdoesn’t uphold democracy. It’s expensive and time-wasting.

JIM CABLE, Nelson

Northland Age 2/5/17

RACIST ALL WRONG

Re the letter from Wally Hicks, (`Racism all right). It is apparent that he is the product of a socially engineered generation that would elevate separate development (apartheid) above equal tights and democracy.

New Zealand was the world leader in equal rights for all citizens until the late 1970s, when activist part-Maori began denying the Pakeha part of their heritage to become 'all Maori'.

The formation of the Waitangi Tribunal accelerated the decline in race relations, inverting the Treaty of Waitangi from being an intended document of unity into an instrument for racial division.

This was further distorted by Geoffrey Palmer's 'principles of the Treaty', adding non-existent attributes to a simple agreement. There were only two essential principles contained in the Treaty — that Maori accepted the Queen as chief above their own chiefs, and that in return for Crown protection there would be a common law protecting both races.

Unfortunately, the further in time one gets away from an actual historical event (eg.1840) the further one gets away from the truth, and now we have a situation wherein modern Maori scholars are assigning new meanings to words that meant something totally different in that earlier era.

Instead of denigrating Don Brash, I would suggest that Mr Hicks (and Peter Dunne) read the transcript of the 1860 Kohimarama Conference, and then study An explanation of the Treaty by Sir Apirana Ngata, published in 1923.

Both of the aforementioned should be included in all school curricula to give children a balanced view of our true history, and then our younger generation could decide for themselves whether or not the chiefs who signed the Treaty fully understood the significance of ceding sovereignty to the Queen, and if the intention was to divide the nation into two or unite it as one people.

But that is unlikely to happen when those pursuing a particular agenda either don't know all the facts, or worse, when knowing the truth are prepared to mislead their children.

MITCH MORGAN Kaipara

Taranaki Daily News 2/5/17

VICTIMS' RIGHTS

In the barrage of letters which have appeared on the issue of Maori crime and the disproportionate ethnic makeup of this country's prison population, no comment has been made on the rights of the victims of these crimes.

One would think that the rights of the victims - and for every crime committed there is a victim -would outweigh the rights of the perpetrator! Unfortunately, the way the system works, this is not the case.

Other than a sympathetic call from the likes of organisations such as Victim Support, the victim has to sit back and wait for the lengthy process of justice to grind on to an eventual outcome. The rights would appear one-sided as the perpetrators of crime are given legal aid in order that they get a fair hearing in the court appearances which follow.

Many of these are recidivist criminals who regardless of their criminal records, must once again be proven to be guilty of the crime which they are charged with. I have no quarrel with this because it gives some measure of balance and fairness to the court process, but it still comes at a very large cost to the nation.

Maori are disproportionately represented in prison because each and every one has been convicted of a crime which in the opinion of the sentencing judge, justifies their place there. None are there because they are Maori!

I might add that for many, the prison sentence has been delivered after several non-custodial sentences have been handed down previously.

More than once I have heard the accusation that because of the disproportionate ethnic representation of Maori, the Justice system has failed Maori. I would contend that those of whatever ethnicity who end up in jail, have failed society in general.

BARRY EASTON New Plymouth

Bay of Plenty Times 2/4/17

RMA AT FAULT

Bryan Gould, a former vicechancellor of the University of Waikato, and Jim Bolger, a former Prime Minister, are wrong: neo-liberalism has not failed us.

As the Ministry of Social Development data shows, consumption inequality in New Zealand has barely changed since 1982.

What has changed is wealth inequality, mainly because the last 20 years have seen an enormous explosion in house prices, so that those lucky enough to have owned houses over that period have become vastly wealthier relative to those who have not owned houses.

And why have house prices risen so rapidly over the last 20 years?

Mainly because the Resource Management Act, for which Mr Bolger’s government was responsible, has so constrained the availability of land in our major cities that today tiny fragments of residential land in Auckland now sell for more than half a million dollars, putting house prices well beyond the reach of most first-home buyers.

It was not neo-liberalism (or the free market) that caused that scandal, but local body planning rules required by the Bolger and subsequent governments.

MARGARET MURRAY-BENGE Bethlehem

Dominion Post 2/5/17

STREET NAMES

The matter of the seven road names required to replace the old State Highway through the Kapiti Coast was always destined to generate more heat than light but the PC "authorities" that chose them have surpassed themselves.

It worries me not one bit that they have selected Maori names but this bunch are indeed unpronounceable and incomprehensible to most of the population.

I've lived most of my seven-plus decades on the Kapiti Coast and six of the names are so significant I've never heard of them. Ask any 10-year-old how Matene Te Whiwhi Rd is going to finish up.

What concerns me more is that if I become involved in an injury accident on the old road anywhere between Paekakariki and Otaki, where the heck do I direct emergency services to go?

Someone somewhere needs to realise that road names have far greater purposes to serve than to memorialise local family ancestors.

DEREK CAVANAGH Waikanae

Wanganui Chronicle 1/5/17

THANK YOU, KEN

Chester Borrows, our retiring MP, questions my criticism of the National Party and its passing of a RMA Bill to place Maori on local bodies, and on April 20 Ken Mair supplied my answer.

The Wanganui/Whanganui Land Settlement Negotiation Trust supplied the data as to why I am sceptical. According to the article on page 3 of the Chronicle the Settlement Trust says the "man-date was a vote of confidence" with a "95 per cent majority" but at the end of the article we are told the "mandate" is only "from 1232 of 4802 voters". If you do some simple arithmetic, you find that 95 per cent of 1232 is 1170.4, which is only 23.4 per cent of the eligible voters.

There is no way I want people on councils or any other body who regard less than 25 per cent of the voting electors as a "mandate". I especially don't want undemocratic, unelected representatives.

Our laws and consultation allow everyone a chance to be heard, no matter what their race or religion, and race-based legislation has no place in our democracy.

As to the other changes in the RMA to speed things up, the Listener had an interesting article on how the changes to the building regulations to speed up/ streamline house-building gave us the leaky homes that are still causing problems some 25-plus years later.

In my opinion, between the iwi participation arrangements and the speed-up to consents we can major expect problems.

The issues that concern me are those of a functioning democracy that is actually fully representative, open and totally honest, and without massaged statistics.

TERRY O'CONNOR Wanganui

Northern Advocate 1/5/17

TRAINING NEEDED

Dover Samuels — Whanau call cultural claptrap Northern Advocate April 25 — is just so correct in what he says, many Maori probably do need boot camp Territorial training to teach discipline and the basic life skills that they have never been taught, plus a trade would be excellent.

The money coming out of the Waitangi Tribunal should be spent to set up a training centres to teach young Maori couples parenting skills, go back to the real core of the violence and life skill issue, the root cause of where it determines the young one's future, who so often end up in jail or they do not lead a productive life.

Stop looking to blame others for your own problems, 177 years later it is not the fault of colonialism, it only bought with it opportunity!

Go look and persistently ask for money and help from the Maori who have received millions from the Treaty settlements, those that are living the high life and not passing this money down to help the families in real need.

Personally, I still think it was so wrong what the Labour government of 1984 (Rogernomics) did in their so-called wonderful idea to save money when they closed and sold the railway off and shut down the forestry programmes, closed all the little settlements down, people had nowhere to live. Then they moved to the city to the dole and for the children to have a life of crime. So many Maori were employed in all these places.

They were happy, they had pride and dignity and a life and a place to bring up their families. It was good days! It doesn't always pay to reinvent the wheel, there was nothing wrong with the old way.

C HUMPHREYS Katikati

Kapiti News April 26, 2017

LETTER TO THE EDITOR,

In last week’s April 12 edition of the Kapiti News, under the heading “Better Planning “, Nathan Guy attempted to explain why entrenching separatism into every one of New Zealand’s Councils, by agreeing to iwi concessions, was a better way to plan. He said “There has been misleading publicity about the iwi participation agreements. The RMA always required Councils to engage with iwi but provided little direction on how”.

If iwi participation agreements had always placed unelected iwi (the Maori race) at the negotiating table for every resource consent and control over all publicly owned natural resources, by law, why has every other political party and most of the nation’s well known political commentators come out and slammed the Government’s back door deal with the racist Maori Party.

Metira Turei, leader of the Greens, Peter Dunne, leader of United First, Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand First, David Seymour, leader of Act and Andrew Little, leader of the Labour Party have all disagreed vehemently with this anti-democratic racist cave in to the Maori Party. Even their own National Party members were up in arms.

In fact, Act, United Future and NZ First had all offered their support to pass the Bill but none would agree to introducing iwi participation agreements into law.

Another who disagrees with Nathan Guy’ ‘no change’ stance is the co-leader of the Maori Party himself, Te Ururoa Flavell, who said the iwi participation agreements "go beyond anything that currently exists for Maori outside of a Treaty settlement".

ANDY OAKLEY, Kapiti Coast

Rotorua Daily Post 29/4/17

TE ARAWA SCEPTIC

It struck me as par for the course to read the comments by Te Taru White, the chairman of the Te Tatau O Te Arawa Board, regarding the so-called progress with the partnership with council ( Rotorua Daily Post, April 25).

His positive comments regarding the four board members’ integration etc on to the council committee meetings were to be expected.

However, there remain many people who would treat his comments with scepticism.

After sitting around the council table with the Te Arawa members last year, it did not take long to realise that they were clearly there to represent the interests of Te Arawa, and certainly not the ratepayers of Rotorua.

The four Te Arawa members are all smart, lovely people in their own right, but quite simply do not meet the criteria of being democratically elected on to council by all of the ratepayers of Rotorua.

Furthermore, I could point out that one of these four appointees of Te Arawa did actually stand for council last year, but, while coming 26th out of 35 candidates, is still currently sitting around the council table today. How ironical is that? This growing issue of racebased appointments to democratically elected bodies will in fact become a major issue with the forthcoming general election in September.

Following the National Government’s acquiescence to the Maori Party demands over the Resource Management Act reforms, the likelihood of increased iwi participation in council’s role in certain governance areas may change substantially.

It is my guess that as a result of National selling the country down the river, there is one party that will benefit from such an appalling decision, and that party is NZ First.

MIKE McVICKER, Rotorua

Wanganui Chronicle 29/4/17

EQUALITY PLEASE

Re the Chronicle article "Maori reoffending too high": May I suggest a bit less kapa haka and something more suitable for future employment opportunities.

I am also becoming increasingly annoyed by the continual referring to those of us who are not Maori as "non-Maori". We are not non - Maori. nor are we non-people. If I were to refer to Maori as "non-European". Maori would be the first to complain.

I suggest the media refer to those other than Maori — if that needs to be a distinction — as other New Zealanders. A more positive and equal reference I would think.

A BARRON Aramoho

Bay of Plenty Times 29-4-17

CRADLE TO JAIL

Recent statistics indicate a disproportionately high percent-age of Maori incarceration. This should not come as a surprise to any thinking New Zealander.

"The most pernicious combination appears when over-generous bureaucracy and political correctness combine with a lack of self control and any shred of social conscience" This prediction was made a few years ago by the eminent visiting British criminologist Theodore Dalrymple (a nom-de-plume) when he learned of our generous welfare payments whereby predominantly young, single, uneducated women were making a career choice to have children and live off the DPB benefits.

As their offspring were certain to be socially, financially disadvantaged with no reliable male role models then this assured a 'Cradle to Jail' scenario. (Abridged)

J. WRIGHT Tauranga

Dominion Post 29/4/17

RELIGIOUS CHANTS

Congratulations to Chris Milne, the outspoken Hutt City councillor, for questioning religious chants at council meetings.

Milne is correct to stand up to the karalda and other religious chants that have become compulsory at nearly every local or central government function.

Many New Zealanders believe we should end the mandatory karakia at these events.

Without doubt it's an imposition on the beliefs of our Asian, Indian, European, Islamic, African and myriad other Kiwi cultures.

NEIL HARRAP Wellington

Howick & Pakuranga Times 27/4/17

SHOULD RATEPAYERS FUND THIS?

Re Auckland Unitary Plan Relationship Agreements. I note that on page 87, item 9 of the Relationship Agreement Template it states that "Council has committed to achieving better outcomes for Maori that contribute significantly to lifting Maori economic, social and cultural wellbeing".

While there is most probably universal agreement in the wish to achieve better outcomes for Maori and lifting their social and cultural well-being, I question whether this is the role of local government whose funding base comes from ratepayers, basically in order to provide essential services desperately needed and already inadequately funded in this city.

Social goals, on the other hand, are surely the role of central government and funded by the taxpayer. Therefore such policies, together with adequate funding to reach the desired outcomes, should come from central government not Auckland ratepayers.

ARTHUR MOORE Pakuranga

NZ Listener 28/4/17

HISTORY OF MAORI HISTORY

Peter Thomas is right in believing that schools have been teaching about what happened at Rangiaowhia for years ( Letters, March 18).

Between 1954 and 1962, in alternate years I took Auckland Teachers College students who elected to take my New Zealand history courses to the Waikato. Usually based at Te Awamutu, we visited river pa sites and focused on aspects of Maoritanga, as well as visiting significant battle sites such as Rangiaowhia.

One of the first actions of Education Minister Phil Amos in the Third Labour Government elected in 1972 was the appointment of two Maori language and Maoritanga lecturers in each teachers college. From then on, increased attention was given in schools to Maori-Pakeha relationships, including accounts of the New Zealand Wars. This was supported by the many historical publications arising from Waitangi Tribunal research claims.

Not enough, perhaps, but there are limitations.

BASIL KINGS Former teacher education director, Department of Education (Tauranga)

The Northern Advocate 28/4/17

CULTURAL SHIFT

Re. former Minister for Maori Affairs Dover Samuels’ article in the Northern Advocate on Thursday, April 20.

Mr Samuels hit the nail on the head when he said what was needed “was a quantum cultural shift and a lot of courage, supported by multi-agencies, and the expectation that all that taxpayer spending will result in some return to society”.

The last paragraph says: “Around 10,000 children have a parent in prison, and although making up 15 per cent of New Zealand’s population, more than 5000 of the country‘s 10,000 prison inmates are Maori. Are they really or do they just identify themselves as Maori?

JACK ROBSON

Whangarei

Waikato Times 27/4/17 (Also published Northland Age 27/4/17)

EQUALITY FOR ALL

Many in our society, individuals and groups, require assistance to overcome problems in education, employment, health, accommodation etc, and it is the responsibility of government to assist those in need but this help must be solely on the basis of need.

Some Maori, in a tribal hierarchy, well aware of these problems, consistently seek official help to develop systems exclusively for Maori, claiming that they have special ethnic rights and privileges.

Over recent years this group have shown a complete reluctance to a accept a fair share of the "National Cake" consistently demanding "a larger bite".

In spite of the millions paid to them in Treaty settlements, from which the average Maori gains little, their rapacity has keeps increasing.

This greedy avidity has been promoted by the one-sided Waitangi Tribunal with the acquiescence of the National and Maori Parties and so usurping democracy.

It is time for all New Zealanders to demand "equality for all".

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Northern Advocate 26/4/17

RIGHT DIRECTION

Dover Samuels (Northern Advocate, Apr 20) is on to some-thing when he says: "Boot camps would do a better job of straightening up Maori early offending cycle rather than spoonfeeding young people who have been disconnected from family values because some times their whanau don't have decent values themselves".

It doesn't only go for Maori. We take pride in the fact that we live in a free society, but with that freedom come certain responsibilities! What they need, apart from family values, is a place where they are taught respect for others, self respect, self discipline, and self worth!

No doubt, in today's society, a certain level of education must be achieved. How many of our young in prison have achieved that level?

I believe that the collapse of the family unit is partly responsible for that.

Perhaps the legal profession, police, or the Christian church might have something to say.

Take them out of their environment and place them into a college of sorts where they are taught how to make their beds properly, cooking, carpentry, horticulture, among other skills. Aim them in the right direction. (Abridged)

KEVAN G MARKS, Kaipara.

NZ Herald 26/4/17 (Short & Sweet section)

ON FOUNDING DOCUMENTS

What an incredibly wealthy country we live in! Who else can afford to spend $7.2m moving a few books down the road to a new home?

GREG MOIR, Kerikeri.

Dominion Post 26/4/17

PC FUSS OVER TREATY

We are told it cost $7.5 million to move the Treaty of Waitangi. and two other historic documents from one address in Wellington City to another. It works out at around $1.40 for every New Zealander.

With all the fuss and ceremony this looks like political correctness gone bonkers. All that was necessary was to hire a security firm and inform the police to take the necessary steps to safeguard the handling of these precious papers. I'd be glad to handle the job for $1000.

BILL LAMBERT Paraparaumu

The Press 26/4/17

SPECIAL DEAL FOR NGAI TAHU

While the small businesses in Cheviot, Kaikoura and Greta Valley get hit big time by the never-ending road closures, Ngai Tahu gets $5.4 million of taxpayers money to dredge the slipway to keep its business afloat.

As it is a multimillion-dollar company that doesn’t pay tax, why the special treatment? Also, if it is OK to dredge the sea in South Bay, why aren’t slips being pushed into the sea? It would speed the highway construction up and save a lot of diesel being used by the trucks.

BRIAN WILKINSON Cheviot

Waikato Times 24/4/17

DISBAND TRIBUNAL

The Waitangi Tribunal once again shows how racist, illogical and redundant it is in its latest claim that the rate of Maori criminality and prison occupation is the fault of the Department of Corrections in failing its Treaty obligations.

What article of the Treaty does that come under? The tribunal suggests the setting up of yet another Maori board to address the problem, more perks for the Tangata whenua and expense for the taxpayer.

Special Maori groups set up to solve unique Maori problems in education, health, welfare dependency, child abuse, smoking and the advancement of te reo have met with little success while providing sinecures for those groups and ongoing largesse for the tribunal members and Waitangi lawyers.

No consideration of the problem is given to the failure of families, gang influences and the personal responsibility of the offenders.

It is time the myths of colonial victimisation and oppression be confined to the "dustbin of history" and the racist Waitangi Tribunal disbanded.

BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa

The Press 24/4/17 (In a few words section)

PRECIOUS PRIORITIES

$7 million to move three parchments a few hundred metres. Hungry and neglected children come second.

JACK HALL Rangiora

Taranaki Daily News 24/4/17

A DEFINITIVE REPLY

Indigenous people! In reply to Bill Simpson’s letter printed on April 18 the dictionary defines the word indigenous as: naturally existing in a place or country rather than arriving from another place.

If this is the accepted definition of the word how then can he or anyone else state that Maori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa when their own history proves they are not?

All New Zealanders both Maori and Pakeha should have the same rights and responsibilities, irrespective of when they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand.

The Treaty of Waitangi did not (despite what we are told) create a ‘partnership’ between Maori and the Crown. What it did was it ceded sovereignty of New Zealand to the Crown and in turn the Crown agreed to protect the property rights of all New Zealanders and that Maori would enjoy all the rights and privileges of being British subjects.

Until such time as this growing racial division is stopped and we all become New Zealanders with the right to retain our individual history and cultures, we are destined to head down a path of self-destruction.

History has shown that both religious and racial segregation leads to anarchy and an absence of order. Take a look at the history of South Africa and Northern Ireland as recent examples of this then decide is this the path we, as New Zealanders, want to travel down?

JOHN NEALE Hawera

Hawke's Bay Today 21/4/17

DON’T BREAK LAW

I have been giving some thought to the problem of high occupancy rates by Maori in New Zealand’s prisons and I have come up with what I believe might just be the answer: “Don’t break the bloody law”.

Now I know this possible solution is a bit different but it might just be worth a try.

TOM CARTWRIGHT, Hastings

Taranaki Daily News 21/4/17

WHO'S TO BLAME?

An article in the Taranaki Daily News on April 12 advises us that the Crown (apparently in this case the Crown of the Department of Corrections) has, according to the Waitangi Tribunal, breached its Treaty obligations by not stopping the high rate of reoffending by Maori so that now more than 50 per cent of the the male prison population are Maori.

This is dearly unacceptable behaviour by the Crown but I think I have discovered where they have failed.

My research has brought to light a little known Article Four of the Treaty which reads: "If the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand (hereinafter called the gangs) behave in a beastly way towards each other, for example shooting each other with guns or stabbing each other with knives, stealing or selling brain destroying drugs, the Crown shall speak sternly, even sharply, to the gangs and require them to desist. If they do not desist the Crown shall beat the gangs about the head and shoulders with rolled up copies of the treaty until they do so."

Unfortunately the Department of Corrections has failed to supply enough treaty copies to be effective and is therefore dearly to blame. No responsibility, of course, is carried by the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand for the endless reoffending.

BOB MAHY, Waitara

Southland Times 21/4/17

APARTHEID CREEPING IN

Correspondent Ian Brougham (April 19) has every reason to be concerned and nervous about the apartheid creep in our once unified society. Separatist racebased initiatives include Maori only consultation rights under the Resource Management Act, comanagement of parks, rivers and lakes, unelected representation via seats on local councils, appointments onto local government committees, (statutory boards and advisory committees) plus the Maori seats in Parliament.

Additional anomalies include Maori language funding, radio and TV, a special Maori Authority tax rate of 17.5 per cent and an exemption to allow blood relatives to qualify for charitable status.

Our largely unwritten constitution the envy of many worldwide is under threat from a treaty-based Maori empowering written constitution. Our beaches via customary marine title applications have been opened up to suspect claims by tribal opportunists, about 40 claims nationwide, with 13 in Northland alone (most of its coastline).

Arguably, the gravest threat of all is, part-Maori iwi personages want race-based control and management of the nation’s freshwater.

Gallingly, the justification for all of the above is usually based on mistruths, twisted fabricated history and a false assertion of a Crown-Maori partnership. Question; when will mainstream New Zealanders (the irrelevant majority) wake up and tell our politicians/government that all reference to race must be removed from all our legislation?

GEOFF PARKER

Whangarei

Mangawhai Focus, 11/4/16

DEAR SIR,

In a letter to Mangawhai Focus (Mar 20), Ed Nathan takes Noel Hilliam to task for saying that he (Mr Nathan) was not tangata whenua, and asks Mr Hilliam to prove it. My dictionary defines tangata whenua as (1) Maori people of a particular locality, or (2) Maori people in general. If, however, he means that they were the first people of the land, they were not. Many Maori will tell him that! He wants Mr Hilliam to prove that he and his tupuna are not tangata whenua (as in first people).

It is difficult to prove, Mr Nathan, because of the legal implications of the matter. Understand that I am in contact with an archaeologist from the UK who had been in New Zealand for four years, and has aerial photographed the country from North Cape to the Bluff. He states that the number of sites that he would like to dig here number several thousand, and he would be arrested if he was to dig at any one of them!

Patupaiarehe, Waitaha, and Turehu peoples were here long before Maori, Patupairarehe arriving about the time of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Waitaha about three hundred years later. They lived here in peace and harmony for about one thousand years until the coming of the Maori, who decimated their populations. And why has the Government not paid them out, as it has to certain Maori tribes? Because if it did, it would have to acknowledge that they were the “first peoples”, which would prove that Maori were not, and they, both Labour and National Governments, are loath to do that, and that is why the payouts continue!

Noel Hilliam was with a party of scientists in the Waipoua Forest some years ago, investigating stone buildings and fences there. All of a sudden, the site was closed down, and embargoed until 2067! Why? I have seen photographs of these buildings, and they look to me exactly like those on the Orkney Islands to the north of Scotland! I am not belittling the money being paid out to the Maori elite (the grass root people have not received one bent skerrick!), then good on them! However, I believe that these first people should be paid out for the decimation caused to their populations as well!

One Maori gentleman told my UK friend that his ancestors were bought out here in a wing boat, and that he had not heard of a wing boat. My friend was able to tell him that a wing boat was of Chinese construction and that his tribe was bought out here by them!

I have offered a challenge to the news media, judiciary, archaeologists, historians, Parliamentarians, and anybody else who is interested to sort out the truth of our history. That challenge still stands. It may require quite a few of us. Somewhere out there, the truth exists, whether it is in a university library, museum or still in the ground.

How is that for starters?

KAWENA HORI MAAKA,

(KEVAN GEORGE MARKS), Kaipara.

Southland Times 20/4/17

NOT THE FULL STORY

Your editorial of April 15 quite properly holds up for condemnation the present appalling rate of Maori offending and imprisonment in New Zealand.

It reports the Waitangi Tribunal’s expose of the growing gap of imprisonment and reoffending between Maori and NonMaori in our population.

This must be troubling to all New Zealanders.

That is, for a significant proportion of the New Zealand population spending time locked up in prison.

It is a situation the economy cannot sustain indefinitely.

However, the tribunal and your editorial both seem to believe the Department of Corrections should be doing more to correct this appalling statistic.

While this may be partially true, it is not the full story.

It is patently obvious that throwing money at this situation would be a waste of time.

Corrections manages prisons, it is not a welfare agency. In fact the solution to this problem lies, if it lies at all, within Maoridom itself.

The late Apirana Ngata foresaw the present situation when the first Labour Government was elected in 1935. Although Ngata was a conservative politically and socially, he saw the obvious plan of that government to help Maori people raise themselves up would ignominiously fail.

So it has - and Maoridom is generally worse off than it was in 1935. Ngata saw then - and it is probably just as true today, that Maoridom has to want to improve its situation - or it would be left behind.

Corrections and the New Zealand Government generally have a duty to assist Maoridom but the Maori population has a duty to itself to help itself.

If it does not do so - it will be left behind. Inevitably this would lead to young Maori raging against their plight at being poor, unskilled and unconsidered.

That would not be a good thing for New Zealand - or the Maori people.

PETER OWENS, Gore

The Northern Advocate 20/4/17

FALSE MESSAGE

It never ceases to amaze me how some correspondents of Maori descent and/or their European sycophants quote “land lost” (Marie Kaire, April 19), when, in fact, by far the majority of land in NZ was sold as even Kaire points out, “nails and a couple of blankets”.

The value of exchange can be argued until the cows come home but they appeared to be satisfactory at the time as these sales continued for approximately 20 years.

Many recorded deeds of sale can be viewed online http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/ tm/ scholarly/name-401540.html

New Zealand has 26.8 million hectares of land. A total of 1.2 million ha were legally confiscated after the 1860s “treason wars”.

Approximately half was returned by 1928 when boundaries and legitimate owners were ascertained.

As at September 2009, there was approximately 1.47 million ha of Maori land (including customary land).

Therefore, successive governments bought 24.13 million ha.

The subliminal false message “land lost”, or a lie repeated often enough it becomes truth, should be stopped as it only helps fuel the growning racial division in New Zealand.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo, Whangarei

Northland Age 20/4/17

THIS IS RACIST?

Your issue of April 13 contained an article by the Hon Peter Dunne arguing, rightly, that freedom of speech is one of our most important values.

But in the course of his article he referred to "a vile, overtly racist pamphlet, purportedly in support of the Hobson's Choice movement," which had been circulated in his electorate.

May I make three points in reply.

First, the movement to which he was referring was probably Hobson's Pledge, not Hobson's Choice. I am one of the two spokespeople for Hobson's Pledge, the other being a woman of Ngapuhi and Anglo-Irish descent.

Second, Hobson's Pledge had nothing at all to do with the pamphlet to which Mr Dunne referred - the pamphlet was in fact printed to promote the sale of a book called 'One Treaty One Nation' many months before Hobson's Pledge was launched in September last year. I was one of the eight authors of that book.

But third, and most important of all, there was nothing at all which could be considered "vile" or "overtly racist" in the pamphlet - unless arguing for treating all New Zealanders as equal before the law has mysteriously been defined as racist.

Its conclusion, with which I strongly agree, was that "New Zealand does not belong to one race. It belongs to all of us". Those who wish to decide for themselves whether Hobson's Pledge is racist should check out our website www.hobsonpledge.nz

DON BRASH By email

ULTIMATE GOAL

During the week the National Party and the two Maori Party members managed to get a piece of legislation through.

The iwi clauses would entrench co-governance and partnership obligations with iwi Maori into local government, creating a constitutional change.

The treaty train is headed towards its ultimate goal, Maori sovereignty through constitutional change, and everything that can mean with regards to ultimate power, where they will put in a new constitution based on the Bolivian constitution.

In Bolivia your house and car will be confiscated, you will then be paying 50/50 rent to the government and Maori for the use of your house and car.

And the installation of tribal law (not indigenous law, as in universal), each tribe having the power to establish its own laws within its own area, even though a tribe might consist of as little as 40 members. No appeal is allowed against their decisions.

We are getting more and more apartheid laws from this National government, and most of the people don't care until it's too late.

IAN BROUGHAM Tawhero

BIN IT

The Waitangi Tribunal once again shows how racist, illogical and redundant it is in its latest claim that the rate of Maori criminality and prison occupation is the fault of the Department of Corrections in failing its Treaty obligations. What article of the treaty does that come under?

The tribunal suggests the setting up of yet another Maori board to address the problem, more perks for the tangata whenua and expense for the taxpayer.

Special Maori groups set up to solve unique Maori problems in education, health, welfare dependency, child abuse, smoking and the advancement of to reo have met with little success while providing sinecures for those groups and on-going largess for the tribunal members and Waitangi lawyers.

No consideration of the problem is given to the failure of families, gang influences and the personal responsibility of the offenders.

It is time for the myths of colonial victimisation and oppression to be confined to the 'dustbin of history' and the racist Waitangi Tribunal disbanded.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Taranaki Daily News 20/4/17

REGRETFUL DIVISIONS

Will people like Bill Simpson please do a little more about discovering the history of our country than making silly statements.

Writing about immigrants he says 'we never asked you to come'.

This is totally false. In the 1950s my brother-in-law (a Dutchman) and myself were invited to come to New Zealand and given jobs which this country needed. The invitation came from the N Z government which, by the way, had four Maori members.

Not only us but thousands of immigrants arrived during that decade and many were assisted to do so. I am totally delighted that I came and only regret that some try to foster division between races.

BRIAN CLARK New Plymouth

New Zealand Herald 20/4/17

TAXING WATER

It is unbelievable the hysteria of those demanding water bottlers be charged for the water.

I've seen claims that billions of litres of water are exported. Where do they get these figures? The Ministry of Environment puts the amount of water exported at 8.7 million litres a year.

A 10c a litre tax would bring in $870,000 a year. To collect would require administration, monitoring, communication and of course HR and PR, policy analysts and iwi liaison officers. Also regional offices with monitoring teams. Then there are office leases and fit-outs. A sum of $10m a year might Just cover this.

Water bottlers may not pay for their water but still have to pump the water, filter it, purify it, buy and sterilise the bottles and of course bottle, package and ship it. They employ staff, pay wages, payroll and company tax ACC levies, power, rates, leases. . .

If water bottling is supposedly so profitable then I suggest that some of the chattering classes set up their own plants.

RICHARD PRINCE, Tauranga.

Rotorua Review 19/4/17

SELLING OUR SOUL

It was a sad day for New Zealand when the government passed the Resource Management Amendment Bill on April 6.

Yes, it was by a majority - of one, 61 for, 60 against so hardly a convincing mandate for such radical changes.

To ensure votes, the National Party has sold the soul of our country to buy the votes of the Maori Party. This deal was described as ‘‘sleezy’’ by one Maori member of the Labour Party.

How very true. It would seem that the National Party is deaf to the growing anger over race-based privilege and governance.

It knew the topic and concessions offered were highly contentious so managed to have most of the discussion slip quietly under the radar, with no nationwide consultation and only minimal media coverage until it was too late.

In Nick Smith’s words, the new powers given to iwi include ‘‘planmaking, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulation and other statutory responsibilities’’.

This will have far-reaching implications for all New Zealanders, undoubtedly at our cost. (abridged).

PADDI HODGKISS

New Zealand Herald 19/4/17

WATER LESSON

As I see it the allocation of fresh water in this country is starting to become the No 1 voting issue. This subject encapsulates how the Government sees its role in putting overseas interests ahead of its own citizens. Opinions are escalating that this National Government is more interested in listening to the outside world to the detriment of New Zealand’s welfare.

It seems very simple to charge for our water that is being exported overseas, we do not have to charge for internal use.

After a lifetime of voting National, this will not be the case if the Government continues to sell this country down the river. In fact the front page of Monday’s business section said it all. Chinese developers are dictating how we should do business in this country.

Who is running this country, our Government or overseas interests?

JUNE HUGHES, Cockle Bay.

NZ Herald 19/4/17 (Short & Sweet section)

ON WATER

I agree, to give our water to privately owned companies for no return is unbelievable. The trouble is who owns the water? Maori? The Government?

FRANCES DALLAS, Mount Maunganui

Wanganui Chronicle 19/4/17

OUR NEW CITIZEN

With the river, which belongs to nobody, and the water in it which also cannot belong to anybody, constantly changing each day, this newly appointed natural person is a bit of a moving feast.

The water that causes damage will no longer be part of the river so cannot be held accountable for its collective actions.

The natural person status granted to companies and incorporated societies bears no relevance to the situation with our river. This legal creation arose during the Industrial Revolution, when some bright spark caught on to the idea that manufacturing of items could be broken down into component parts, with each step completed over and over by the same person or machine – specialisation and the division of labour.

The businesses created to satisfy t he new, i ncreased demands required a significant amount of capital — too much for one person, generally — and there was a change in the way businesses were set up and operated.

Equity ownership and the common share arose to allow for i nvestment f r om multiple owners, each contributing part of the capital needed to finance the new business. To manage these new entities, the company was born, necessitating separation of owners and managers. The director’s role was born, and the first companies were in place, allowing a simple, seamless interaction with the business world. One point of contact representing the many individuals who own the business.

The concept was expanded late in the 1800s and early 1900s with the incorporated society given the same recognition, this time to represent the members of clubs and societies.

To suggest t his concept applies to a river is about as appalling as putting spaghetti on a home-made pizza.

Our judicial system will struggle to deal with claims against a river. We can suggest that the river should pay for all damage caused by it, but I think the intention was to create a legal status to pursue compliance by those who have an environmental impact on the river. Achievable already, I would have thought. It will be interesting to see how this goes over time, even if only for comedy benefit. (Abridged)

RUSSELL EADES Wanganui

Southland Times 19/4/17

CREATING CHANGE

The National Party and the two Maori Party members have managed to get a piece of legislation through.

The iwi clauses would entrench co-governance and partnership obligations with iwi Maori into local government, creating a constitutional change.

The treaty train is headed towards its ultimate goal [of] Maori sovereignty through constitutional change. Everything that can mean, with regards to ultimate power, where they will put in a new constitution based on the Bolivian constitution.

In Bolivia your house and car will be confiscated, you will then be paying 50/50 rent to the government and Maori for the use of your house and car. And the installation of tribal law (not indigenous law, as in universal) each tribe having the power to establish its own laws within its own area even although a tribe might consist of as little as 40 members, no appeal is allowed against their decisions.

We are getting more and more apartheid laws from this National government and most of the people don't care until its to late (Abridged)

IAN BROUGHAM Wanganui

Northern Advocate 19/4/17

MAORI MUST ACT

It is not the fault of Corrections for the high incidence of reoffenders in our prisons. Nor is it the fault of our Justice System. Nor is it the Government's fault. It is the fault of Maoridom itself for failing to educate their people and to teach them to accept responsibility for their actions or lack thereof.

No matter how many marae there are or how much Government assistance they receive, their existence does nothing to further the wellbeing of their members.

It's time Maoridom accepted the responsibilities that go along with that leadership. Or in this case, lack of responsible leadership by the elders.

Education is free, and no indigenous peoples have been better looked after or spoilt than our beloved Kiwis. Yet, they lack behind in all manners of measurement. I doubt if anything foments bad feelings more than the Waitangi Tribunal. It is a divisive organisation set up to enrich one people at the expense of the other.

If Winz had its wings trimmed considerably, just maybe those disenchanted with the educational system would be motivated to better themselves through self-improvement . It may even encourage the Government to stop encouraging a lack of morality among our young girls. Maybe, being married might dissuade some girls from having multiple part-ners and multiple births as a means of earning a living.

There is no easy answer to our prison problems. Just having less offenders to begin with would be a good start.

PETE BENSON Awanui

Wanganui Chronicle 18/4/17

LAND CONFISCATION

There is a danger that if a false story is repeated enough times, it may become generally accepted.

One is the claim that many Maori tribes had their lands wrongfully confiscated without adequate redress (Potonga Neilson, April 4).

In fact there was rebellion, including killing of settlers, refusal to recognise the law and expulsion of Government agents who were actively bringing improvement to so many Maori who supported the efforts of the Government.

When war was threatened, Governor Grey quite correctly warned that further rebellion would result in confiscations, which indeed did happen.

It was difficult to separate rebels and friendly tribes, and it was soon recognised that the first confiscations were too sweeping.

A commission revisited the question and a majority of confiscated land was returned.

A 1928 report found that in three regions a minority of confiscated lands remained in Government hands: 36 per cent in Taranaki, 28 per cent in Bay of Plenty and 17 per cent in Tauranga. The exception was Waikato, where a major part of confiscated lands, 74 per cent, was still in Government hands.

The reason is simply that the purported king refused several generous Government offers. In 1878, in 1882 and in 1888 Government representatives went to meet with Tawhiao, to offer the return of further confiscated land that had not then been sold. All these offers were turned down as Tawhiao refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

After these refusals the offers were set aside. The obstacle to the return of much confiscated land was Waikato intransigence and continuing rebellion.

JOHN ROBINSON Waikanae

The Northern Advocate 18/4/17

OUT OF TOUCH

Re Geoff Parker letter April 7.

Geoff, I agree with every thing you have written, and would like to add to your comments.

This Resource Legislation Amendment Bill that passed by one vote was a classic example of a party being in power for too long a period. It would seem that the longer a party is in power, the more they lose touch with the people and their attitude becomes arrogant in ignoring the wishes of the people.

The legislation in question is a perfect example, rushed through without public consultation. Decisions were made behind closed doors in an attempt to hide what was taking place.

The whole process mirrors the Clark administration; understandable because what has taken place is a corruption of our democratic process.

I would ask what is the point of having elections if this nonsense is allowed? What the politicians have failed to allow for is a reaction from those who they serve. I believe the majority of National Party members are floating voters — they place their vote on policies, not ideological delusions and they will find this type of arrogant manipulation of the democratic process abhorrent.

You will see what was a trickle of National support going to NZ First turn into a torrent. Bill English, if this is an example of his leadership, will lose another election.

KEITH HARTLEY, Kamo

Taranaki Daily News 18/4/17

IGNORING FACTS

I read with interest the reply by Howie Tamati MBE to my letter of April 10 with reference to everyone in New Zealand being immigrants.

As expected Mr Tamati has taken the high ground and totally ignored this fact, he also managed to get my name wrong. If stating the truth makes me a racist then I am happy to be called one.

Despite his attempt to deviate from the facts as presented, they are correct and he fails to either acknowledge or admit to this.

No blame was laid or intended to Maori I simply stated the facts.

With regards to his comments on receiving additional benefits other than what I am entitled to and as he puts it "coming to OUR country for a better life". Yes I did come to New Zealand for a better life for myself and family but I do not expect nor do I ask for any benefits from the Government other than what I am entitled to as a New Zealander.

Personal overseas savings do not have any relevance to this. Having worked here for nearly 40 years I consider myself as much a New Zealander as Mr Tamati with the same rights and privileges so why is he, as Maori treated differently?

We are all immigrants and as Governor Hobson said to the Maori Chiefs on the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, "we are now one people - He iwi tahi tatou". This being the case we should all be treated the same.

PAUL REA, Hawera

Waikato Times 17/4/17

IWI ASPIRATIONS

Recently some Maori educational authorities have suggested, to raise the lower level of Maori scholastic achievement, resulting in part from immigration of over a 170 years, that education, its objectives, syllabuses and practices must adapt to the specific cultural, ideological and aspirational needs of Maori

How long before a group of iwi legal experts suggest, that to reduce the high incidence of Maori criminality and prison numbers, that the law needs to adapt to traditional, cultural and procedural tribal protocols?

Am I being racist to observe that, of the over 200 ethnic groups in our country, only Maori and Pasifika seem to have ongoing problems in these areas?

Am I being culturally insensitive in asking why this is so, considering the millions of dollars paid out in Treaty settlements and noting that the combined iwi corporations' untaxed assets amount to some $40 billion of which, according to Willie Jackson, little has "trickled down" to the average Maori and little seems to have been apportioned to solving the major Maori problems in health, employment, welfare dependency, education etc?

If money has been allocated by iwi for these purposes, little improvement is apparent.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Dominion Post 17/4/17

MAORI OFFENDING

The disproportionate offending and reoffending rates for Maori are an issue requiring action at all levels - family, community, hapu and government. I, for one, would welcome more specific action by the Corrections Department but the issue is wider than that.

Could someone please tell us in what way the current inaction is a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi? All I've heard or read so far states there has been a breach, but nowhere does it say what principle of the Treaty has been breached.

RUSSELL FEIST Waikanae

Rotorua Daily Post 15/4/17

BLOG POINT MISSED

Like Maori TV and the New Zealand Herald, Wairangi Jones (Letters, April 11) fails to acknowledge the point of my blog post that included reference to Maori culture focusing on the primitive.

The post shared the experience of a young trainee teacher unwanted by our education system because he refused to indoctrinate New Zealand children (now officially called "akonga") with the non-existent virtues of ferocity, in order to honour a non-existent partnership containing non-existent principles.

The photo of the gesticulating kapa haka group had been sent to me as typical of the point he was making that ferocity is an ever-present part of Maori culture.

I told Maori TV I was sorry if the group was offended. They reported that bit, but ignored my larger point that teachers in this peaceful country are banned from the classroom by the state unless they agree to promote intimidatory behaviour cherished by one culture, to children of all cultures. In the words of the anti-violence campaign largely directed at Maori, that's not okay.

As for Susan Devoy, she should stick to squashing rubber balls, not legitimate criticism. JOHN ANSELL, Martinborough

Dominion Post 15/4/17

MAORI REOFFENDING

The Waitangi Tribunal's Report on the Crown and Disproportionate Offending Rates claims the Crown has a Treaty responsibility to reduce the 13 per cent higher Maori reoffending crime rate. Of course the Treaty doesn't say that and nor should it.

The report also claims to have identified prejudice because the Crown has not prioritised the reduction of Maori reoffending rates. It acknowledges that the Department of Corrections is making sincere efforts, but further recommends that the Crown be held accountable for reducing Maori reoffending rates.

This is patronising because it implies that, of all the races in New Zealand, Maori alone have a diminished responsibility that needs to be assumed by the Crown.

It is also counter-productive because shifting the responsibility reduces the motivation to improve behaviour; in this case, Maori know gangs are the problem, but they have been conditioned to wait for someone to convince them to avoid gangs.

The report complains that there Is no specific budget to reduce Maori reoffending and recommends a dedicated budget for Maori-specific programmes.

So the report is really about giving money to those involved with Maori programmes that don't work. Better to make Maori responsible for getting rid of their gangs.

BARRIE DAVIS Island Bay

New Zealand Listener 14/4/17

RESOURCE MISMANAGEMENT

The aim of the Resource Management Legislation Amendment Bill ( Politics, April 15) is to reduce red tape, speed up consent processes and save money.

Flashback to 1990. The National Government revamps the Building Act. The aim of that legislation was to reduce red tape, speed up consent processes and save money.

The result is an ongoing multibillion-dollar leaky building disaster. Déjà vu? Or simply a case of a dollar-driven Government not learning from its mistakes at the expense of its citizens?

ROBBIE ANCEL (Sunnynook, Auckland)

Nelson Mail 13/4/17

REFORM FLAWS

Don Brash may be a politician from a bygone era but his criticism of the passage of the Resource Management amendment act this week will be hugely supported by many New Zealanders.

This is an example of how bad the Parliamentary system of MMP can get. Amendments were certainly required under the Resource Legislation Amendment Act no question about that. But when the Government includes in this act participation rights for local Maori in planning decisions at local government level, entitled "Iwi Participation Arrangements", then that is unacceptable.

The vote to get this highly contentious piece of legislation passed had the House almost split down the middle and the Bill only just scraped through its third reading with no prizes for how the minority coalition parties and its Maori MPS voted. The bottom line here is the Government at the eleventh hour needed minority party support to get the Resource Legislation Amendment Act through so it used a ‘‘dangle the carrot’’ approach to achieve it.

Brash is right in saying that in a democracy any exclusive right or rights proposed in law and intended to be bestowed on any racial group becomes a constitutional matter that all New Zealanders should be asked to vote on.

NEVILLE MALE, Stoke

Northland Age 13/4/17

LIVING IN GUILT

Why do white K1W1s today take the blame for what their ancestors did? Why do a people with a small amount of Maori blood hold K1W1s responsible for all their problems, whether they be real or imagined?

Why do we have to live with the guilt of being remotely racist or in constant censorship of ourselves while Maori and their Klingons behave any way they want?

There seems to be an assumption that "we" must live in guilt for what others before our time have done.

I don't hold today's generations in any country guilty of the crimes of their ancestors, personally. Maori committed countless atrocities, but now these are mostly heralded as heroic events, gestures. Serial killers are now lauded as heroes. Cannibalism, slavery, female infanticide are slowly being erased from our history, while white settlers are being blamed for anything from Maori child abuse to them (part-Maori) being fat, smoking, P addiction, or unable to cope in everyday life.

There is a plain cycle to see if you are brave enough to look for it.

Non-Maori are getting weaker. They are being taught at school to be subservient to the so-called tangata whenua, they are brainwashed into thinking they truly are guilty of heinous crimes toward Maori, here and now, not 200 years ago.

Our off-white brothers who pose as Maori, on the other hand, are now being taught that we are the cause of all their troubles. Their children are as brainwashed as non-Maori, just in a different way.

In university you can take courses on how to get the most out of the TOW, all with their revised history of course. Imagine how you would feel after a couple of years being taught by the racist Scotch woman Margaret Mutu, whether you were brown, white or purple. If you believed what she taught you would be full of hate and resentment, either for yourself as white or at whites for their crimes against Maori.

This is all getting far worse, not better. Maori were not victims till Geoffrey Palmer told them they were, and now we are going into one race-based system after another. Treaty settlements are no nearer ending than they ever were, and now we are looking at contemporary claims and power-sharing.

Only one thing can end this, and it must be ended for the sake of all New Zealanders - equality for all, one law for all, a level playing field for all K1W1s.

Other countries have seen the damage that racism does and moved to replace it with equality. Here in New Zealand we are embracing racism. Well, the major political parties certainly are, and because there is so much money to be made from the grievance industry there are people stirring the pot and making ridiculous claims, be it for our precious resources or land that never was theirs to begin with.

Hate and resentment are now what fuel the Treaty process, if you can call it a process, but remember, and remember well, when there are large amounts of money involved anything can happen. When there is hate involved anything can happen, usually violent, but when the two are put together, hate and money, only one thing will come of it, and none of it is good.

It will tear our beautiful country apart. Anyone thinking differently is a fool. Can we suffer another term under National? Well can we?

REX ANDERSON, Lower Hutt

FUTILE

The average New Zealander has no recourse to obtain information on how the country is being run or to gain answers from governmental or official sources on matters that vitally affect him. To follow the suggestion to write to a minister, your MP or a departmental official for answers to questions or to express a point of view is an exercise in utter futility.

Of the 285 individual letters, seeking information or answers that I have sent to MPs and other national institutions I received just 25 replies. Most were auto-responses, some were from secretaries who said they would forward the message to the addressee or to another minister, and of the others only four replies were given, those from New Zealand First.

The Maori Party sent me several copies of a large publication expressing a somewhat slanted Maori interpretation of the Treaty, such as a partnership. Well, what else would one expect?

I wrote three times to the new governor-general, questioning some disparities in her maiden speech, only to have her secretary, Mr Baughen, finally and belatedly state that he would not pass on the questions and that the matter was at an end. Is her position sacrosanct?

Letters to the PM and four other Members about the recent RLA Bill were answered with the same print-out of Nick Smith's laudatory justification of his bill, but with no reference to the Mana Whakahono a Rohe additions.

It is just possible that letters opposing the bill were never actioned, or that their numbers were ever collated and reported. In fact there was no apparent reportage of the bill's passing in the media.

But where does one find out? The National Party arrogantly ignored the results of the many council surveys of their taxpayers who completely rejected non-elected Maori inclusion in councils.

If all official sources of information are unavailable to the public then the only remaining recourse is the media, but most media, for undisclosed reasons, have either not considered or chosen to ignore the lack of resources available to the public.

Surely the media should be a link between the public and officialdom. This apathetic media attitude probably means that this letter will die on the iPad. We are truly a censored nation.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

CURIOUS MATHS

In a NZ Herald article (April 12), one Oriini Kaipara is reported to have "100 per cent Maori DNA" and is, "in her own words,"a full-blooded Maori".

The same article states: "Legally a person is defined as Maori if they are of Maori descent, even through one long-distant ancestor."

However, it also says "her DNA showed up as 98 per cent Polynesian, which would all be Maori The remaining 2 per cent appeared to be from Scandinavia and the Caucasus regions around Turkey".

The mathematics is curious, to say the least, but if the same "legal definition" applied to other kinds of ancestry, she could equally be described as a Scandinavian or a Turk. BRUCE MOON, M.Sc. (Hons-Mathematics)

Waikato Times 13/4/17

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

What a breath of flesh air Mrs Dwyer's letter (Waikato Times, April 7) brought to readers.

Just how a homosexual relationship between Noddy and Big Ears was ever conceived shows how sick some minds can be.

Similarly, I also understand that in the remake of the Dambusters film, the name of the cat mascot was changed from "Nigger" lest it give offence. What utter nonsense.

I am now wondering if "albino" will be the next word to come under the microscope-since it comes from the Latin word for "white". And further, should not pressure be put on Nigeria and Niger to change the name of their countries to something more politically acceptable.

Perhaps even more important is to question how Susan Devoy was ever appointed to this sinecure. Surely, if she had been a housewife instead of a world-class squash player, she would never for one moment have been considered for the appointment as race relations commissioner, the same applies to Beatrice Faumuina on the flag referendum committee.

FRANK BAILEY, Hamilton

Marlborough Express 12/4/17

WATER AND THE RMA

I have just had an email telling me that the latest round of RMA reforms, which have been through the third reading, include provision for members of iwi to sit on council during resource hearings and have full voting rights, without being democratically elected.

Sneaked that one through, eh.

While on the subject of resources, wouldn’t it be great if the iwi heads stopped claiming the water as theirs, collaborated with the government to place an embargo on all taking of our water for resale, except by the Government superannuation fund board. The board could then set up bottling plants throughout New Zealand sourcing water, using medium-sized plants, from almost every river and lake, thereby shedding the load, and providing work for rural communities.

The big spinoff would be that the water would be safe, and the superannuation fund would never, ever run out of money.

I’m astounded that none of our brains in Wellington have proposed the solution to two problems.

Control of water and millions for the retired.

DENIS WATERS, Picton

Wanganui Chronicle 12/4/17

NATIONAL’S PATH

Where is the National Party going? First it gave us an “H” in our c i t y’ s name, t hen it partnered with the Maori Party, or was it the other way around?

It has also signed off huge Treaty settlements and tried to put the Treaty in a New Zealand constitution.

It’s also trying to give Maori extra rights by putting them on councils and regional councils and giving them special rights relating to water. And it’s even created a “river person”, which has Maori co-leadership and $30 million to “play with”.

Now we find they are giving us a Maori as their candidate for our Whanganui Electorate.

Maybe this is a good thing, as the electorate gets the chance to show what it thinks of many issues being decided by race rather than by need.

Like it or not, Harete Hipango is going to have to face this issue and show she is a New Zealander first and able to treat all in a fair and open manner.

This may be hard, as she is on a number of committees as an adviser on “things Maori”.

Looks like it’s going to be an interesting election.

TERRY O’CONNOR, Wanganui

NZ Herald 11/4/17

IWI RIGHTS IN RESOURCE BILL

The National Party is badly misjudging the public mood on this issue. The political scene is changing and Brexit, the Trump vote and the rise of so called “populist” parties in the West are evidence of this.

Ordinary New Zealanders will no longer put up with being ignored and force fed elites’ “liberal” values. We will not accept the growing tide of racist legislation giving one race of New Zealanders preferential rights over the rest.

I have always voted National but enough is enough. My vote will now go to the party that best represents mainstream New Zealand.

DAVID GIBBS, Beach Haven.

Northland Age 11/4/17

CREEPING APARTHEID (Also in the Northern Advocate 11/4/17)

An increasing number of New Zealanders are becoming concerned and nervous about the apartheid creep in our once unified society.

Separatist race-based initiatives include Maori-only consultation rights under the Resource Management Act, co-management of parks, rivers and lakes, unelected representation via seats on local councils, appointments on to local government committees (statutory boards and advisory committees), plus the Maori seats in Parliament.

Additional anomalies include Maori language funding, radio and TV, a special Maori authority tax rate of 17.5 per cent, and an exemption to allow blood relatives to qualify for charitable status.

Our largely unwritten constitution, the envy of many worldwide, is under threat from a treaty-based Maori-empowering written constitution.

Our beaches, via customary marine title applications, have been opened up to suspect claims by tribal opportunists, approximately 40 claims nationwide, with 13 in Northland alone (most of its coastline).

Arguably, the gravest threat of all is part-Maori iwi personages want race-based control and management of the nation's fresh water.

Gallingly, justification for all of the above is usually based on mistruths, twisted, fabricated history and a false assertion of a Crown-Maori partnership.

Question - when will mainstream New Zealanders (the irrelevant majority) wake up and tell our politicians/ government that all reference to race must be removed from all our legislation?

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

RELUCTANT MEDIA

If the purpose of the media is to keep the public informed of current national and international news, then New Zealand media fall well short of their obligations.

News is not just the reportage of conflicts and calamities that afflict the world but of forces that govern our lives.

The media have a moral obligation to serve the needs of the people, and should not just publish news that suits their own editorial requirements.

The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is of vital importance to all New Zealanders, and has ramifications that may adversely affect all of us, but whether through company policy, political affiliations or fear of ethnic reactions, this Bill has had little reportage in the media, as have the unofficial consultations between the National Party and Maori.

Unofficial, because the public seems to be belatedly and reluctantly informed with little opportunity or time to participate.

Are we to have a favoured ethnic group being granted unique, undemocratic rights and representation on councils and regional committees with the right to influence decisions?

The Treaty made Maori equal to all other subjects of the Crown. Not more. The present government does not seem to accept this fact.

The public needs and deserves to know what is being considered. This will probably not be published.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

LET'S VOTE ON IT

While genuine RMA reforms were warranted (current aberration did nothing to simplify the process or reduce costs), the iwi preferential treatment was not.

Along with many others who reside in the various electorates, I was appalled with the last ditch undemocratic changes made to the amending legislation (now passed into law) to accommodate the unjustified iwi-empowering provisions. No public submissions were permitted.

Clearly when it comes to promoting part-Maori for over-representation and special race-based deals, democracy plays no place in the equation. Maori interests, particularly the pooh-bah elite, seek co-governance by stealth, demanding unelected seats on councils etc, and somehow misguidedly think they should not have to seek and gain the support of their fellow Kiwis to get there.

Tribal leaders openly state the concept that only duly elected representatives have the right to vote on all local authorities is "old world thinking," apparently believing that their ill-gotten Treaty settlement monies and other resources handed over to them willy nilly confer on them some sort of privileged status and the power to rule as of right.

However, the vast majority of Kiwis overwhelmingly disagree, and in fact say it's racist tribalism, treatyism and separatism that are the "old world things", not our hard-won democratic principles.

Race-based or any other privileged representation has no place in New Zealand, and my unwavering view is that this issue must be placed for immediate determination before the New Zealand public, ie. all Kiwis, via a democratic binding referendum process.

From the failure of National MPs to vote against the RMA Bill when it was finally reported back to the House for consideration, it is fair to conclude this will prove to be the final nail in this National government's coffm, and presumably that was what they wanted.

The pro forma generic responses with the usual claptrap by Environment Minister Smith and other MPs which have been doing the rounds over the past week or so defy belief, and at least New Zealand First's Winston Peters and ACT's David Seymour had the guts to speak out and tell it as it was.

I and many others will not now give National our electoral or party votes at the 2017 elections in the circumstances outlined. Who is worthy of support must be obvious, and that is not Labour/Greens, whose Maori policy manifestos are ruinous.

ROB PATERSON Mount Maunganui

Wanganui Chronicle 11/4/17

PRONUNCIATION

Will someone (possibly the mayor) please inform TV1 reporters that this town is not called FUNGANUI. Fonganui was bad enough, but this latest attempt at cultural compliance is nothing short of disgusting!

D PARTNER Eastown

Taranaki Daily News 10/4/17

EQUAL TREATMENT

We are all immigrants to New Zealand. Whether you came to New Zealand in a canoe, ship or jumbo jet we are all immigrants.

This being the case let us compare some costs to the Government of two groups of immigrants i.e. Maori against those from Europe and the UK.

Maori have received billions of dollars in treaty settlements over the years and still have many more to be settled. Maori make up the majority of criminals in our prisons costing the tax payer $90,000+ per year each.

Maori are one of the highest groups of unemployed receiving millions of dollars in benefits and Maori make up the majority of gang members in New Zealand who run the illicit drug trade. Taking all these facts into account, Maori cost the New Zealand tax payer many billions of dollars every year.

Now compare the immigrants from Europe and the UK.

These immigrants arrive in New Zealand most of them having already secured jobs. They bring with them millions of dollars adding to the economy by purchasing or building houses. These immigrants are mostly law abiding citizens and do not belong to any criminal organisations.

When they turn 65 and apply for their NZ pension the Government steals over $350 million dollars per year (and rising) from their overseas retirement savings (similar to Kiwisaver) stating they do not want the ordinary Kiwi to be disadvantaged.

Given the examples above and the costs briefly outlined - the question must be asked of Government: Which group is being disadvantaged? We are all immigrant New Zealanders so why are we not all treated the same?

PAUL REA Hawera

Waikato Times 10/7/17

RMA REFORMS

Barrister Martin William’s description of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill as ‘‘resembling some awful version of a statutory Frankenstein’’ is very apt.

I agree with his comments that whilst they ‘‘may remain a lawyer’s dream’’ the legislation does nothing to simplify the processes and reduce cost.

The most damaging changes are the sweeping new ‘‘Mana Whakahono a Rohe’’ agreements.

According to constitutional lawyer Stephen Franks, these will permanently force councils to kowtow to iwi and entrench permanent race-based privilege and corruption.

The new powers include, "plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities". That also includes matters pertaining to fresh water.

This deliberate move will enable the Government to absolve itself of blame when things go wrong.

The most galling aspect is the Government is once again making a major constitutional change without a mandate for their actions.

If the Government can spend $26 million on a flag referendum, surely it can ask the electorate to vote on a major constitutional change, as one of the fundamental protections of democracy and the rule of law.

DAVE ETCHELLS Hamilton

Sunday Star Times 9/4/17

NATIONAL BETRAYED

So now we all know the real reason for John Key’s unexpected resignation.

The New Zealand Centre for Political Research’s open letter to the prime minister (April 2 ) highlights the fact that Key once again bowed to Maori Party pressure, this time by agreeing to change the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, so that every council and sub-committee in New Zealand will have unelected Maori appointees foisted on them.

This bill is an affront to democracy, and a betrayal of those who supported National in the 2014 election.

It appears that Key left Parliament early in order to retain his ‘‘nice guy’’ image, leaving Bill English and Nick Smith to face the backlash that will surely come in the 2017 election.

D.J. FITZSIMMONS, Lower Hutt

Northern Advocate 8/4/17

ONE PEOPLE

I wonder how many of your readers are feeling as I do about apartheid creep? I am very concerned and nervous about how division, based on race, is entering our laws. Anyone who dares to say one nation one people is denigrated with a blow-torch. Why?

Under the Human Rights Act we are signatory to there should be no laws based on gender, religion, age, race etc. That seems to be Interpreted to mean no negative laws but surely it also means no positive, advantageous laws too?

This Government, this week, is changing the Resource Management Act to give special powers to Maori to sit alongside elected local government representatives when they are addressing district development planning. consenting applications, monitoring and enforcement, establishing bylaws etc. This is blatantly wrong.

This. because neither Peter Dunne nor Act would support the bill, so the Maori Party were essential for the Government to get this through. Could be called bribery.

In this district we have many many fair minded Maori people who must also be concerned about this development. I hope that we will hear from these people, a call for "us" as New 'Zealanders to be equal under the law. Stop the excluding use of my people, our people. Let's be "us".

ROBIN LIEFFERING Onerahi

Hawke's Bay Today 8/4/17

GOVT SPARKING FRANKENSTEIN TO LIFE GALLS

Barrister Martin Williams’ description of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill as “resembling some awful version of a statutory Frankenstein” is very apt.

I agree with his comments that whilst they “may remain a lawyer’s dream” the legislation does nothing to simplify the processes and reduce cost.

The most damaging changes are the sweeping new “Mana Whakahono a Rohe” agreements. According to constitutional lawyer Stephen Franks, these will permanently force councils to kowtow to iwi and entrench permanent race-based privilege and corruption.

The new powers include “plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities”. That also includes matters pertaining to freshwater.

This deliberate move, consistent with its duplicitous, behind-closed-doors modus operandi, will enable the Government to absolve itself of blame when things go wrong.

The most galling aspect is the Government is once again making a major constitutional change without a mandate for its actions.

If the Government can spend $26 million on a flag referendum surely it can ask the electorate to vote on a major constitutional change, as one of the fundamental protections of democracy and the rule of law.

Once in place, the agreements are there forever as it would require iwi to agree to their removal.

TOM JOHNSON, Greenmeadows

Waikato Times 8/4/17

POLAR OPPOSITES

Bryan Johnson (April 6) fears that geologists might lose their tenure by not accepting Maori creation mythology. This is the opposite of the position of Trump’s hirelings, as described by American novelist Upton Sinclair in 1935: ‘‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

NEAL UTTING, Hamilton

TIME TO ACT

My concern over the Government’s belief that it can govern the country, in camera, without any consultation is exacerbated by the indolence of the general public in their procrastination to strongly oppose the gross, ethnic clauses in the RLA Bill. Tomorrow is too late.

BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa

Bay of Plenty Times 8/4/17

NOT QUITE PC

So is there really a threat against free speech? Surely not in Godzone as we must continue to have the freedom to speak openly without any fear of reprisal.

Imagine then, this little folksy and probably untrue tale from the distant past in the backblocks of America. A school bus driver was fed up with the continual demand to segregate the white kids and the black kids — so he said "From now on, there are no white kids or black kids — you are all green. "The dark green ones are to sit at the back of the bus and the light green ones at the front!" Imagine hearing that In today's PC-gone-mad world.

ROBIN BISHOP Tauranga

RESERVE RUCTIONS

Regarding Darraghs Rd Reserve; what gives with this land? Plunket has been operating there since 1969 and for better or worse, council resolved in 2015 to revoke the reserve designation and sell the land to Plunket.

Notice was given to Maori interests at that time then 18 months elapsed for various reasons, with a further letter sent to Maori interests and only then the objections surfaced.

The story floated to Tauranga City Council was that Ngal Tamarawaho (hapu/sub-tribe) division/appendage of Ngati Rangi-nui) had lost most of its lands following confiscations in mid-1865 because of tribal uprisings/rebellion.

It is one thing to retain reserve land, but it is another thing again for council to contemplate toying with already concluded Crown settlements.

This land never appeared in the list of grievances in the Sims Report 1928 and anyway 83 per cent of Tauranga land confiscated was subsequently returned or purchased.

Current Waitangi settlements have not dealt with it, and the clincher is the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board Act 1981, whereby $250,000 was paid to Tauranga tribes In full and final settlement of all compensation claim relating to confiscations. (Abridged)

R PATERSON Mount Maunganui

Sunlive / Weekend Sun 7/4/17

THE PUBLIC NEED TO KNOW

If the purpose of the media is to keep the public informed of current national and international news then New Zealand media falls well short of its obligations. News is not just the reportage of conflicts and calamities that afflict the world but of forces that govern our lives. The media has a moral obligation to serve the needs of the people and should not just publish news that suits their own editorial requirements.

The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is of vital importance to all New Zealanders and has ramifications that may adversely affect all of us, but whether through company policy, political affiliations or fear of ethnic reactions this Bill has had little reportage in the media as have the unofficial consultations between the National Party and Maori.

Unofficial, because the public seems to be belatedly and reluctantly informed with little opportunity or time to participate.

Are we to have a favoured, ethnic group being granted unique, undemocratic rights and representation on councils and regional committees with the right to influence decisions? The Treaty made Maori equal to all other subjects of the Crown. Not more. The present government does not seem to accept this fact.

The public needs and deserves to know what is being considered. This will probably not be published.

B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.

THE RMA IS RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH ANYWAY

Sun readers be aware of radical changes to the Resource management Act now in committee stage in Parliament.

There have been changes to the Amendment Bill to the Resource Management Act, which were instigated after the opportunity for submissions had ceased. As a result, there has been absolutely no opportunity for public input into the new statutory powers for iwi and hapu in the Bill.

The Act entrenches permanent race privilege for a minority but the important issue for council is there seems to be no ratepayer or council ability to change these provisions once they are entrenched in the RMA.

The new Mana Whakahono a Rohe provisions in the second reading version of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill could result in iwi decision-making enforcement powers on all resource consent applications.

There is nothing in the new provisions to protect councils and applicants from multiple consultation requirements as a practical result of an iwi participation agreement

There appear to be no constraints on what iwi participation can do in planning under co-management powers with their mandatory involvement in considering the application of plans and consenting and with little right of appeal Clause 16 inserts new section 34A(1A): to require local authorities to consult tangata whenua, through relevant iwi authorities, on the appointment of hearings commissioners with an understanding of tikanga Maori and of the perspectives of local iwi and hapu for the purpose of hearings under Part 1 of Schedule 1 (and subsequently to make irrevocable decisions), Also, there's new restrictions under Section 58. I urge you to take action and make contact with all parliamentarians involved to prevent this Bill from continuing with these alterations to the RMA, which is restrictive enough anyway.

I feel that local authority city/district councils are losing control and being subjected to real barriers to effective administration for all their ratepayers and residents whilst promoting the interests of a few. This is not fair on you nor on your constituents.

R STEPHENS, Tauranga City.

Waikato Times 7/4/17

MODERN SOCIETY TO BLAME

What a sad world we have become that little nigger boys, golliwogs and Red Indians will be confined to history (Waikato Times, April 1) because of ‘‘their power to hurt’’ and the Sallies are ‘‘peddling racist slurs’’.

It isn’t the books or toys that are guilty of this but people, the media, our sick society that put these connotations onto the children's story books and toys that were never produced to have "the power to hurt".

Enid Blyton, who I corresponded with when I was her biggest NZ fan back in the 40s and 50s, would be very disappointed and saddened to know that her Noddy books and Golliwog stories were banned from library shelves because they contained what is now called "insulting offensive language".

For Dame Susan Devoy to say "the reality is that golligwogs and words like nigger were born out of 'racism"' was certainly never the intention of Nora Case or Enid Blyton when they wrote these books.

I had never heard the word "racism" as a child. Modern society and PC is guilty of this, not children's books and toys. My grandchildren now read my treasured books and three generations of my family have had homemade golliwogs.

MRS RAY DWYER Hamilton

Bay of Plenty Times 7/4/17

RIVER SPEAKS OUT

All this furore over whether the Whanganui River is a person or a river.

I think after what’s happened in the last couple of days it is saying it wants to be a river.

Sorry Robin Bishop, I don’t think he/she was big on birthdays.

Anyway, transport to get to your place was always going to be a problem.

Don’t panic though because another hare-brained idea from Treaty Settlement Minister Chris Finlayson will be just around the corner. You can count on it.

BRIAN W. BROWN, Pyes Pa

Northern Advocate 7/4/17

ACT NOW

Law firm Franks Ogilvie says that the National Party’s Resource Legislation Amendment Bill “would virtually entrench co-governance and partnership obligations with some Maori into local government, creating an under-the-radar consti-tutional change.

"The proposed sections contravene basic principles of the rule of law, they conflict with our basic democratic principles, and they are inherently racist.

"These sections would give tribal bodies critical advantages of exclusive prior notice, as well as direct input and discussion, while nothing is proposed to protect non-iwi citizens against the abuse of these privileges."

Is this what mainstream New Zealanders want?

If not, then they should lobby the Prime Minister and local MP today as the bill is currently before Parliament and could be approved in the next few days.

"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indiffer-ence, and undernourishment" — Robert Hutchins.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Hawkes Bay Today 7/4/17

PROMISES FADE IN POWER BID

The Maori Party’s so-called commitment to Hawke’s Bay’s GM-free status has been rendered meaningless by their wheeling and dealing with National over the RMA.

Meka Whaitiri noted this during the parliamentary debate over the draft bill’s notoriously undemocratic section 360D, when she said that the “carve-out” to maintain Hawke’s Bay’s GE-free status should have included a “carve-out” to prevent oil and gas exploration.

Never mind the threat from Big Oil. The collusion between the Maori Party and the National Party threatens to undermine efforts by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to prohibit oil and gas drilling in water catchments. HBRC’s plan change would have protected our drinking water AND our irrigation water from potential contamination. But the National Government’s attempt to gut the Resource Management Act of its environmental protections will now be supported by the Maori Party.

In their rush to be seen as having power at the Cabinet table has the Maori Party forgotten about the need to protect our aquifers and water catchments from fracking, oil and gas exploration?

Prior to the previous General Election in 2014, Maori Party coleader Te Ururoa Flavell signed a commitment to support exclusion zones to protect drinking water from contamination from fracking, oil and gas exploration. Guardians of the Aquifer subsequently met with MP Marama Fox and, on May 12, 2016, prior to our presentation at the Select Committee hearing that day she reconfirmed the Maori Party’s commitment to protect drinking water from oil and gas exploration. So much for that commitment.

Bring on the general election.

PAULINE DOYLE AND KEN KEYS Spokespersons, Guardians of the Aquifer

NO MAORI WARD

An item in Hawke’s Bay Today on April 3 advised that legislation required every local council to consult within a fiveyear timeframe whether to establish a Maori ward.

I am opposed to such a ward being created as in my view such an action gives priority to one racial grouping over another which is against the democratic principles we follow.

In the case of the Hastings District Council, there are at least five Maori elected from the wider electorate reflecting and representing the interests of both the Maori and non-Maori populace. Obviously these are capable people and their election questions the need for special representation.

The council’s Maori Joint Committee, charged with making a recommendation to the council on the matter, has as its membership six Maori and six council representatives, the latter containing three who identify themselves as Maori — thus making the membership of the Joint Committee a 9:3 Maori/ non-Maori ratio.

The council is already well represented by Maori elected by the wider Hastings District community. I would hope the Joint Maori Committee, with its majority Maori representation, reflects on this and makes the decision to recommend the status quo. I would also expect that in our modern, diverse and democratic society racial selfinterest will play no part in the committee deliberations.

DAVID MURRAY, Havelock North

New Zealand Herald 6/4/17 (Also published in the Northland Age 6/4/17)

IWI RIGHTS UNDER RESOURCE BILL

Law firm Franks Ogilvie says the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, “would virtually entrench co-governance and partnership obligations with some Maori into local government, creating an underthe-radar constitutional change.

The proposed sections contravene basic principles of the rule of law, they conflict with our basic democratic principles, and they are inherently racist.

These sections would give tribal bodies critical advantages of exclusive prior notice, as well as direct input and discussion, while nothing is proposed to protect non-iwi citizens against the abuse of these privileges.”

Is this what mainstream New Zealanders want?

If not, then they should lobby the Prime Minister and local MP today as the bill is currently before Parliament and could be approved in the next few days.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo.

NZHerald 6/4/17 (Short & Sweet section)

ON RACISM

Do some people have darker skin than others? If so, why can’t we say so?

L. HARRISON, Kohimarama

Northland Age 6/417

NO TOMORROW

My concern over the government's belief that it can govern the country in camera, without any consultation with the population is exacerbated by the indolence of the general public in their procrastination to strongly oppose the gross, ethnic clauses in the RLA Bill. Tomorrow is too late.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Hawke's Bay Today 5/4/17

MAORI WARD

An item in Hawke’s Bay Today, April 3 issue, advised that legislation required every local council to consult within a five year time frame whether to establish a Maori ward.

I am opposed to such a ward being created, as in my view such an action gives priority to one racial grouping over another which is against the democratic principles we follow.

In the case of the Hastings District Council, there are at least five Maori elected from the wider electorate reflecting and representing the interests of both the Maori and non-Maori populace. Obviously these are capable people and their election questions the need for special representation.

The HDC Maori joint committee charged with making a recommendation to the HDC on the matter has as its membership six Maori and six council representatives, the latter containing three who identify themselves as Maori thus making the membership of the joint committee a 9:3 Maori /non Maori ratio.

The HDC is already well represented by Maori elected by the wider Hastings District community.

I would hope that the joint Maori committee with its majority Maori representation reflects on this and makes the decision to recommend the status quo.

I would also expect that in our modern, diverse and democratic society racial self-interest will play no part in the committee’s deliberations.

DAVID MURRAY Havelock North

The Northern Advocate 5/4/17

RIGHT TO GM-FREE

GE Free Northland shares the concerns expressed by a growing number of Northlanders and their councils about the National Party’s blatant power grab Resource Legislation Amendment Bill.

The most controversial is the new powers minister Nick Smith wants so he can prevent the regions GM Free food producer zones under their local plans.

The minister is still unable to find support for the new powers, with s360D and the with the minister over the controversial clauses.

Nick Smith should accept what Parliament, business and the wider community are telling him: that the powers he seeks are unnecessary, unprincipled and would undermine regional economic and environmental initiatives, like ours in Northland and Auckland.

The regions are fighting back and recently launched a social media campaign calling on the Maori Party to help them stand up for local democracy and protect their right to be GM Free, which covers what is grown and farmed on the land.

The Maori Party hold the power at this critical stage.

That means not settling for bargain basement provisions, but clear and full protection of GM Free regions. Maori Party — stay strong — community expectations are clear: hold fast to your principled position and your own GE Free policy. ( Abridged)

ZELKA LINDA GRAMMER, Chairperson GE Free Northland

Southland Times 4/4/2017

AMENDMENT BILL

I wonder how many voters know about the contents of the Resource Management Act Amendment Bill or even care.

If passed into law this week it poses a direct and permanent threat to our already shaky democracy. The Bill proposes to give unelected iwi representatives places on local councils with full voting rights in a co-governance deal on environmental matters, in particular the management of fresh water.

At present there is debate going on about the value and ownership of fresh water which casts a whole new light on the matter. Where are the public watchdogs, the newspapers on this matter?

Such a far reaching constitutional change requires at the very least a binding referendum.

JOHN BAIRD Winton

NZ Herald 4/4/17

RESOURCE RIGHTS

It is astounding that media, including the Herald, have scarcely mentioned the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill due to be passed in Parliament this week.

The final amendments made to the bill to provide statutory powers for iwi and hapu should be of major public concern. They have been slipped into the bill with no public consultation even though they represent a major back-door change to constitutional process and undermine local government democracy, to appease Maori Party demands.

The National Party appears to have abandoned its principles over this bill. Where are the howls of outrage from the media over this?

GRAHAM M. UPTON, Epsom.

NZ Herald 4/4/17 (Short & Sweet section)

ON PRISON

Interesting article on Maori overrepresentation in prison in the Bay of Plenty. Even more interesting, not a single word in the article about the gangs. Maori are also over-represented in Parliament. What does that tell us?

PETE O’NEILL, Dargaville.

Hawkes Bay Today 4/4/17

RMA NOW A SHAMBLES

When a lawyer is telling you that decision making should be driven by public engagement and scientific knowledge and not by lawyers, you know it’s high time to sit up and take notice.

And Martin Williams is quite right (“RMA reforms: Dr Smith’s Frankenstein”, April 3). The RMA is now a shambles, the legacy of a National Government some years overdue for retirement.

What I find alarming is that it ranks only fourth in my personal list of National’s follies that need urgent correction.

Above it stand public education, left crumpled, bruised and demoralised by years of bad policy, incompetent administration and a top-down bureaucracy; the ever-growing gap between rich and poor, deeply objectionable in a society once heralded worldwide for its care for all; and democracy, left trampled in the mud by the way National has exercised its power.

The evidence is plain for all to see.

For the public good, 2017 needs to be a year of change.

ROBIN GWYNN Napier

FAIR SUPPORT

It is generally accepted that the average per student funding across all schools is $7046 per annum.

On the Native Affairs programme, on April 23, 2014, Hekia Parata provided the following figures for Kohanga Reo funding: Funding $92m; Enrolled pupils 9000.

This equates to to funding of $10,222 per student p.a. For preschooling. Unbelievable.

We now have a new charter school catering for “young Maori and Pasifika men” with the initial cost of $61,000 per student p.a. The premise appears to be “build it and they will come”. If so, so will extra costs by way of staff, buildings and equipment. Cynical? Maybe but the Te Aratika Academy appears to be another Government-funded, race-based enterprise which will provide Te Aratika Drilling with pre-trained workers.

Currently kindergartens, which provide pre-schooling for the majority of Kiwis, are struggling for funds as detailed by HBToday on March 18. This backgrounder provided a lot of detail but did not provide figures to work out how much per child the Government funds p.a.

It also confused the issue by including Kohanga Reos which have separate funding as above. Please do not tell me kohangas receive a subsidy in addition.

MURRAY CHRISTISON Napier

Northland Age 4/4/17

TOO FAR

While one should accept and respect the fables and legends that identify a culture, to personify geographical features as though they had a physical persona is carrying cultural sensitivities to an irrational extreme.

Rivers and mountains do not breed. They cannot become the progenitors of a race.

As a non-Maori person of Euro/Asian ancestry I do not believe that Helen of Troy was the offspring of Zeus, as a swan, seducing Leda. Those who claim non acceptance of tribal legends are racially insensitive need to get real and put their energies to more productive activities.

For a government or state institutions to allow such fallacious claims to gain official status shows how much they are influenced by the Maori Party and some other part-Maori factions.

BRYAN JOHNSON Omokoroa

Northern Advocate 4/4/17 (Also published in Northland Age 4/4/17)

UNDER A CLOUD

The news media are giving the armed forces a bit of a hard time pertaining to the apparent shooting of civilians in Afghanistan about six years ago.

What I do find hard to believe is that who would write such a book, and forget, or rather ignore, the true history of New Zealand. Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson have, no doubt, done a lot of ferreting to get this book into print.

I have offered a challenge to the judiciary, historians, archaeologists, and Members of Parliament, to get to the truth of the history of New Zealand, but perhaps my challenge has fallen on deaf ears!

There are 105 embargoes, and several thousand sites throughout New Zealand which could yield vital information pertaining to our true history. I extend that challenge to Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson.

The future of New Zealand will be in a "Long White Cloud" until its true history is revealed.

KEVAN C MARKS Kaipara

Wanganui Chronicle 4/4/17

DEFINE ‘PERSON’

While I understand the apparent reasoning behind the granting of legal person status to the Whanganui River, I am not convinced it is the best approach to protect the river.

I expect there will be unforeseen consequences and applications following s precedent. It is also rather ironic. Since science has proven that human life begins at the moment of conception, one of the main arguments used in favour of ending those human lives while still in their mother’s womb is that the child has not yet become “a person”.

If our law truly gave equal rights to all humans, these vulnerable children would be protected. Instead, these children are said not to be persons and are refused their human rights, while our river is now said to be a person and granted legal protection.

As the man.” said, “Define irony”

K A BENFELL Gonville