June - Dec

Northland Age 31/12/20

PROVE IT

Wally Hicks once again charges Dr Muriel Newman (NZCPR) of using the term ‘daughter slaughter’ (letters 22/12/20).

In 2018 Wally asserted both Newman and Hobson’s Pledge used the term ‘daughter slaughter’, I challenged him then to provide proof of this – to date he has been unable to do so, this clearly shows that readers should take what this ‘loose cannon’ writes with a grain of salt.

Hicks is free to believe the oral Chinese whispers of his neo ‘qualified persons of Maori descent’ – I suspect not many informed New Zealanders who have read recorded history would.

However, Claudia Orange a darling of the pro-Maori, anti-colonist brigade records tohunga Matiu Tahu as saying - “You forget what we were and what we have thrown away- our cannibalism, our murders, our infanticide, our tapus, which were gods to us. What prevents our return to these things but religion?.” (When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience - page 72).

In the twenties at Wangaroa, as indeed all over the country, infanticide prevailed to a melancholy extent...... https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTR19150717.2.52

As Elvis Presley said “Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a while but it ain’t goin’ away”

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northern Advocate 29/12/20

NO CONSULTATION

Regional councillors say they consult with the community and there was a time when councillors insisted on consultation about even small changes in annual plans and long-term plans etc.

Many of those same councillors now turn a blind eye and deaf ear to consultation when it suits them to do so - like when they want to change the voting system and introduce Maori only wards.

Clearly they think they don't need to consult about the way they are elected. When councillors change the voting system there is a safeguard to protect the public against politicians acting in their own self-interest.

That is the petition right that exists in the Local Electoral Act, and why there is a petition circulating to put the Maori wards issue to a binding referendum.

RAEWYN MESSHAM, Whangarei

Northland Age 24/12/20

COMMON PRACTICE

Wally Hicks has claimed in an intemperate letter (Doesn't make sense? December 22) that there was no female infanticide among early Maori. It was in fact common, as among a number of other tribal peoples across the world.

There are many references to such infanticide by both Maori and European observers. As I have noted in ‘When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience’, historians Claudia Orange and Paul Moon give long lists of examples, and I added a few more.

One such report was by early settler and writer Samuel Polack who lived in New Zealand between 1831 and 1837, for long periods with Maori, of a conversation with a group of young Maori women: On taxing some females with having committed infanticide, they laughed heartily at the serious manner in which I put the question. They told me the poor infants did not know or care much about it.

One young woman, who had recently destroyed a female infant, said that she wished her mother had done the same to her, when she was young. 'For why should my infant live?' She added. to dig the ground! To be a slave to the wives of her husband! To be beaten by them, and trodden under foot! No! Can a woman here protect herself, as among the white people?*

The consequences were evident in several regional population counts around 1840. and in the first national census of 1857-58. In addition to a considerable shortfall of young people among Maori, there were far fewer females, with 20 per cent fewer girls than boys, 26 per cent fewer women than men.

There were not enough women to have the babies needed to replace natural deaths, and not enough girls to replace the mature women in the coming decades, with the result that the population was declining.

It took 50 years before that decline ended and the Maori population began its long increase from 1890 onwards.

These are all well-known facts; this is what happened. The colonisation that was sought. and welcomed by many Maori brought an end to widespread inter-tribal war and a change in culture, led by Maori for themselves, which produced a more healthy, prosperous and peaceful population.

JOHN ROBINSON, Waikanae

Northland Age 24/12/20

A FATHER FIGURE

I wonder if Tony Clemow (Northern Advocate December 17) or his NZ historians have ever read W Colenso’s, "Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi", 1890, or Rev John Warren’s report who were both present at the signing ceremony at Waitangi 1840.

Tony’s argument laced with ‘generally’, ‘seem’s’, appeared, in terms of, is not very convincing, as is his making a complex issue out of a simple preamble and 3 clause unambiguous document (agreed this document should be examined in the context of 1840) which was read to those assembled at Waitangi in both English and Maori prior to signing.

In Article 1, The chiefs ceded sovereignty (kawanatanga) completely and for ever and their recorded speeches are evidence they understood what they were signing. (Read Colenso’s record)

It is utterly absurd therefore to say that in Article 2 they somehow retained sovereignty. Were Hobson and Busby that inept? The primary intent of the Treaty was to obtain the chief’s consent for the transfer of sovereignty/chieftainship as per Lord Normanby’s brief to Hobson.

Therefore, whatever the meaning of “tino rangatiratanga” it means nothing remotely like sovereignty/chieftianship.

The only tenable meaning is “full possession”, as ownership of property/possessions is what Article 2 was about.

Moreover this guarantee of ownership of property was assured to ALL the people of NZ.

Clemow opines that Williams ‘hoodwinked’ the chiefs in his exchanges with them, yet Maori erected a memorial to him which says “He was a father indeed to all the tribes”

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northern Advocate 23/12/20

DIVISION BY RACE

M Armstrong (11/12/20) talks about ‘worldviews’. She fails to recognise that it was Maori who sought a British ‘worldview’ to liberate them from tribal warfare, slavery, female infanticide and cannibalism in the 19th Century.

She gives the impression the Waitangi Tribunal has legal status. It doesn’t. It can only make recommendations to Government. Both Professor Paul Moon and Chris Finlayson past Minister of Treaty Settlements/Attorney General have dismissed the WT’s finding that Maori did not cede sovereignty (NZ Herald Nov 14). That is very clear from Article 1 of the Treaty which cedes sovereignty rights “to her Majesty Queen of England absolutely and without reservation”.

In a recent letter I have given stats that the views of Maori are well expressed at all levels of decision making without special representation, and those of Maori descent who stand to represent everyone, not just the interests of Maori, have as good a chance as anyone of getting elected.

New Zealanders should be very wary of Armstrong’s flippant throwaway ““lets give Maori wards a go”. Go where? Go down a path where local government is further divided by race instead of united by our common interests.

Accusations of “racism” are hurled liberally at those who say no to Maori wards, hurled by the very same individuals who want to divide us by race.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northern Advocate 19/12/20

FAVOURING MAORI

I agree with Sally Toure (11/12/20) “democracy is about electing candidates to make choices for the good of our society as a whole”, yet she fails to see that Maori ward councillors who are only elected by those of Maori descent on the Maori roll are only answerable to Maori and not the community as a whole. It would be naive to think otherwise. Let’s be clear – their purpose is to favour Maori over others. In some countries this is called discrimination.

Sally is correct, Maori war veterans did receive a lower rate of pension after the NZ and South African wars. Discriminatory rates of pension also applied to non-Maori war vet rankings at that time. However after WW1 Maori vets received the same pension rate as other NZ vets (Te Ara).

As to Sally’s notion of Crown/Maori ‘partnership’ it was and is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with her subjects. Sally and readers would do themselves a favour by reading retired Judge Anthony Willy’s NZCPR.com article titled ‘Partnership’, where he shows the concept of partnership has no legal basis.

While there is no doubt that Maori are over represented in the worst of our social statistics, the colour of their skin is not the cause of their misfortunes, and nor is public or institutional racism as is conveniently claimed by some. The causes are welfare dependency, family breakdown and educational failure – the very same problems that apply to other ethnicities anywhere.

Crown injustices? Since 1840 many Statutes have been passed with good intention to help Maori adapt to changing times. There have also been many ‘full and final’ settlements to address alleged past wrongs, but this is not enough for some.

TONY RODGERS, Whangarei

COUNCIL SPENDING

The main opposition to the petition going around about Maori wards is that it will cost ratepayers money.

One group is saying it will be as much as $360,000, which is unsubstantiated, and Whangarei Mayor [Sheryl] Mai has previously raised cost as a reason why she voted against the public having a say on this.

Both the NRC and WDC voted against holding the petition at the time of the 2022 local body election.

Had they done so, the additional cost would be negligible.

They instead tried to block the petition. It is councillors and councillors alone who would be responsible for any additional costs to ratepayers.

Since when did councillors care about how much of our money they spend? How much did the mayor's electric car cost ratepayers? What about the new, debt funded, $40 million office building for council?

Council spending is an issue - but it is councillors, not petitioners concerned about democracy, who should be held to account.

FRANK NEWMAN, Whangarei

Northern Advocate 18/12/20

COMMUNIST IDEAL

Jan Francis (14/12/20) appears to be saying that everyone and every outcome should be made to be equal. This is a communist ideal that is more fanciful than real. Is this what parents barrack at their kids at school cross country, “Slow down, be average”.

There will always be natural inequality because everyone is unique. We each have a unique perspective, abilities and priorities. Natural “inequality” is everywhere – even in one family of any ethnicity.

However legal equality means we all play by the same rules and enjoy the same rights and opportunities. This means no legal advantage for race, ethnicity, culture, or religion. That’s the basis of any healthy democracy - which has proven to be the most enduring and successful system of government so far. It makes for united, prosperous and happy nations because it is based on respecting a diversity of opinion.

Unequal legal treatment breeds resentment, destructive attitudes and corruption, it divides communities and countries, just look around the world!!!!

Jan raised the spectre of the tyranny of the majority in her argument for undemocratic Maori wards. Her suggestion appears to be tyranny of the minority over the majority. Tyranny in any form is abhorrent. Personally, I have more faith in the goodwill of man rather than the ill will.

Jan, to honour Te Tiriti (Article 3) we must unite races, not divide by installing separatist Maori wards.

RAEWYN MESSHAM, Whangarei

Northland Age 17/12/20

GO WHERE?

M Armstrong (11/12/20) harps on about ‘worldviews’. She fails to recognise that it was Maori who sought a British ‘worldview’ to liberate them from tribal warfare, slavery, female infanticide and cannibalism in the 19th Century.

Accusations of “racism” are hurled liberally at those who say no to Maori wards, hurled by the very same individuals who want to divide us by race.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

SLOW DOWN!

Unequal legal treatment breeds resentment, destructive attitudes and corruption, it divides communities and countries, just look around the world!!!!

Jan, to honour Te Tiriti (Article 3) we must unite races, not divide by installing separatist Maori wards.

RAEWYN MESSHAM, RD 3 Whangarei

Hawkes Bay Today 14/12/20

EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION

Regarding the proposal by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to consider Maori constituencies, does Ngati Kahungunu chair Ngahiwi Tomoana realise that:

1 A Maori constituencies councillor does not have to be Maori.

2 Such a councillor is required to represent all the people of Hawke’s Bay and not just the Maori roll voters.

Meanwhile, how many people know that the formula used to calculate the number of Maori seats may reserve two seats on the nine-seat council for Maori roll councillors, leaving just seven general seats?

Has anyone thought through the impact of having two Maori roll councillors on the Regional Planning Committee?

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 envisaged 10 iwi representatives and 10 councillors in a co-governance resource body, even though there have never been 10 councillors.

Having two Maori roll councillors would mean that the Regional Planning Committee would have the 10 iwi reps on the “tangata whenua” side.

The council side would have the two Maori roll councillors, plus one or two general roll councillors with Maori ancestry, plus a stand-in to make up the required 10.

What does that say about equitable representation?

We need an open debate on Maori constituencies with ALL information on the table.

MIKE BUTLER, Hastings

Northland Age 8/12/20

THE PARTNERSHIP LIE

Tony Clemow (Northern Advocate 7th Nov), and others who clamour for separatist race-based wards, repeats the Crown/Maori ‘partnership’ lie. There is/was no ‘partnership’ as ‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it's subjects’. Article 3 of the Treaty gave Maori “royal protection” (from other nations, the French in particular, and from their fellow marauding tribes) and all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects (under sovereignty of the Queen).

There is no mention of partnership or power sharing. That has become a convenient social and political construct.

Tony, further misleads when he implies that those of Maori descent “are missing from the table” or cannot have their voice heard.

That is plainly untrue, in central government we have over 20% Maori MPs elected in Parliament while the Maori population is 16.5%.

In the Far North the number of councillors with iwi affiliation is greater than the proportion of the Maori community.

The new MP (of Maori descent) for Northland is a strong advocate for Maori but was elected in a general seat.

The WDC already has a Maori committee that has 8 members appointed by Maori with full voting rights.

The views of Maori are well expressed at all levels of decision making and those of Maori descent who stand to represent everyone, not just the interests of Maori, have as good a chance as anyone of getting elected.

It is the ‘diversity in our community’ that he speaks of that is the ultimate reason that we should not have undemocratic race-based wards, and why all voices should be respected and democratically heard.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

ALL OPINIONS MATTER

You know what I hate most about those who say the contentious issue of race-based seats on local councils should not be put to a vote. They think my opinion doesn't matter. Guess what. It does matter. My opinion matters - noless and no more than anyone else's opinion.

To deny others the right to have a say in a democracy is arrogant and very dangerous.

What's worse, our very own Northland Regional councillors, have not only voted against the public having a say, they have written to the Local Government Minister asking that she take away our right to demand a poll.

It seems our elected councillors trusted us to be wise when they were elected last year, but they don't trust us when they know the public challenges their decision about Maori constituencies.

I encourage everyone who is equally as disgusted as I am about this to sign the petition calling for a referendum on race-based seats. That way everyone can have a say and councillors will be reminded who they work for.

RAEWYN MESSHAM, Whangarei

THE WORST

It was Winston Churchill who said. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

While democracy has its failings, it is the best way to arrive at the least unpopular solution.

That's why divisive issues like race-based seats on local councils should be put to a popular vote.

A vote gives voice to those who would otherwise remain silent and returns power to the people.

Its the essence of democracy.

FRANK NEWMAN, Whangarei

Northern Advocate 7/12/20

A SOCIETY DIVIDED

In a perfect world, democratically elected representatives would respect democracy. That is not the case for the three Northland councils that voted to exclude the public from having a say about Maori wards.

Their stance was despite knowing the public would be opposed to their decision. They would be well aware that based on previous referendum around 75% of the public are against race based wards. Clearly the public know that separating people by race will divide families, neighbours, workplaces and communities. That's not want ordinary New Zealanders want.

Our local councillors seem to forget that its democracy that resolves differences and brings people together. Forgetting that truism comes with a very high price.

Some advocates for Maori wards hark back to milestone moments in history such as women gaining the vote in 1893. They don't seem to appreciate that give women an equal right to participate in a democracy. It was not about dividing people by their differences.

What the pro-Maori seats lobby wants is 50/50 governance. The Local Govt Workers’ Union clearly states those intentions. They say, “There’s a long way to go yet before Maori are seated equally at the table....” (Scoop 24 Nov)

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northern Advocate 5/12/20

OPINION MATTERS

To deny others the right to have a say in a democracy is arrogant and very dangerous.

It seems our elected councillors trusted us to be wise when they were elected last year, but they don't trust us when they know the public challenges their decision about Maori constituencies.

RAEWYN MESSHAM, Whangarei

Northland Age 1/12/20

SOVEREIGNTIST MANTRAS

How can the Maori ward petition currently circulating be “racism in it’s worst form” or “playing on peoples fears” as G Thompson says (letters 30/11/20)?

The petition is simply asking for a council initiated referendum so everyone in the community gets the opportunity to express a view as to whether our local councils should be divided by race. Everyone should have a right to express their opinion and every opinion should be respected. That is how a democracy resolves contentious issues, and recent national referendums are good examples.

It never ceases to amaze me how people like G Thompson repeat the Maori sovereigntist mantra “the Treaty has not been honoured” – to justify their complete disregard for democracy.

Yes, there were ‘obligations’ in the Treaty but moreso on Maori than the Crown and definitely no mention of race-based representation.

G Thompson repeats the other Maori sovereigntist mantra “tangata whenua as partners” – I say again there is and never was a Crown/Maori ‘partnership’.

Race-based representation of any form is abhorrent separatism. The so-called Maori voice can be heard as New Zealanders, after all what different needs do Maori have in roading, sewerage, rubbish collection, infrastructure etc?

Lastly, fair minded New Zealanders are not ‘fearful’ of Maori, they simply fight for democracy and oppose all forms of racism.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northern Advocate 27/11/20

MISSES THE POINT

Whangarei District councillor Ken Couper appears to be confused about what it actually is that his council does.

In an article appearing in the Bream Bay News (19 Nov, 20), he argues that adverse social statistics for Maori are a reason why his council should have Maori wards.

He seems to miss the obvious point that it is the role of central government not local government to address the many negative social statistics affecting Maori. Does he really need to be reminded that the primary purpose of local councils remains infrastructure and property services? Heavens knows, there is plenty for the WDC to do in that area.

Further, Cr Couper did not address the most important issue and that is why he voted against Maori wards being put to the community at large for a mandate. Does he think the community at large is racist? Does he not trust his electors to make the right decision, the very same electors he trusted last year when they elected him as their councillor?

Lastly, surely the best way to approach poor social statistics is to focus on need not ethnicity. Race -based wards will do nothing but divide our community.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

MAORI WARDS

Councillors who have recently voted to Install Maori wards without any public consultancy need to bear in mind this usually did not form part of their electoral manifestos and they have no public mandate to go down this path.

Polls usually end up with 70 to 85 per cent no votes to wards from citizens.

As it stands the Local Electoral Act 20011aw Is heavily weighted against citizens as It forces them at considerable time, inconvenience, and cost to organise and file the 5 per cent petitions within a short timeframe.

In reality the total obligation should be on errant councils to initiate and organise a referendum poll at the same time and In conjunction with three yearly local government elections cycles which saves considerable ratepayer cost and is not haphazard.

Why not just change the law to rationalise this process accordingly along these lines and force councils to toe the line in name of openness, transparency accountability and honesty.

This is not what Ms Mahuta, the part Maori sovereignty activists and the woke crew envisage— quite the reverse in fact, they want the democratic referendums scrapped and that ain't a level playing field.

ROB PATERSON, Mount Maunganul

Gisborne Herald 25/11/20

A TOPSY-TURVY WORLD . . .

This is to exercise my right of reply to Lara, who played the racist card in her reaction to my letter (Gisborne Herald, November 23).

The Maori wards debate draws attention to a topsy-turvey world we live in.

The Gisborne District Council has proposed in a voting system which divides Gisborne citizens based on race while arguing that such a system is anti-racist.

Meanwhile, anyone who criticises such a race-based voting system is smeared as racist.

My letter was an open invitation to anyone to make the case for Maori wards in Gisborne.

Curiously, Gisborne’s mayor and around five councillors seem happy to put themselves out of a job by reserving five seats for Maori roll candidates to represent, not only Maori roll voters, but the general electoral population as well.

Maori seat councillors are not required to be Maori, but must be voted for by Maori roll voters, Maori candidates may be elected to general seats.

Is this not a virtue-signalling shambles?

Even the argument that Maori wards petitions are racist because no other ward option may be challenged by a petition may be resolved by opening all wards decisions, rural or urban, to the possibility of referenda.

But no, the Minister prefers to remove a democratic check rather than extending such a check.

Are the mainly non-Maori councillors who voted to proceed with Maori wards motivated by a quaint type of paternalism and don’t appear to understand that a race-based ward is by definition racist?

Surely, in a multicultural society such as we have, any governance structure should be racially neutral with political rights based on citizenship, not ethnicity.

I’m still waiting for someone to make a compelling case for Maori wards.

MIKE BUTLER, Hastings

Northland Age 24/11/20

SOVEREIGNTY ZEALOTS

Triggered correspondent Caroline Pukeroa-McKinney seems to have a comprehension problem (letters 19th Nov), or just likes to fabricate stuff?. Bruce Moon did not say that the Treaty itself contained reference to Maori slaves – what he did correctly say is that the Article 3 wording “..... and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them” – meaning that the thousands of Maori slaves were freed by this clause.

Caroline references the Waitangi Tribunal to validate her argument, however citing the Waitangi Tribual as an unbiased authority on the Treaty is akin to citing the tobacco industry as an authority on smoking and health – the Tribunal promotes and creates Maori rights just as strenuously as the tobacco industry manufactures and promotes cigarettes.

One thing they have in common is that the outcomes are injurious to the health and well being of Kiwis.

And David Rankin a Ngaphui elder said “the Waitangi Tribunal makes up history as it goes along.....”

Brian Priestley MBE said about the Waitangi Tribunal > “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth". (Investigate Magazine 2012)

Dr Michael Bassett a noted political historian, who was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for 10yrs, observed “what you have been dealing with for the last 30years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it.” (NBR March 2005)

As for Carolines’ inane assertion that maori ancestors “DID NOT CEDE SOVEREIGNTY”, she has clearly never read the assembled chiefs Waitangi speeches prior to their signing of the treaty confirming they clearly understood they were ceding their authority/sovereignty.

Former and the first Treaty Negotiations Minister and MP Doug Graham stated “Once the Treaty had been confirmed, sovereignty, as it is commonly understood, passed to Britain”

Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson said the Tribunal's finding did not change the fact the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. "There is no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. This (Waitangi Tribunal) report doesn't change that fact." (NZHerald, 14 Nov, 2014)

Dr. Don Brash raises some telling points: - Moreover, with very rare exceptions, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders with a Maori ancestor have accepted, acted and behaved as if sovereignty was ceded or gained in one form or another in 1840:

For example and as evidence of this conclusion these people have

* served in the Police and the Armed Forces;

* bought and sold assets, registering those transactions with Crown agencies

* paid rates income taxes and GST;

* been employed by the Crown as teachers, nurses, and bureaucrats;

* accepted unemployment benefits, New Zealand Superannuation and other benefits;

* accepted treatment in public hospitals and from highly subsidized doctors;

* been educated in public schools and universities;

* travelled overseas on New Zealand passports;

* accepted massive sums of money from Crown for so-called historical grievances.

Very strange behaviour if Maori haven’t accepted the sovereignty of the Crown.

No doubt these concrete facts and evidence will fly right over part-maori sovereignty zealots heads as no amount of proof will ever persuade them they are wrong.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

ILL INFORMED

Dear oh dear! What an ill-tempered and ill-informed letter from Ms Pukeroa-McKinney in your columns!(19/11/20).

Maori slaves? Yes, there were plenty. In January 1819, Ngapuhi were said to have brought back 2000 slaves including many chiefs from a raid to the East Coast. Since Article Third of the Treaty gave all Maoris (tangata maori, katoa o Nu Tirani) the rights and privileges of the people of England, it liberated those slaves – right? Slaves are people. Have you got that, Caroline?

Now since Article Second did no more than guarantee the right of possession of property to all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani) it was at most confirmatory, actually redundant. Existing British subjects had those rights already and all Maoris got them by Article third. Can you work that out, Caroline?

And no, there were never “two Treaty versions”, only one, in the Ngapuhi dialect, signed by about forty chiefs at Waitangi on 6th February 1840 with about 500 more assenting to it subsequently. Any claim that we are “one Nation of Two Peoples, Maori and Tauiwi” is simply nonsense. We are one nation of people with diverse racial origins, often mixed. How about the McKinneys, Caroline?

As for the Waitangi Tribunal, may I inform Ms Pukeroa-McKinney and everybody else that it draws false conclusions in report after report. As the recorded words of the chiefs at Waitangi state, as the great meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 affirmed unanimously, as Sir Apirana Ngata did likewise in 1922, the chiefs who signed the treaty ceded sovereignty completely and for ever to the Queen and they knew it.

No amount of noisy assertions by Ms Pukeora-McKinney or anybody else can alter that solid fact of history. Stating a lie ten thousand times does not make it true.

I have explained all this before, on 17th March this year. She would do well to read that again.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Northern Advocate 21/11/20

COMMUNITY NEEDS SAY ON MAORI WARDS

The former Mayor of the New Plymouth District Council, Andrew Judd, has been described as a leading New Zealand Maori wards advocate. Let's be clear what Mr Judd and others want. It's not just one or two Maori seats on councils: it is half. They say it must be 50/50 to "reflect the Treaty of Waitangi partnership”.

If the community is happy with that, then so be it. But the community should certainly have a say on such an important matter.

The Local Electoral Act gives the community that right if more than 5% of registered voters petition their local council to hold a binding referendum. Mr Judd has been campaigning for six years to remove that right.

To deny others the right to have a say about how their local representatives are elected is totalitarian and dangerous. Mr Judd and his supporters should be sent a very clear message that their form of "democracy" is not welcome. It's a message our local body councillors should also heed, as it is they, not Mr Judd, who on taking office, swore an oath to the community at large to represent them, and it is they who must ultimately answer to voters.

FRANK NEWMAN, Whangarei

Northland Age 19/11/20

MAORI WARDS

People generally only do anything for one of two reasons – to gain something, or to preserve something.

So when we look at the separate Maori wards debate we can clearly see that one side wishes to GAIN unbridled power, not just a ‘voice’ as they propagandise. They already have this ‘voice’ as New Zealanders, but they want much more to the detriment of all other Kiwis.

The other side of the debate is striving to PRESERVE our tried and true racially inclusive local democracy that has served us very well for a very long time.

There may be winds of change afoot, unfortunately these winds are powered by dark forces that will divide families, neighbours and communities, if this try on succeeds it will destroy our cherished way of life forever.

An all inclusive governance system functions best when it is racially neutral and caters for all peoples from the 213 ethnic groups living in New Zealand.

Any governance system, decision, or arrangement, that is based on race is wrong and correctly labelled racist by any definition.

Successful elected councillors at their ‘inductions either swear on the Bible, or affirm, that they will represent the whole community. Those wayward Councillors, by voting for Maori wards, show that they have stepped aside from their solemn promise to represent the whole community.

As David Lange PM said in 2000 - ”We can have a democratic form of government or we can have Maori sovereignty, they can’t co-exist and we can’t have both”.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northland Advocate 19/11/20

DEMAND A VOTE ON WARDS

You have given extensive coverage to the views of Andrew Judd, the former mayor New Plymouth, on the desirability of Maori wards (Advocate November 17). He has been reported as urging ratepayers in Northland not to sign Democracy Northland's petition requesting that there be a poll of all ratepayers before Maori wards are established. He is of course entitled to his view on the subject but so also are Northland ratepayers. And that is all they are demanding by signing the petition.

The creation of maon wards would be a huge step backwards to a race-based political system and It Is entirely unclear why anybody would want that Maori are absolutely as capable as anybody else of being elected to office at both national and local level In the last Parliament. for example, 30 MPs, 25 per cent the total, were Maori and only seven of those were elected in the anachronistic Maori electorates. The number of Maori in local government has been rising steadily in recent years.

Our democracy should be based on citizenship, not on the ethnicity of some of our ancestors.

DON BRASH, Auckland

Northern Advocate 17/11/20

MAORI WARDS

Correspondent Alan Upson (letters 14/11/20) seems confused? Because any race-based governance structure, such as a Maori wards in Local Government or Maori seats in Parliament is exclusive to other ethnicities, only people of Maori descent who are on the Maori electoral roll can vote in these separatist entities.

Inclusive democracy is based on the simple principle that all citizens must be treated the same under the law. Every individual has the same rights and indeed has the same responsibilities under the law.

Within society, people may share common views and interests with others, be those cultural, religious, ethnic, social or perhaps sporting. All such groupings are basically tribal in nature.

But forming such groupings, call them what you may, should not give the members collectively, any special voting rights.

Democracy is based on giving equal rights to individuals.

Councils should not be making constitutional changes by giving special voting rights to groups without a prior resident and ratepayer mandate.

GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Northland Age 12/11/20

A SENSITIVE SPOT

I certainly hit Wally Hicks in a sensitive spot as his wildly accusatory letter of 3rd November to the “Age” shows all to clearly! Let us take his points one by one.

First, by Article third of the Treaty, all Maoris, their many slaves included, received the same rights as the people of England, accepting of course as was the case, that the chiefs ceded such sovereignty as each possessed “completely and for ever” to the Queen (Article first). The evidence of the day establishes this beyond doubt. The Waitangi Tribunal and such people as Haami Piripi (Sammy Phillips) who deny this choose to deny the plain truth.

Now all that article second did is state the property rights of all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani) and since those rights were quite clearly established by Article third, Article second was unnecessary, i.e. it was redundant. That Maori land ownership practice differed from that of England does not alter this.

As for the meaning of “kawanatanga”, because there was no word in the classic Maori language for the concept of “sovereignty”, this was the translation which the Williams chose. Both Hobson’s final draft of 4th February using “sovereignty” and the actual Treaty document, using “kawanatanga” were read out on 5th February and nobody said they were different – many people of both races were bilingual. That “kawanatanga” was derived from “kawana” and “tanga” is irrelevant because translation is not the same as derivation. (Elsewhere I have published many examples of this so do not restate them in a short letter.)

On the introduction of “Maori seats”, the key point is that they were a temporary measure in a rapidly changing situation in the evolution of democracy when the concept of universal suffrage was in its infancy and in what were indeed unique circumstances. Hicks’ claim that it was “wholly appropriate that every Maori should get the vote” is no more than an academic point about 150 years too late.

I state again that by May 1840 the Treaty had fulfilled its purpose and it is only repeated false claims about its contents and intent that lead to its appropriation today as a weapon of political manoeuvring constantly wielded by various people to their own advantage.. And wrongly so. And I state again that the Waitangi Tribunal is the most corrupt body ever inflicted upon the people of New Zealand. Again, I have stated why elsewhere.

The remainder of Hicks’ rhetoric is froth and bubble. It can be dismissed.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

OUR RIGHT TO PETITION

In his Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture, presented on November 18, 2000. former Labour Prime Minister David Lange warned that if governments attempted to accommodate the increasingly audacious demands by the Maori tribal elite for independent sovereignty, they would end up threatening democracy itself.

Lange. whose Mangere electorate was predominantly Polynesian. including Maori. with whom he had empathy, stated inter alia: "Democratic government can accommodate Maori political aspirations in many ways It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Maori people. It can delegate authority and allow the exercise of degrees of Maori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn't a democracy.

"We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They cant co-exist. and we can't have them both"

Further, Lange explained that the Treaty of Waitangi was a contract between the Crown and some Maori. bestowing equal status. not a Partnership. Lange said treating it as a partnership was not only "absurd". but doing so would result in the introduction of profoundly "undemocratic" rights and entitlements

Certainly there are no such things as creative fictional 'principles of the Treaty'.

They simply don't exist

The following summary by a respected political commentator should help enlighten you about the rationale for separate race-based Maori wards on councils.

".. Helen Clark's Labour government introduced petition rights for Maori wards as a democratic safeguard to protect voters from councils wanting to manipulate constitutional arrangements without a mandate from their community.

"When Maori wards were introduced into the Local Electoral Act by Helen Clark in 2001, because it involved changing the voting system to include the Maori roll. the same constitutional safeguards were applied that already existed in sections 27 to 34 of the Act to protect electors if councils decided to change the voting system between First Past the Post (FPP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) without public consultation.

"As a result. the Maori ward petition rights, which are found in Sections 19ZA to 192H of the Local Electoral Act, mirror those in Sections 27 to 34, enabling electors to challenge a council's decision through a district-wide referendum - if they gain the support of 5 per cent of voters in a petition. The referendum result would then be binding on the council for the next two elections.

That means Helen Clark's 'direct democracy' veto only applies in situations where councils change the voting system without community consultation - namely, by either switching between FPP voting and STV, or by introducing the Maori roll and Maori wards.

"If councils decide to change ward boundaries, introduce, split or amalgamate wards, or remove wards entirely to have councillors elected 'at large', the voting system would not be changed so petition rights would not apply."

Under New Zealand democracy, it is unconstitutional for governing bodies to change the voting system without consulting the public That's why Helen Clark introduced the petition right safeguard - to protect Kiwis' democratic rights.

That's what the Minister of Local Government, Ms Mahuta, and Maori sovereignty activists currently want to trash and takeaway from Kiwis.

Councillors who have recently voted to install Maori wards without proper public consultation usually did not reveal this agenda in their electoral manifestos, and have no public mandate to go down this path.

Recent polls on Maori wards usually end up with 70 per cent to 85 per cent No votes from citizens. As it stands, the Local Electoral Act 2001 is already heavily weighted against citizens, as it forces them at considerable time, inconvenience and cost to organise and file the 5 per cent petitions.

In reality, the total obligation should be on errant councils to initiate and organise these polls at the same time and in conjunction with three-yearly local government election cycles, saving ratepayers considerable money. Kiwis must change the law to rationalise this process accordingly, and force councils to toe the line in the name of consultation, openness, transparency, accountability and honesty.

This is not what Ms Mahuta, sovereignty activists and the woke crews envisage - In fact quite the reverse, and this attitude should be demonised.

The ultimate absurdity is when innocent Kiwis are held responsible for things that happened before they were born while others are not responsible for the mischief they create today.

ROB PATERSON, Tauranga

Northern Advocate 12/11/20

TINKERING WITH THE TRUTH

I applaud Alan Ward’s letter (5/11/20), because race-based representation no matter how you spin it is apartheid and will divide families, groups, and communities.

In the same publication it was written that “Pakeha view Maori people as 'Maori”, if we were to be honest and not tinker with the truth, it is an element within maoridom who promote Maoris as 'Maori' and wish to be separate, defiant Maori supremacist flags, facial tattoos are all evidence of this.

A further tinkering with the truth is this Crown/Maori partnership myth.

‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it’s subjects’ - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership.

As former PM David Lange once put it - he really did not believe that Queen Victoria had signed a treaty of equality and partnership with “500 thumbprints”

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northern Advocate 4/11/20

‘LOST’ – OR SOLD’?

John Richards (Letters 29/10/20) should not rely on The Negotiators for knowledge of history because claims that Maori land was “lost” cover the reality that Maori sold the land.

Mr Richards cites grievances by Te Roroa and Ngai Tahu.

A group of Te Roroa sold the Maunganui block in 1876 and in 1976 another group who claimed to descend from that group claimed that a “reserve” on a farm owned by Allan Titford had been left out of the sale.

Despite evidence to the contrary, the Waitangi Tribunal agreed with the claimants and Titford was forced to sell his farm.

Ngai Tahu sold most of the South Island in 10 transactions over 20 years.

A complaint about reserves not being marked out led to settlements in 1868, 1906, 1944, 1973, 1997, with top-ups in 2012, 2017, and 2018, with further arbitration payments in 2014, 2015, and 2018

History shows that Maori land owners sold land and profited, and subsequent generations complained and profited.

I ask you to remember this the next time you hear complaints of nefarious misdeeds by “the Crown”.

The Crown’s actual misdeed is a visible lack of courage when it comes to Maori grievances.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northland Age 3/11/20

WHO’S RACIST?

Moko Tepania who is an elected Far North District Councillor says “the rules covering the creation of Māori wards are racist, and need to change so councils aren’t put in that situation”. (Waateanews 28/10/20)

Councillor Tepania should ask himself who is being racist – those who advocate a race-based ward, or those who advocate governance without racial components.

New Zealand has citizens from 213 ethnic groups speaking 40 languages.

Therefore, the only governance option that upholds the rights of every citizen is the option that has no racial component.

Any governance system, decision, or arrangement, that is based on race is by definition racist.

Therefore, those who propose Maori wards are actually the racists. Those who uphold the rights of everyone are the anti-racists.

And those councillors who fail to consult their community over a substantial change in governance, and want to remove from their constituents the right to have any say on such a change, simply don’t understand one-person-one-vote democracy.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

SERIOUSLY ADRIFT

Wally Hicks is once again seriously adrift with his “Congratulations” remarks (“Age”, 29/10/20).

For a start, his “racial difference intrinsic in Te Tiriti o Waitangi” is utter nonsense. In fact the precise opposite is the truth. By article third all Maoris received the same, repeat same rights as the people of England. Article second was essentially redundant because article third implied it. The simple answer to his question “Why otherwise have a treaty?” is that by its acceptance the chiefs ceded to the Queen completely and for ever such rights of sovereignty as each possessed. The recorded words of the chiefs who spoke at Waitangi on 5th February and on subsequent occasions make it crystal clear that they understood that by signing they assented to becoming subordinate to the Governor and hence, more so, to the Queen. The Waitangi Tribunal and many others who claim today that sovereignty was not ceded are either blatantly ignorant of the facts or wilfully ignoring them. When these facts of our history are understood and accepted without qualification, then Hicks statement that the treaty “itself, is not inherently racist” is actually correct.

Hicks then chooses to go on about “Native Title”, a perfectly apt name for Maori land held in common by all adult male members of a tribe or sub-tribe, excluding their slaves of course. In the early decades of the colony of New Zealand, the privilege of voting for parliaments in Britain was evolving but required a property qualification and this was applied here too. Because very few Maoris met this qualification, land being held in common under their traditional practice, it was realized that they were under-represented so the four Maori seats were created as a temporary measure with all adult Maori males eligible to vote for them. At this stage the many settlers without a property qualification had no vote so in fact Maoris had a greater privilege, contrary in fact to the expressed words of the treaty!

Now these special Maori seats were intended as a brief temporary measure in the rapidly evolving electoral milieu of the times but through the lack of resolve and political manipulation of successive governments they have evolved to the point today when their number has increased to seven with substantially fewer eligible voters in each than in general electorates. Put simply, Maori seats in parliament today are a monstrous anomaly.

Hicks continues with “the real race-based privilege, evident in the application of Te Tiriti for 180 years.” There are two simple facts of which his ignorance is starkly evident. The first is that the treaty had fulfilled its purpose when Hobson affirmed British sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand in May 1840 and should have been consigned then and there to the archives and history books. To speak of “the application of Te Tiriti” ever since is simply nonsense. The second is that “real race-based privilege” has repeatedly favoured people of part Maori descent, with more than eighty Acts of Parliament, by my count, since 1974 alone, specifically doing so.

There is much to be “made right” (Hicks’ words) in New Zealand today, an urgent necessity being to get rid of the fake “partnership” in no sense implied by the treaty but riddling government with consultative Maoris at every turn. Otherwise we shall very soon find that democracy in New Zealand has been destroyed completely.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Northern Advocate 28/10/20

VOTERS NEED A SAY

As our elected Councillors consider whether to change our voting system to introduce Maori wards, since to my knowledge not one campaigned on this issue when they stood for Council, they must seek a mandate from voters before undertaking a constitutional change of this magnitude.

We know from previous polls on this issue, that a majority of the public oppose race-based representation on local councils. That makes it even more important for councillors to obtain a mandate from the public through a council-initiated referendum.

It would be grossly undemocratic to introduce race-based seats on council without the approval of residents and ratepayers.

GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Northern Advocate 23/10/20

COUNCILLORS TAKE A PRINCIPLED STAND

I take my hat of to John Bain and Justin Blaikie, principled men with the courage to stand against the forces that strive to undermine our precious democracy (October 21).

Separate race-based political representation, such as designated Māori seats on local government bodies, not only undermines democracy, it also creates division within society.

A speech given by Morgan Foundation researcher Susan Guthrie six years ago but just as relevant today, said: “If we choose rules which create unique political rights for maori – like special electoral wards – we risk eroding our social connectedness over time. It’s not this generation we have to worry about, but the next one. The constitutional decisions we make today can create divisions that get worse and worse over time.”

Rather than advancing racial separatism in our communities our governance should be entrenching societal unification.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northern Advocate/Northland Age 22/10/20

CONSULTATION CRUCIAL

I was appalled to read that four Northland Councils (Far North District Council, Kaipara District Council, Whangarei District Council and Northland Regional Council) are voting on whether to bring in Maori Wards (Northern Advocate 20/10/20).

Councillors should not have a mandate to bring in race-based wards without wide public consultation, their focus should be on infrastructure, environment and facilities which benefit all, irrespective of ethnicity.

If this current round of Councillor voting brings in separatist Maori wards then citizens can action a petition to force a costly binding referendum aimed at unwinding the Council decision.

Past Council referendums/polls show an approx 75% vote against Maori wards, a message that should not be ignored.

GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Northland Age 22/10/20

THE FUTURE IS DIRE

Ms Ardern’s only qualification is in Politics and Public relations. In reality Ms.Ardern has not held a proper realworld job and has always been fraternizing with left wing politics and socialist politicians.

This mealy-mouthed shallow ideology driven script reader for socialist think tank nonsense plus looks like a disaster magnet drama queen, with Christchurch massacre, White Island tragedy, Pike River re-entry debacle and Covid-19 examples.

The rest of the Ardern hand-picked Cabinet misfits (those who have not been dismissed) are even worse and this is not what Kiwis deserve.

A committed Socialist, Gay Rights/Gay Marriage advocate, Republican, Agnostic, Feminist plusTrade Union Pro-abortion and Climate Change/Carbon Tax supporter Ms.Ardern is also a maori separatist/race-based policy sympathiser.

The Labour & Greens ruinous race based maori policy manifestos should be viewed and read with disbelief with the following being unilaterally their way or the highway:

*Legislate to enshrine maori as the first and only indigenous peoples.

*Promote a Treaty based Constitution and then rename New Zealand.

*Fund maori providers on service contracts across the public sector.

*Connive with Local Government to embed unelected maori representation on Councils.

* Retain the race based maori parliamentary seats.

* Promote maori self-government combined with a separate maori legal system.

Failed policies. Kiwibuild fiasco, $3 billion Provincial Growth Fundfest with the latest $100m Marae funding plus a myriad of other Pinocchio type socialist policies and let’s face facts, the proponents of these schemes must be as thick as two short planks. Things ain’t going to end well with over spending over promising and under-performing, certainly no happily ever after conclusions likely here and nothing in the nature of Wellbeing.

When you also have a Minister of Justice seemingly preferring offenders’ rights over victims’ rights, Pike River re-entry ongoing fiscal madness plus a mishmash of hate and free speech things don’t look good.

In 2008 Ms. Ardern was elected president of the International Union of Socialist Youth, a movement whose purpose is to ‘defend and spread core specialist principles’. Ms.Ardern and her comrades think it’s best that everyone be made equal and this will be achieved through securing ‘redistribution of resources.’ – a major reset for the future beckons to banish inequality and poverty, the threat of climate change and need to diversify.

‘What was the most equal country in the world’ – will use this historic moment to impose the ghost of Karl Marx on itself. New Zealand’s future is dire. Socialists do not understand economics, farming or small businesses and are undermining the integrity of critical institutions and traditions.

They are planning to take from the so-called middle class ‘rich’ to give to the ‘poor’. Inevitably, a capital gains tax will be back on the table, as will wealth taxes to fund this.

People with energy and enterprise do not need Government to lead them. Ms.Ardern is transforming New Zealand into a Marxist socialist state and the tragedy is that most Kiwis are completely unaware of what is happening.

Ask yourself how could you trust any Labour/Greens politician or seek their advice on anything would you employ them and would you trust them with your financial investments - hell no so how come you support them to run up a $200 billion debt and then shrug off repayments.

As Churchill said “Socialism is the philosophy of failure the creed of arrogance ignorance the gospel of envy and the equal sharing of miseries by all”—

Socialisms main problem is that it eventually runs out of other peoples’ money to spend.

ROB PATERSON, Tauranga

AN OPEN LETTER TO JUDITH COLLINS. (18/10/20)

Well Judith, we lost.

You lost, we lost and the whole country lost.

How is it that we have come to this appalling situation where economics and common sense no longer apply but cult worship does..? What is wrong with this country we all wonder? However, if I may, I will respectfully give you a few pointers on what we could do different in the next three years.

1/ We, as a whole, don’t want to learn te reo. We are sick of it. If others do, let them, no objections, but let’s learn to speak the global language first. That is English by the way.

2/ We don’t want to continue to see the degradation of our place names, department names and the way we are addressed on TV in te reo. Te reo is spoken by 3.6% of the population and 86% of your people are non-Maori. We are also the major taxpayers and ratepayers of this country. Please respect that.

3/ Stop your party in-fighting. Personally I think you did a good job, you were up against cult worship and you won’t beat that, but what happened in the last few days with your MP’s undermining you over the council investigation comment, and Paul Goldsmith giving the opposition a fresh supply of ammunition with his fiscal blunder, was inexcusable.

4/ Do something about the media. TVNZ and The Herald in particular tore you to pieces and placed your opposition on a pedestal. Either get your own media or get some balance into our reporters. I have cancelled my Herald subscription and if all the rest of your followers did, we may get a more balanced opinion from a new daily newspaper.

5/ We have had enough of the racist separatism in this country. The $100million to Maori marae in the last week of the campaign was a disgrace and an insult to every single taxpayer and ratepayer. We need a party that is dedicated to the respect of the taxpayer, the people that provide YOU the funds to run this country.

6/ Learn who the crime victims really are. These are not the people that bludgeon others to death including infants, they are called criminals and they should be locked away long enough to truly ponder on their heinous crimes. I know you feel the same way, but you can do something about it...we can’t.

Your party needs unity and direction and if you make the mistake of thinking you have three years to do that then we will be back where we are today, but in three years time.

Finally you had 46% of the vote before covid. That says its own story but you could stem any future breach in the artery with some back to basics policies that appeal to common sense and reality.

I for one, would be eternally grateful to you for that.

By ~~ R K

Cambridge News 16/10/20

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A VOWEL MAKES

I am confused by our Councils plans to add a macron to the last letter of its name. Seems to me to be much ado about very little.

I do understand that the Maaori language does have difficulty, when written, to extend the length of a vowel in certain words. Easily done verbally but not so when written, especially on a keyboard.

My understanding that prior to about 1945 macrons were not seen and I also understand the Maaori language is not universal across the country. Wh, for example is used differently in certain locations.

In recent publications terms such legal, correct and best practice have been used regarding the use of macrons. I would dispute all three expressions as being non universal and in error.

For example, Waikato Tainui don’t use macrons in any documentation. Nor does the Waikato District Council. They simply double up on the vowel that needs to be lengthened.

Now, this is why I am confused. To the best of my knowledge all of the hapuu within the rohe of Waipaa align to Waikato Tainui, so the use of a macron would seem to fly in the face of their “best practice” I wonder at the attitude to this proposal of their Kingii and tribal leaders.

There are six other Councils also facing this issue, and everyone of them deserves far more recognition than Waipaa. I would contend that to 99% of ratepayers a macron will not make a jot of difference, but a doubling up of the last letter will make sense to many.

Within Cambridge there are examples of anomalies. Some Te Awa cycleway signs, our precious lake and the houses at Cambridge High School all adopt Waikato Tainui spelling!

Interestingly Council’s iwi advisor is of Ngati Maniapoto whose rohe barely touches the boundaries of Waipaa. His iwi is also aligned to Waikato Tainui.

Our Mayor is correct to criticise the NZ Geographic Board as being expensive and overly complicated. Of course, it is. It is a statuary body with a monopoly. In short, a job creation scheme!

It compares well to Transit NZ and incidentally to all local bodies.

MURRAY REID, Cambridge

Northland Age 13/10/20

NONSENSE

Commissioner for Children, Judge Andrew Becroft is reported (One News Morning Briefing October 8) as saying that appointing the country’s first Assistant Maori Commissioner for Children. “is about sharing power as expected under the Treaty of Waitangi”.

This is nonsense and must indeed raise serious questions about his fitness for the office which he holds.

The Treaty of Waitangi was drafted in simple language by a competent British Naval Officer, Hobson, and translated to the Ngapuhi dialect of Maori by two similarly competent scholars, Williams, father and son.. By signing it, the chiefs agreed to cede sovereignty completely and for ever to the Queen and all Maoris were granted the same, repeat same, rights as the people of England. That, in essence, is all. It was a plain and straightforward document and it is clear from the words of the chiefs recorded at the time that they understood what it said.

Yet Geoffrey Palmer has made the deluded assertion that it is a “Delphic” utterance (National Radio, 8/2/94) and that it “is so vague that that is its primary problem” (Australian television, 6/3/90). The Minister for Crown/Maori Relations, Kelvin Davis has held meetings with a group claiming to focus on constitutional matters and consisting of Annette Sykes, Carwyn Jones, Paul Beverley, Mark Hickford, Geoffrey Palmer and Linda Te Aho. This group has made several blatantly false statements about the Treaty, compounded by their absurd claim that “Pakeha do not really know what it means.” (Reported by “Democracy Action”, 4/7/18)

If Becroft has listened to them, it is hardly any wonder that he suffers from similar delusions.

Now of course, it is a fact that there is a disproportionate number of children of part-Maori descent who need the good offices of a children’s commissioner but that needs skills which are irrelevant to whether that commissioner has a part-Maori assistant or not. This brief letter is not the place to attempt to identify those needs and why they exist but most thoughtful people will have a fairly good idea about them. Of just one thing can we be entirely certain: that spurious reference to the Treaty of Waitangi gives no justification whatever for any action of any Commissioner for Children nor assistance to those who need it..

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Northern Advocate 6/10/20

ACTIVIST’S AIM

The article ‘Abolishing councils is his goal’ (2/10/20) clearly spells out the intentions of activist part-Maori in our society, that being a cultural takeover of New Zealand.

Maori have never exercised collective sovereignty over New Zealand, so what is meant by ‘regaining full sovereignty’?

As for ‘land stolen’, very little, if any land was ‘stolen’, some south of Auckland was legally confiscated to quell a few rebellious tribes, no confiscations of this kind happened in Northland.

Some Maori land, as happened to other non-Maori landowners, was taken under the Public Works Act for public good, and in most cases compensation was paid.

Complainants of ‘land stolen’ should specify the location, area, boundaries, dates, by who and in what way stolen, just a generalised ‘our land was stolen’ is not good enough considering the many mistruths that swirl around these neo part-Maori clamours.

Turtons Deeds are evidence that Maori landowners willingly sold most of New Zealand to the ‘wicked white man’.

Lastly, equal power/control sharing is not implied in the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Chiefs ceded full individual sovereignty/chieftainship (Article 1) and were granted the rights of British subjects (Article 3) which placed them under political control of the Queen, hence no equal power sharing.

Albeit, the article does serve as a good ‘wake up call’ for patriotic New Zealanders.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northland Age 6/10/20

WHO ARE THEY

I wonder who are these ‘Racists’ that Anahera Herbert-Graves refers to (Maori and Euthanasia, 29 Sept)?

The irony is that it is the separatists such as Ms Herbert-Graves, who define people by race.

She seems to blame today’s Maori woes on colonisation and yet conveniently forgets how traumatic it must have been for her Maori ancestors to live in constant fear of another tribe turning up to kill, rape, enslave or eat them.

Instead all we ever hear is how the British saving them from this stone-age existence was so traumatic it has left these neo part-maoris unable to function in a civilised society without mollycodliing or the handing over of $billions to their tribal elite.

These grievance malcontents also forget the many benefits that colonisation made available to them which far outweigh any downsides.

Tribalism requires an enemy, and won’t rest until it finds or invents one!

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northland Age 4/8/20

FREE STUFF

Losers love free stuff, and people who “allege” they’re Ma¯ ori, plus their lefty/ woke/culturally hypnotised low IQ minions love separatism. Put the two together and you have Labour miles ahead in polling, and yes, a guaranteed win at the election.

National can’t compete. They have been beaten at their own game by Unearned, although it’s not as though there are any high-quality MPs to back her up.

What will another term under a socialist regime do to New Zealand? Oops, sorry, now Aotearoa? Bye-bye democracy, hello apartheid, iwi not Kiwi. I still haven’t figured out where the money is going to come from to pay her voters and those of racial preference, but I’m sure time will tell.

REX ANDERSON, Lower Hutt

TEAM NZ

Maoris are clearly British citizens by the Treaty of Waitangi equal but not superior to other British citizens. Now we are a nation and are new Zealanders, interbred, so that our two races are hardly distinguishable. So governments have brought in bi-culturalism which is so ridiculous as to be farcical.

For over a hundred years all kinds of races including Australians have come to this country and contributed to its wealth, its culture and its multicultural nature.

Never before have New Zealand citizens been asked what we think, Italians have fished Wellington waters: Chinese have worked on the gold fields, and later in the market gardens and fruitshops, Indians and Pakistans have worked in fruitshops and are now dairy and supermarket owners. Danes and Swedes cut down forests and set up farms and industries in Dannevirke. Baltic people worked in the gum fields up north, people of German extraction landed on the West Coast and settled in Motueka. Scots in Dunedin. English in Canterbury, Irish in Auckland and so on ad infinitum.

Now these various races have blended splendidly into our New Zealand population – to say nothing of the Dutch, the South Africans, the Asians and the refugees.

IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui

Northland Age 28/7/20

WHAT DUE PROCESS?

Behrouz Boochani to become a research fellow at Canterbury University.

The process of 'setting up' refugee status for this man is suspect to say the least, the Australians made it clear they did not want him in their country and now we find with the help of Golriz Ghahraman this guy gets in without any of the due process others need to go through. Why? It has now been uncovered that New Zealand immigration didn't even check with Australian immigration, probably because they already knew what they would say.

People need to take a long hard look at this.

The frightening part of it all, he has been set up at Canterbury Uni. why? It can only be because of ideology, how he thinks, because of a book he wrote.

Quote: "Upoko Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Tahu Research Centre Director Associate Professor Te Maire Tau says he is pleased with the outcome of the immigration process and proud to be hosting Behrouz Boochani. As the local iwi, Ngāi Tahu is laying a protective cloak over Behrouz Boochani – tākaitia ki te korowai aroha.

New Zealand is being infested with socialist/lefty/wok/ culturally hypnotised people to further the interests of a minority over the majority, this can be seen in all other areas especially the education/health system, and then look at 'our' race relations commissioner? chief justice? and Governor-General. All picked without due process to further an ideology people with an agenda.

Wake up, a vote for National or the Labour/Pinko Greens will only further devastate our democracy and rights as individuals.

REX ANDERSON, Lower Hutt

Northland Age 21/7/20

ONE PEOPLE

It can be said by the 1840’s most Maoris had become nominal Christians.

They adhered more to Christian obligations than their Pakeha neighbours and frequently associated in large gatherings for worship. The Maori people, who had abandoned cannibalism and “Muru” (plunder) and “Utu” (revenge) they became our brothers and sisters.

We were one people – went to school, to work and played sport. We respected the Maori people who, in peace and war, education and government, were our equal – a challenge to the whole world.

Who were these young Maoris who spoiled this relationship? They were the product of our university system which challenges everything in life – religion, philosophy, art, music, politics.

Many Pakehas go through this rebellious stage, but the part-Maori activists found this was a potent weapon for discontent.

They began and continue to deny their British-Maori heritage, and wish to re-establish a separate Maori tribal entity based on racism not on the Treaty.

IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui

Northern Advocate 9/7/20

VOTING RIGHTS UNDEMOCRATIC

Susan Botting, Local Democracy Reporter reports (RNZ 29/6/20) that “Hapū on a Whangārei District Council Māori input governance group are working to strengthen local democracy participation by shifting from being a governance group that recommends on council matters of relevance to local Māori to one that instead has voting rights around the decision-making table”.

It is an oxymoron to state that democracy is being strengthened by ushering in unelected appointments onto Council with voting rights.

Maori appointments with voting rights to Council should only be approved through a referendum of voters since such an arrangement changes the balance of voting away from representatives elected by the community to take into accounting voting by self-appointed vested interests that do not have the benefit of the wider community at heart.

These race-based appointments cannot be validated or questioned by the community in any way, once appointed they cannot be overturned by a public referendum and they cannot be voted out and inherently support “the hand that feeds them” i.e. their tribal sponsors. This can lead to serious bias, rampant greed or even corruption.

Wake up Whangarei, giving aristos of iwidom voting rights equal to our elected Councillors is a blatant undermining of our tried and true democracy.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northland Age 2/7/20

DEMOCRACY IN PERIL

Wake up Whangarei, giving aristos of iwidom voting rights equal to our elected Councillors is a blatant undermining of our tried and true democracy.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northern Advocate 29/6/20

EARN PRIVILEGE

What people like Cirran Payne (letters 20/6/20) insultingly and wrongly call ‘white privilege’, most Kiwis would call making the most of ones opportunities in life which results from making better life choices sacrifices and hard work. Anyone can achieve this successful outcome no matter what their upbringing or background or socio-economic status is.

So called “privilege” more correctly called achievement is not a birthright nor dependant on social standing, ethnicity or ancestry, it is earned, and it is not related to skin colour being in fact a quality of character.

Payne says “our systems and institutions have and are creating racial inequality”. Well I fully agree with that, because New Zealand through rampant racist and separatist legislative initiatives since the 1970s have given at least twenty special statutory race based rights to those who claim to be part Maori.

The negative part-Maori statistics that Payne quoted namely imprisonment, self-inflicted health issues, and generational unemployment will only improve when those involved actively address the problems themselves and that starts with accountability for their own actions, relinquishing their unreal sense of entitlements, sound parenting, and embracing education which is available to all Kiwis.

Malcontents blaming everyone else for their perceived woes is ludicrous.

GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Northland Age 25/6/20

SUPER RUGBY WHERE?

Last time I looked we were living in New Zealand. This is typical of this socialist Government and one of its agendas based around race.

Not even Maori agree that New Zealand was ever called Aotearoa. Maybe some Maori referred to the North Island as Aotearoa, but never the whole country.

'New Zealand' Rugby look as though they have joined the separatists in the quest for an ascendancy over the general population. I wonder what the fans will think of this?

It is becoming increasingly obvious that over the last couple of decades under Labour and National our rights have been eroded as New Zealanders, down to a point where we are now just told what is going to happen. How it is going to be. And remember the rules, if you complain you are racist

REX ANDERSON, Lower Hutt

A HORRIBLE PICTURE

Looks like the self-isolation, personal testing and quarantine facilities are still as slack or non-existent as they were in February/March 2020 when the borders were closed late and ludicrous self-monitoring isolation was rampant with the police checks missing in action.

Unbelievable, inadequate, dangerous and inexcusable, and yet another Boy Scout hurriedly appointed to keep tabs on those who are supposed to (but often don’t) administer and check on the arrival ‘victims’ compliance and whereabouts. The illegal roadblocks and unlawful BLM protest gatherings have tainted just about everything else, so then strict compliance goes awol.

At the outset Clark and Bush, charged with policing policies, were evasive, unhelpful, and did not seem to answer media questions properly in an open and transparent manner to put it mildly, while Bloomfield was missing in action so his mooted New Year knighthood gong looks to have gone down the gurgler. Many heads should roll over this mess.

As for Ms Ardern, she came across like a possum in the car headlights. She is shallow and mealy-mouthed on a good day.

We have 14,000 police officers, all the army and other armed services, yet seemingly we cannot strictly monitor about 3500 people in compulsory isolation masquerading as quarantine in hotels. Two hundred personnel, four at each site working three shifts a day, could deal to the policing issues on their ear, you would think. In addition, all travellers to New Zealand must be given an information sheet at the departure airport and again by NZ Customs on arrival, setting out their strict obligations (signed and acknowledged by them) as to what the compulsory protocol is.

When they leave quarantine they must be tested and clear of the virus, signed out and the release form peer reviewed. How hard can that simple task be? Also, all arrivals should have tests and clearances before they board any plane for New Zealand.

All the official reports are critical, and you have to ask, do this lot ever get anything right? Frankly it’s a horrible picture, and an indictment on how to endanger Kiwi lives.

All other major projects attempted to date this by inept government since 2017 have turned to custard, proving this lot of misfits could not organise a booze-up in a brewery. That’s a fact, not supposition.

ROB PATERSON, Mount Maunganui

Gisborne Herald 18/6/20

HAMILTON CLAIM OUTLANDISH

In an article published on Tuesday, the claim was made that Capt. John Hamilton “killed Maori in the Waikato land war”. Where is the evidence of that?

Hamilton never set foot in the Waikato. The only military action he took part in was at Pukehinahina Pa, known colloquially as Gate Pa, under the command of Lieut-General Duncan Cameron.

The conditions that led to the Gate Pa conflict are complex and it cannot be shown that Capt. Hamilton had any part in the developments preceding that particular conflict. He was, after all, merely the commander of a lesser British warship, the HMS Esk, which only arrived in Tauranga a matter of days before the battle.

It is said that in the midst of the battle, Hamilton, ordered by Cameron to advance, leaped from the trenches and called “follow me, men”. With that he fell dead from a head shot.

Given that only 15 pa defenders were killed in the skirmish, mostly by artillery fire, it would be of considerable historical interest to discover that Capt. Hamilton had “murdered” anyone. Indeed, it is highly likely he never killed anyone at Gate Pa or anywhere else in New Zealand.

If activists are going to throw around claims that blackguard the name of a man who is not here to defend himself, they should give us the benefit of their knowledge of the matter and put the evidence into the public realm.

DAVID MORRIS, Auckland

Northland Age 16/6/20

STATUE BASHING

Well done and good on Winston Peters for speaking out about the statues issue and his assessment of the situation is both accurate and reasoned .

Take heart in my view 90 % of kiwis will fully endorse what he says and many are surprised and concerned that other politicians are not speaking out about the ratbags violent behavior that verges on and has all the hallmarks anarchy. If the rabble’s actions transcend peaceful protest and violate Kiwis or others normal code of conduct it is fair to call that anarchy by the mobs.

While I am ambivalent and find it hard to get emotional about public statues of the various personages around NZ I have no problem with the construction thereof as long as I and other taxpayers and ratepayers don’t have to fund them. On the other hand I do have a real problem with the village idiot woke tossers who seek to graffiti, destroy, deface, and topple the statues willy nilly or anything else that takes their fancy to fuel their hate fueled idiocy against anything normal. Where do these buffoons get the time/money to engage in this anti -social nonsense God only knows but we can all guess.

The statues solution is that if after full public consultation locals decide they do not want the statues then by all means remove them and store away or give them to someone who may be happy to display them on their property or in the front garden. The full cost of consultation , removal and storage must be met upfront by the ratbag malcontents not taxpayers nor ratepayers.

Once this PC issue is resolved it is night follows day stuff that this bunch of misfits will move on to slag something else.

Incidentally the question is do the Police condone public disorder, intimidation ,threats of and actual law breaking/ violence and the destruction of public property these days? It is looking that way.

ROB PATERSON, Mount Maunganui

TWO TRUTHS

Maori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarua-Packer, along with Tainui kaurnatua Taitimu Maipi is agitating for European monuments to be taken down and destroyed. I note that more and more Maori cultural carvings are appearing throughout New Zealand, and that most people do not find that offensive.

There are two sides to the historical coin, one that has written history and monuments, the other that has verbal history and cultural carvings, each depicting the “truth" as they believe it. Neither version of New Zealand history should be attempting to create supremacy or cultural power over the other.

Those who attempt to create racial division can only draw New Zealand as a nation closer to anarchy.

MAUREEN J ANDERSON, Pyes Pa

Northland Age 11/6/20

POISONING THE PRESENT

Thomas Sowell tells it like it is, scribing a perfect description of New Zealand Governance and a group of people with one agenda, to change everything about New Zealand, especially “our” history.

'Those who mine history for sins are not searching for truth but for opportunities to denigrate their own society, or for grievances that can be cashed in today, at the expense of people who were not even born when the sins of the past were committed.

An ancient adage says, Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.

But apparently, that is not sufficient for many among our educators, the intelligentsia, or the media.

They are busy poisoning the present by the way they present the past.

The Treaty Of Waitangi is not even recognisable from when it was first written, and the reason for actually having a treaty has long been lost. Now we have a lolly scramble arranged by successive Labour and National Governments for a people who do not even have to prove who they are!

The Government and their minions are always talking about “stamping out racism” but our entire society revolves around that very subject, race-based politics and policies.

We have a treaty/grievance industry, set up by a lawyer for lawyers, and their industry “clients” all well serviced by Government paid revisionist historians and culturally hypnotised moles in the education, health, and every Government dept in New Zealand.

They are parasites that feed of New Zealand taxpayers under the guise of settling perceived historical grievances put together by the racist Waitangi Tribunal and it's in house team that prepares the lies and myths about a people who now only exist on paper!

REX ANDERSON, Lower Hutt

IT’S OFFICIAL

Further to my letter on illegal road blocks (Always unacceptable, June 2),

I have just received copy of the following letter sent to a complainant by the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

The complaint was lodged April 28 and only responded to by IPCA early June. Be that as it may, the IPCA letter although wishy washy confirms the vigilante roadblocks were unlawful and wrong under s21 and s22 Summary Offences Act 1981 provisions, ie blocking public roads and intimidation issues and also breaching the Covid 19 lockdown rules. The following is the text of IPCA letter/decision which surprisingly has not been publicised, I wonder why?

“Thank you for advising the Authority of your concerns about Police’s failure to close the civilian covid19 checkpoints in Katikati.

In the Authority’s view, all roadblocks/checkpoints established by civilians without Police permission and supervision are unlawful. Those conducting them have also been in breach of the section 70 notice from the Medical Officer of Health (MOOH) under Alert Level 4.

As a result of your complaint and those of others, we communicated our view to Police. Police then worked with local communities to ensure that the checkpoints were either supervised by Police officers at the location or closed.

Police have now advised the Authority that all checkpoints were closed by 14 May 2020.

The Authority is therefore satisfied that the issues you raised have been addressed by Police.” [Letter ends]

This IPCA letter completely vindicates my stance and the thrust of my letter confirming what occurred was wrong and unlawful no ifs and buts .Ms. Ardern and the top cops trying to fly under the radar were condoning this unlawful behaviour knowing it was wrong yet tried to bluff it out.

Well now let’s have a public apology and confirmation from them that the road blocks were wrong and unlawful and it will not be tolerated nor occur again in the future.

Encouraging the offending compromises the rule of law and preferential treatment was given here, while separatism and racial preferences are unacceptable in any form at any time having no place in New Zealand.

ROB PATERSON, Mount Maunganui

Northland Age 9/6/20

WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE?

Can Mike Shaw (No need for tension, letters June 4) provide any tangible irrefutable written proof, other than Ngati Kuri say so, that the public road leading to the Cape Reinga lighthouse at the northern tip of New Zealand was put through land without the appropriate consent? The onus of proof is on those alleging this and it’s my understanding the road is actually State Highway One. It looks like there are no dwellings/houses in the deserted area anyway between Te Werahi Gate and Cape Reinga a distance of about 5km, so any traffic on this stretch under lockdown should have been police responsibility.

Probably the land for this public road was purchased or acquired under the Public Works Act for which compensation is normally paid? Regardless of all this and despite Mr.Shaw’s pro-tribal rhetoric as it is still currently a public road it is illegal to block or prevent people travelling on it under Sections 21 and 22 Summary Offences Act.

One must be very careful in supporting/promoting tribal separatist agendas because those espousing these are very creative and plausible when justifying their disruptive actions or sovereignty agendas. Facts and truth seem to play no part in the delusions with the associated spiritual /cultural mumbo jumbo sucking in many ‘learned’ fools and ample evidence of this provided by our PC politicians, local government councillors and the gullible leftist media.

Further, Te Papa was closed by Covid-19 legislation and not some race based tribal vigilante group, and drawing a comparison between illegally blocking a public highway and statutory legislation closing Te Papa museum to the public is an absolute nonsense.

GEOFF PARKER, Kamo

Northland Age 2/6/20

ALWAYS UNACCEPTABLE

Plenty of unmitigated nonsense has been written defending this blatantly unlawful behaviour (roadblocks).

For example, the thrust of Professors Spoonley and Shaw of the Massey University's College School of Humanities and Social Sciences spiel on the roadblocks issue (NZ Herald May 25) defies belief, and is in my view incorrect and inflammatory. They should stick to their academic fairyland world devoid of reality, facts and common sense

Let me assist these types to understand not only were there very senous rule of law issues with illegal vigilante roadblocks, often manned by activists and gang members, in Northland. East Coast, Taranaki and parts of Bay of Plenty etc, but the failure to stamp out the illegal roadblocks led to this offending mushrooming elsewhere.

It is irrelevant what the personal and political PC views of top cops Haumaha and Coster might be the miscreants should have been shut down and prosecuted.

Ms Arden, when questioned about the illegality, was evasive, offhand, blase and ambivalent. Clearly she condoned the roadblocks.

All were illegal under S21 and S22 Summary Offences Act 1981 etc., because they blocked public roads, intimidated people, and clearly they breached many parts of the lockdown legislation.

In my view the public perception was that Ms Ardem effectively encouraged offenders to break the law while stating government were leaving it up to the police and would not interfere

Police could of course have set up road checkpoints, but the vigilantes could not do so. Nor could they be authorised by police. So-called working with the police is a complete nonsense, and breaches social distancing and privacy laws.

As there were reputed to be up to 80 roadblocks operating, if these were warranted or justified and manned 24/7 by eight police personnel each that is only 640 officers and 80 cars involved out of a total police force of 10,000 staff, and even the army could and should have been legally co-opted to assist.

This is the very thing the police were engaged to do anyway.- not supervise people breaking the law.

In a nutshell it was wrong and illegal, no ifs and buts about it, and dare I say it, reeked of race-based preferential treatment and should have been stopped immediately.

All Kiwis know that anyone else trying this trick on would be nailed and dealt too. The police and government were, in my view. complicit and parties to the offending.

Incidentally. David Parker. as the Attorney-General being New Zealand's No 1 law enforcement officer, should be fronting up to this problem. not Ms Arden who is shallow on a good day and clearly way out of her depth on rule of law issues.

This was not the only separatist race-based stuff thrown up over the Covid-I9 lockdown period.

First up we had the $56 million pandemic handout for Maori health (what was that for and where is the accountability?) then the illegal road blocks appeared, and now the massively increased GP subsidy payments announced for Maori patients over everyone else, plus we suddenly have preferential treatment for part-Maori and Pasifika on DHB waiting lists.

All have the politicising stench to them of trying to fly under the radar with critics sidelined during lockdown.

There was another $900 million in the Budget lolly scramble. Separatism and racial preferences are unacceptable in any form at any time.

ROB PATERSON, Mount Maunganui

GET USED TO IT,

Give someone alleging to be Maori a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and chips, then the rights to where the fish was caught and ownership of that part of the ocean plus funding for a new boat! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his 'basic rights.'

We want more! we want the water, the beaches, the lakes, the airwaves, local and central governance, everything!. and some politician who wants to "slip into bed" with people who 'allege' to be Maori will declare all these things to be among their 'basic rights.'

The word 'racism is like Tomato sauce. It can be poured on practically anything - and demanding any evidence or saying no to their demands makes you the 'racist!.If you have always believed that everyone is equal, should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, you would have been labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago but today you're a racist!.

It is amazing in NZ that cannot afford to pay our nurses properly, our ambulance and rescue helicopter along with surf rescue live on mostly donations, but somehow our government and their "minions think that we can afford to pay for "Maorified" bureaucracy to administer anything and everything, always with a little "koha" leftover for themselves.

Regarding the opposition to Maori wards, unelected seats on council and the councils and mayors that "we" elected who stabbed us in the back, it is clear that the people who were ''voted'' in and I use that term loosely as most people don't vote care nothing for democracy, and while constantly talking about transparency do most of their 'dealings' behind closed doors in closed groups and close off anyway to get access to what has been decided, what has been taken away from you or what else they've decided you will pay for.

In New Zealand, it is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of these people who pay no price for being wrong and use divisive race-baiting politics to keep them in power and push an ideology that will, in the end, split the country down the middle, into 'them' and 'us'.

REX ANDERSON, Lower Hutt

MUZZLED

The Bi-culturalism fostered by the Government is not fair at all Maoris can give vent to their spleen and say dreadful things like “pushing the Pakeha into the sea” and “all the land is ours” But Race Relations Act has muzzled the Non-Maori population of NZ by not allowing criticism of Maori to be published.

New Zealand was almost completely covered by bush except for the land around rivers and lakes and estuaries. Sir Apirana Ngata expressly mentions the “tracks through the bush”.

In the Maori land Courts by claimants of land, the Maoris couldn’t do much with the land, they needed steel axes. But who cleared the lands to make the farms, who built the boats to catch the fish; who brought the benefits of the Western world to share with our Maori brethren? It was not the Maori.

Apart from Captain Cook (1769) and his gift of pigs and goats little was added from outside influences until the arrival of USA whalers and 500 escaped convicts from Australia. “Kororarika” (Russell) became the hell-hole of the Pacific. Drunken orgies and murders were common and warring tribes made life hazardous in the early days. Most of the disputes were over land and power. These were the days of the Warriors. Chief Te Wherowhero ordered 256 prisoners of the Taranaki people before him, he slew them all by a “mere” this trophy was kept by his son Matu-taera,,, the late Maori King.

IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse