Post by Kiwi Frontline on Sept 18, 2016 9:17:43 GMT 12
Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Herald 19/5/16
I was gobsmacked when I read Terry Dunleavy's letter (19/5/16), it is absolutely clear in both the Maori-language version of the Treaty and in the English drafts that the chiefs ceded full sovereignty. Acknowledgement of this is evidenced in their speeches prior to signing the treaty, so there is no inference of a 'partnership' in the treaty.
The Court of Appeal used the word 'partners' interchangeably with the word 'parties', and spoke also of a relationship ‘akin to’ a 'partnership', how does that establish a partnership? Further one cannot be a partner and subject of the Queen.
Retaining of lands, dwellings and property (taonga) were guaranteed to ALL the people of New Zealand, not just Maori. Land that Dunleavy claims was taken by force was legally confiscated, after warnings, to quell the rebel Maori uprising against the Queen and newly formed government. These confiscations were only 4.5% of New Zealands total land mass, and nearly half was given back shortly after.
Mr Dunleavy and the 20% of New Zealanders that support his views would do well to remember that it was only a small number of tribes that took up arms against the Queen. He seems unaware of the many loyal chiefs that attended the Kohimarama conference in 1860 and pledged their allegiance to the Queen
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Dominion Post 18/5/16).
Re Robert Ashe's letter (18/5/16)
There is no commitment to co-governance in the Treaty of Waitangi, it was a simple cessation agreement whereby the chiefs ceded FULL individual chieftainship to the Queen forever. There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty that remotely suggests co-governance at any level.
The “Encouraging Maori participation in local government” site page clearly states: “Taken as a whole, they are an obligation to consider what steps the council can reasonably take to encourage and assist Maori to participate in local affairs. These provisions do not confer special rights and privileges on maori that are not accorded to other tauiwi (other members of the public).”
Robert also infers, those who oppose appointed positions or race-based seats are a minority? Yet these polls show an 80% majority.
70% — NO to Maori seats in Parliament (Sunday Star-Times poll 2013)
80% — NO to Maori wards: Waikato District Council, April 2012.
80% — NO to Maori wards: Hauraki District Council, May, 2013
79% — NO to Maori wards: Nelson District Council, May 2012.
83% — NO to Maori wards: New Plymouth District Council May 2015
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it ~ George Orwell
GEOFF PARKER
Wnangarei
I was gobsmacked when I read Terry Dunleavy's letter (19/5/16), it is absolutely clear in both the Maori-language version of the Treaty and in the English drafts that the chiefs ceded full sovereignty. Acknowledgement of this is evidenced in their speeches prior to signing the treaty, so there is no inference of a 'partnership' in the treaty.
The Court of Appeal used the word 'partners' interchangeably with the word 'parties', and spoke also of a relationship ‘akin to’ a 'partnership', how does that establish a partnership? Further one cannot be a partner and subject of the Queen.
Retaining of lands, dwellings and property (taonga) were guaranteed to ALL the people of New Zealand, not just Maori. Land that Dunleavy claims was taken by force was legally confiscated, after warnings, to quell the rebel Maori uprising against the Queen and newly formed government. These confiscations were only 4.5% of New Zealands total land mass, and nearly half was given back shortly after.
Mr Dunleavy and the 20% of New Zealanders that support his views would do well to remember that it was only a small number of tribes that took up arms against the Queen. He seems unaware of the many loyal chiefs that attended the Kohimarama conference in 1860 and pledged their allegiance to the Queen
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Dominion Post 18/5/16).
Re Robert Ashe's letter (18/5/16)
There is no commitment to co-governance in the Treaty of Waitangi, it was a simple cessation agreement whereby the chiefs ceded FULL individual chieftainship to the Queen forever. There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty that remotely suggests co-governance at any level.
The “Encouraging Maori participation in local government” site page clearly states: “Taken as a whole, they are an obligation to consider what steps the council can reasonably take to encourage and assist Maori to participate in local affairs. These provisions do not confer special rights and privileges on maori that are not accorded to other tauiwi (other members of the public).”
Robert also infers, those who oppose appointed positions or race-based seats are a minority? Yet these polls show an 80% majority.
70% — NO to Maori seats in Parliament (Sunday Star-Times poll 2013)
80% — NO to Maori wards: Waikato District Council, April 2012.
80% — NO to Maori wards: Hauraki District Council, May, 2013
79% — NO to Maori wards: Nelson District Council, May 2012.
83% — NO to Maori wards: New Plymouth District Council May 2015
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it ~ George Orwell
GEOFF PARKER
Wnangarei