Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 29, 2016 7:08:05 GMT 12
Dear Editor (Sent to the Nelson Mail 21/11/16)
For nonsense read Gary Clover’s claims, (Mail, 19/11/16): ”In 1840, protectorate-like, British rule and law were to apply only to enclaves of European settlements” and “the Treaty's ‘partnership’ arises from verbal guarantees Hobson gave chiefs during their Treaty discussions, and the Maori text's first two Articles”.
The Treaty itself, accurately translated by the Williams from Hobson’s final draft of 4th February, says “The chiefs ... cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.” Hobson’s words were “[as] the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her dominions, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent”. It was to be all or nothing and it is clear from the recorded words of the chiefs on 5th February 1840 that they understood this.
Simon Powers’ claim of "a revolutionary seizure of power" is more nonsense. Colonial office instructions to Hobson stated clearly that negotiations were to be open and fair. Clover’s claim that they “shafted” the chiefs? Yet more nonsense.
Don Brash and Bruce Moon have summed up accurately the essence of the Treaty. The Chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and for ever and all Maoris (including, we add, slaves held under brutal conditions by other Maoris) became fully-entitled British subjects. As Rev. John Warren summed it up: "the chiefs ”justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business”.
R B
Tauranga
Dear Editor (Sent to the Nelson Mail 20/11/16)
Opportunity lost by RMA bill’s iwi clauses
Environment Minister Nick Smith’s energetic defence in his response on Friday of proposed iwi participation clauses shows his sensitivity about a grubby little deal between the National Party and the Maori Party over Resource Management Act reforms.
Six of the 11 “benefits” he cited in his defence of his bungled attempt to improve the Act were to do with the iwi clauses.
He did not say that detailed submissions presented at the select committee stage are being ignored.
He did not say that iwi clauses were included as part of a deal with the separatist Maori Party to get his “reforms” through Parliament.
He did not say that the non-separatist NZ First party had repeatedly offered 12 votes to get significant reforms passed without the special deal for iwi.
The John Key led Government stubbornly rejected NZ First offers, chose iwi over Kiwi, and continued to push through changes that add another tier of consultation, bureaucracy, and cost which reforms tried to reduce.
Nick Smith has delivered a packaged in which red tape, cost, and delay would increase.
Pig-headed politics has triumphed over common sense and an opportunity to bring benefits to everyone has been lost.
MIKE BUTLER
Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Nelson Mail 19/11/16)
Nick Smith has stated (Mail,18/11/16): ”Our majority rule Parliament was used in the nineteenth century to unfairly confiscate Maori land.” Somebody must have brainwashed him.
With unrest amongst some tribes in the early colonial period, fair warning was given that rebellion would lead to land confiscation. This accorded with well-understood ‘tikanga’ or Maori custom. Some did rebel and when their rebellions were subdued, land was duly confiscated, to pay a cash-strapped government in part for the considerable cost of doing so.
Of New Zealand’s 26.8 million hectares, only 1.2 million were confiscated, about half being returned not long afterwards. Today about 1.5 million hectares remain under traditional native title while Ngati Tuwharetoa gave Tongariro National Park to the nation – though the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal twisted the meaning of words to deny this.
The balance, about 24 million hectares or 90%, was bought fairly by successive governments, in some cases the same land two or three times from different claimants to ownership, particularly in Taranaki. Nevertheless, Nick’s ill-informed Government has just made large payments to former rebel Taranaki tribal interests with an official apology and foisted upon us a false story of “Land Wars” which now we are expected to commemorate.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
Dear Editor, (An older letter sent to the North & South)
They just keep coming ~ the challenges, the provocations, the moral / ethical tests .
Nor will they ever cease until New Zealanders of all races rise up to meet them.
The latest display of theatrical brinkmanship from part-Maori supremacists is their pretended belief, ( fully supported by their "liberal" white comrades ), that they own our country's God-given water ~ and presumably the very sky, the clouds, and the blessed rain which gifts it.
It's long past time that these self-serving tribal theatrics were treated as such, i.e. given a little polite applause and dismissed.
In a sane society this nonsense would have been nipped in the bud years ago, for it's no longer merely about greed and money ; nowadays it's about political power. "Maori Sovereignty" means exactly what it says.
New Zealanders, including sensible Maori, need to drag their eyes away from the rugby field and other distractions and attend to real matters.
This is especially true of the descendants of the dauntless European settlers who civilised this country, otherwise their future, their children's future, and their country ( i.e. their real Treaty of Waitangi rights ), are likely to be taken from them.
The mentality of those driving these vexatious treaty claims and those who take then seriously, goes far beyond ordinary human avarice and ignorance. It is plain madness and can have no good ending.
However, a glimmer of hope lies in the old proverb : "Give 'em enough rope.....etc."
"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad".
Greek proverb.
C R.
Dunedin
For nonsense read Gary Clover’s claims, (Mail, 19/11/16): ”In 1840, protectorate-like, British rule and law were to apply only to enclaves of European settlements” and “the Treaty's ‘partnership’ arises from verbal guarantees Hobson gave chiefs during their Treaty discussions, and the Maori text's first two Articles”.
The Treaty itself, accurately translated by the Williams from Hobson’s final draft of 4th February, says “The chiefs ... cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.” Hobson’s words were “[as] the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her dominions, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent”. It was to be all or nothing and it is clear from the recorded words of the chiefs on 5th February 1840 that they understood this.
Simon Powers’ claim of "a revolutionary seizure of power" is more nonsense. Colonial office instructions to Hobson stated clearly that negotiations were to be open and fair. Clover’s claim that they “shafted” the chiefs? Yet more nonsense.
Don Brash and Bruce Moon have summed up accurately the essence of the Treaty. The Chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and for ever and all Maoris (including, we add, slaves held under brutal conditions by other Maoris) became fully-entitled British subjects. As Rev. John Warren summed it up: "the chiefs ”justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business”.
R B
Tauranga
Dear Editor (Sent to the Nelson Mail 20/11/16)
Opportunity lost by RMA bill’s iwi clauses
Environment Minister Nick Smith’s energetic defence in his response on Friday of proposed iwi participation clauses shows his sensitivity about a grubby little deal between the National Party and the Maori Party over Resource Management Act reforms.
Six of the 11 “benefits” he cited in his defence of his bungled attempt to improve the Act were to do with the iwi clauses.
He did not say that detailed submissions presented at the select committee stage are being ignored.
He did not say that iwi clauses were included as part of a deal with the separatist Maori Party to get his “reforms” through Parliament.
He did not say that the non-separatist NZ First party had repeatedly offered 12 votes to get significant reforms passed without the special deal for iwi.
The John Key led Government stubbornly rejected NZ First offers, chose iwi over Kiwi, and continued to push through changes that add another tier of consultation, bureaucracy, and cost which reforms tried to reduce.
Nick Smith has delivered a packaged in which red tape, cost, and delay would increase.
Pig-headed politics has triumphed over common sense and an opportunity to bring benefits to everyone has been lost.
MIKE BUTLER
Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Nelson Mail 19/11/16)
Nick Smith has stated (Mail,18/11/16): ”Our majority rule Parliament was used in the nineteenth century to unfairly confiscate Maori land.” Somebody must have brainwashed him.
With unrest amongst some tribes in the early colonial period, fair warning was given that rebellion would lead to land confiscation. This accorded with well-understood ‘tikanga’ or Maori custom. Some did rebel and when their rebellions were subdued, land was duly confiscated, to pay a cash-strapped government in part for the considerable cost of doing so.
Of New Zealand’s 26.8 million hectares, only 1.2 million were confiscated, about half being returned not long afterwards. Today about 1.5 million hectares remain under traditional native title while Ngati Tuwharetoa gave Tongariro National Park to the nation – though the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal twisted the meaning of words to deny this.
The balance, about 24 million hectares or 90%, was bought fairly by successive governments, in some cases the same land two or three times from different claimants to ownership, particularly in Taranaki. Nevertheless, Nick’s ill-informed Government has just made large payments to former rebel Taranaki tribal interests with an official apology and foisted upon us a false story of “Land Wars” which now we are expected to commemorate.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
Dear Editor, (An older letter sent to the North & South)
They just keep coming ~ the challenges, the provocations, the moral / ethical tests .
Nor will they ever cease until New Zealanders of all races rise up to meet them.
The latest display of theatrical brinkmanship from part-Maori supremacists is their pretended belief, ( fully supported by their "liberal" white comrades ), that they own our country's God-given water ~ and presumably the very sky, the clouds, and the blessed rain which gifts it.
It's long past time that these self-serving tribal theatrics were treated as such, i.e. given a little polite applause and dismissed.
In a sane society this nonsense would have been nipped in the bud years ago, for it's no longer merely about greed and money ; nowadays it's about political power. "Maori Sovereignty" means exactly what it says.
New Zealanders, including sensible Maori, need to drag their eyes away from the rugby field and other distractions and attend to real matters.
This is especially true of the descendants of the dauntless European settlers who civilised this country, otherwise their future, their children's future, and their country ( i.e. their real Treaty of Waitangi rights ), are likely to be taken from them.
The mentality of those driving these vexatious treaty claims and those who take then seriously, goes far beyond ordinary human avarice and ignorance. It is plain madness and can have no good ending.
However, a glimmer of hope lies in the old proverb : "Give 'em enough rope.....etc."
"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad".
Greek proverb.
C R.
Dunedin