Quite apart from the fact that her own punctuation and syntax aren't exactly crash-hot, Kate MacIntyre's complaint about C. Humphreys' correspondence was uncalled-for; she may disagree with, and be tired of, what he writes, but he has a right to express it: that's what free speech is all about. For example, I sometimes gag at the racist utterances of Harawira, Turia, Mutu and others, but I'd be the last person to suggest that we should silence them.

Ms MacIntyre further suggests that C.Humphreys should investigate in greater depth the issues that he raises; well, she too could focus her mind better, particularly in three areas.

Firstly, there are several versions of the Treaty of Waitangi, each of which is open to its own interpretation, especially as we can only hazard a guess as to what the intentions of the signatories of those were. Conflict of opinion is driven largely by self-interest, so resolution of the differences is most unlikely; on the contrary, lawyers will prolong the debate because it is lucrative to do so, and politicians will exploit the uncertainty in order to lift their own profiles. It would, therefore, be disastrous to embody 'The Treaty” and its contentious 'principles” in a written constitution, because the wrangling could go on for generations.

Secondly, Maori identity is, in the eyes of the law, an 'opt-in” concept; that is, to qualify as Maori, one must have Maori ancestry (no matter how remote) and also identify with Maori culture. Two things flow from this: any separatism is, by definition, to be laid at the feet of those who choose to call themselves Maori; and, in an egalitarian democracy, where consideration for the preferences and rights of individuals - as opposed to groups - is supposedly of paramount importance, such self-selection for separate treatment (as in voting rights, educational opportunities, health initiatives, and so on) is morally unacceptable. Of course, this country may be deluding itself - perhaps we're not an egalitarian democracy, after all - in which case, we ought to own up to it.

Thirdly, when she refers to the issues of sovereignty and property rights, she should be very wary: these are legal and ethical minefields. Much of the debate (and the substantial 'Treaty settlement” process) is predicated on the ideas of 'ownership by first occupancy” and 'self determination”; the former is open to serious theoretical challenge, and the latter is too nebulous to mean much, especially in a modern nation-state where we have advanced welfarism, a complex economy, and inescapable social interdependence.

Finally, let me remind Ms MacIntyre, and others, that this is not simply a matter of dispute between those of Maori and European ancestry, respectively; New Zealand is now also home to many folk from Oceania, Asia, Africa, the Americas, and elsewhere - and they must not be made to feel shut out of the discussion and decision-making. If we cannot abandon, once and for all, the idea that this nation comprises 'Maori and the rest”, it will tear itself apart.

Dr Graham Cliff, Katikati.