Last election not about asset sales

John William’s comments (Letters, July 18) were nothing but a lazy attempt to discredit the excellent points made by letter-writer Dr John Monro.

The economics of the proposed asset sales are well known – it would pay the country to keep them. The last election was about which party should govern, not about asset sales. I have no doubt a referendum would say ‘‘no’’ to asset sales – and that’s why this Government won’t have one.

It just shows how you can be right and wrong at the same time. Basically the prime minister is right – water is a national (small ‘‘n’’) asset, but, equally, state enterprises belong to the people, not to the government. Its role is to represent our interests; is this Government really doing that?

How ironic if Maori, through their Waitangi claim over water we all own, actually manage to frustrate the sale of state assets we also already own. STUART M MACDONALD

Tawa ciety where entitlements are determined by race? My four blonde, blue-eyed children are all partMaori. They are descendants of Te Atiawa tribal leaders Pakewa and Rawiri Nukaiahu, signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi.

I’m proud of my children’s Maori heritage. But the notion that they should receive special entitlements that I may not because of race is simply wrong. It reminds me of the apartheid era of South Africa two decades ago.

Du Fresne also asks who truly is Maori now. Is it based on the colour of our skin, how strong our lineage is, or perhaps how well we sing Pokarekare ana?

Wouldn’t it be great if we were all just proud New Zealanders who lived in a spirit of thankfulness for all the good things we are blessed with in this country. Or is that just a utopian allusion? ROGER JAQUIERY

Titahi Bay