Featured post


A Waiheke Island Myth Part 1 On Waiheke Island, New Zealand, a myth has grown up among a handful of people in the Rocky Bay Village th...

Follow Waiheke Notes by email

Wednesday, 26 September 2018


So $11 million is to be spent to rid Waiheke Island of rats and stoats, the nasty foreign predators making off with our bird-life in their voracious jaws.

But the regime has overlooked cats, the murderous moggies that have been set free or made off and have gone feral, and the still-domestic ones being let out every day or night to roam far and wide, both voraciously eliminating the same bird-life. The very least that should be done is to make it
mandatory to put a bell round their necks so they cannot sneak up on their prey. Big Ben would be a
nice size... ;-)

They have also overlooked the worst breed of rats: bureauc-rats, which, in contradistinction to true
public servants, are predators of the most wicked kind. They love to gnaw away at people's live with
their malign policies, processes and decisions, none of which have anything to do with natural
justice. The Pied Piper of Hamelin would need three flutes to get rid of them.

Or just chuck them off the wharf and let them swim back to Orcland, the most appropriate place for them....

Wednesday, 30 May 2018


Some of you may have seen this rubbish written by someone who obviously has no love for older people, and likes to shoot his mouth off before he gets his brain loaded with factual bullets.

The response to his diatribe is easy:

Your maths is all wrong.

$4087 over 22 months is $185 per month. That, at $38 a return, is 5 trips on average per month. That
is not a daily commute. It is once a week. Such as being an outpatient at the hospital. Or shopping
at the Warehouse in town to save money on the pension. Or to see a friend from time to time.

You have built a story out of your own invention, founded on your very obvious bias.

And your $200,000 divided by 100 is $2000, which at $38 a return is 52 trips. One a week. Even that
is not a daily commute.

Again, your own figures prove you wrong.

And you have not the slightest idea of how wealthy or not those travellers are. You are guessing.
Interviewing your word-processor.


And the plural of bus is buses. 'Busses' is the plural of 'buss', the old word for a kiss.

Thursday, 7 September 2017


[Recent News Item: The Waiheke Local Board decided not to support making Rocky Bay the official name of the village by having the New Zealand Geographic Board gazette it, giving as its reason a poll it ran on Facebook.]

Facebunk Rules! OK!

Oh goody! Progress! Stupendous progress! All de people-problems of the world is solved!

Yup! De Waiheke Local Board has shown duh way. Ev'ry democratic difficulty is now de thing of de
past. Yay! Triple yay!!!

The silly ole law wants community consultation, democracy and all dat stuff. But dat's a chore anna
bore and such a tedious waste uv time. Who needs it!?

Not us, not we de Waiheke Local Board. For we has duh new way. We has a wunnerful replacement for dat dumb consultation thingy.

Yes, we has. We jus' conduct a Facebunk poll. A Facebunk poll! Yes, den we knows for sure and sure
and sure what de community thinks and wishes its liddle heart for.

Doesn't matter two hoots dat enny bod on de planet, all de way out to Alpha Centauri, can use de
Facebunk poll, and dat dat's a tad or five past our bailiwick, and dat we can't check dem Liddle
Green Men 'gainst de local electoral roll.

We doesn't care about pesky details like dat. We jus' quote de Facebunk numbers and sign our
hieroglyphics on dem and it all looks all kosher. Yeah! Right!

Facebunk! Mush better than a bit uv silver on da palm of some ole gypsy in a tent. Yeah!

Democracy by Facebunk. Brilliant! Next we'll get Pallymunt to replace elections with Facebunk--and
it'll be Pollymunt! Yay! Duh Waiheke Local Board! Leading de way into de stun age!!! Hit 'em with
Facebunk. They'll never know the deference. Yeah!

Thursday, 27 July 2017


To set the Rocky Bay record straight with true documentary provenance for those who may have been
misled by false assumptions, or misinformation, or mischievous stories, the original Maori name of
the land that became the Rocky Bay Village was Kuakarau (spelt Kauakarau in those days). It was a
subdivision of what had been a block of Maori land called the Kuakarau Block, Block 342, plus a tiny  bit of the Whakanewha Block in the southeast corner (see the map).

'Rocky Bay' as the name of the smallish bay where boats now bob on swing moorings first appears on a  Maori Land Court map dated 1865, and is affirmed on a Crown map dating from 1877.

When the village above Rocky Bay was formed placenames were only legal and official if they were
assigned by the Governor-General on behalf of the then Monarch, King George VI.

But 'Kuakarau' and 'Rocky Bay' were ignored by the two Europeans who subdivided the Kuakarau part of their farm. Instead, for marketing purposes, and without Royal authority, they deployed 'Omiha Bay' and 'Omiha'. And although they were 100% European they covered their marketing prospectus with Maori symbolism, which they had no blood right to.

The Maori Land Court map of 1865 accompanied a successful claim by three Maori men to
joint-ownership of the Kuakarau Block, its official name. They listed their genealogies, which the
Court carefully recorded. Nowhere is there any mention of an 'Omiha' or any name anything like it.
It was never the original Maori name; it has never been the official name; it is listed as 'Not
official' on the New Zealand Geographic Board's gazetteer.

See this blog for more details and other documentation. 

Wednesday, 15 February 2017


Chicanery by those in positions of power is so boring. So predictable. So pointless. So wicked. When such people use rhetoric, or vanity of title, or overbearing character, or loud voice, or procedural diversion, or some other trickery to evade the truth and keep to paths of falsehood that have become habit in someone to whom they tug the forelock--when that is so they are not worthy of a public position, for they have betrayed the trust of those who voted for them.

A case in a point is a presentation made in the Public Forum segment to the Waiheke Local Board at its first meeting of 2017, At least it was meant to be a presentation, but it was very soon apparent to the chairman that the presentation was running swiftly towards the facts, and had already exposed a situation that was, very obviously, too obviously, a threat to public safety. As well as being very bad manners and chronically inconvenient to people. But he did not want those facts to be aired in public, he did not want anything to be done to correct the ill-mannered, inconvenient and dangerous situation--a situation whose constant potential was to be fatal.

So what did the chairman immediately the presentation began to expose the public danger? Under the gaze of everyone in the public gallery, he interrupted, he stopped the presentation, by very cleverly asking the presenter what he wanted. The answer from the presenter was that he wanted a resolution that would be presented to a government entity, a resolution supporting the permanent correction of the rude, inconvenient and dangerous situation.

'Under standing orders,' the chairman said, 'we cannot make a resolution based on a presentation made in the Public Forum.' Very, very clever.

If he had been honest he would have said to the presenter, 'Please present us with all the facts so that the whole board is fully informed, in public, so that the public is also informed, then with your assistance, keeping to standing orders, we can formulate a resolution that will correct the wrong situation. We want to act in the best interests of the community, as we are sworn to do.' That would have been honest.

But to cover his dishonesty before the public gallery he asked the presenter if he would meet with him the following week to present the facts. The presenter, innocent as the lamb led to the slaughter, agreed. 'Any time that suits you,' he said.

He was, by serendipity, tripped up, because the very next presenter, by nice coincidence, supported the danger that the first presenter had exposed. But that was ignored. Of course. The first presenter, whose case had just been proved, was not invited back. Because there was going to be a meeting with the chairman, wasn't there? Wasn't there?

But the following week came and went, but without a meeting, without the slightest contact from the chairman--not directly, not through the Relationship Manager from the Council. So the presenter asked, by email to the Relationship Manager, when the meeting would be. He was told that it would be on Tuesday the following week, and to name the time that suited. He did. But on Monday the meeting was cancelled, by email. The chairman told him the meeting was not necessary, because the Local Board had had a workshop the previous Friday and it had decided to do nothing. (None of those email communications were done directly by the chairman, it was all through the Relationship Manager at Auckland Council.)

So the Local Board, which had not had the facts presented, had managed to have a 'workshop' to make a decision. But why let the facts get in the way of a perfectly uniformed decision????????? A Local Board is a quasi-judicial body. Not being interested in the facts has nothing whatever to do with justice ('justice' comes from the Latin 'ius,' which means 'right'

All elected members of local bodies must under the Local Government Act 2002 swear this oath of office, swear it and sign it:

'I, AB, declare that I will faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of my skill and judgment, execute and perform, in the best interests of [region or district], the powers, authorities, and duties vested in, or imposed upon, me as [mayor or chairperson or member] of the [local authority] by virtue of the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, or any other Act
Dated at: [place, date]
Signed in the presence of:
CD, [mayor or chairperson or member or chief executive of local authority]'.

To suppress and evade the facts and make decisions in a factual vacuum is not faithful, and is not impartial, and has nothing to do with best skill and judgement. And failing to take the simple action needed to end a situation which at worst would be fatal is certainly not in the best interests of the community. Nor is it in accordance with any other Act, in particular the great ones that enshrine the immeasurable rights and freedoms on which New Zealand is founded and based. It does not, for example, fulfil the solemn promise made to us all in statute that 'we will not deny or defer, to any man, either justice or right', or the strictures to do all things according to due process of law, and that anything not done accordingly 'shall be void in law and holden for error.'

All those statutes had been brought to the attention of the chairman in 2016 so he cannot plead ignorance of the greatest statutes encompassed by his oath to adhere to 'any other Act.'

Those who wilfully fail to fulfil their oath of office have turned it into a lie. They have betrayed their duty to their community and to the best of the laws that govern us--and laid themselves wide open to some form of legal action to force them back to the straight and narrow. The only language they should ever speak is the truth, strongly, boldly, without hesitation. For that alone is impartial, that alone is public service. They should never sully their mouths, their thoughts, their actions with weasel-words, which are words so adulterated with wastewater that they stink to high heaven. (Note that the chairman alone went out of his way to swear his oath of office on the Holy Bible). They should stand strong for their community, especially when the situation has dangerous potential; milk-and-water spinelessness must be rejected. In this matter they failed. Abjectly.

Thursday, 5 January 2017


I am very, very, very worried. Because of the glowing articles about Waiheke in Lonely Planet and
other places that should have kept their big mouths shut, and because so many people are leaving
America to escape Donald Trump and Britain to escape Brexit and everywhere else to escape
climate-change, the island is being deluged with alien bodies and alien vehicles.

As a result it is sinking. I have been taking precise measurements, and on the busiest days, when
the island was alien flesh and metal from one end to the other, it was an astonishing 10 metres

I felt the supermarket shaking, so our bit of the Earth's crust is definitely being deformed  far
faster and more violently than that old myth called the rule of law.

So two imminent disasters are staring Waihekeans in the facials. Either the tonnage of alien flesh
and alien cars will suddenly be too much and the island will sink into the sea and we shall all
drown. Or when all the aliens go home the island will rise 10 metres in a big hurry and the
consequent earthquake will shake us all to pieces.


(Written on behalf of Chicken Licken who has been kidnapped and fried by KFC)
(So HE was right)


Although Scotty was reduced to ashes and shot into orbit in an urn long ago (Scotty of Star Trek for those to whom that means nothing) he is still beaming things up to the USS Enterprise and working wonders with seemingly dead machinery.

He must be. Because a few days ago the fridge-freezer suddenly vanished. One day it was there; the next it was gone. No goodbyes, no parting notes, no so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-fish, no word of any sort.

Its disappearance would be a big mystery, except that by a quirk of quantum entanglement I have learned that Scotty modified it and sold it to some intergalactic being with blue skin and retracting horns, who fitted it into a warp drive. Apparently old fridge-freezers from Earth can produce endless warp flux by adding a clever gizmo produced by the guys on the Fifth Rock orbiting Sun Four in the Orion system. Which must be the ultimate in recycling. If the Council only knew, it could be making enough intergalactic credits from piles of dead fridge-freezers to pay off the global debt.

So the Incompetent Inorganic Saga lasted only five weeks--enough time for a 1960s Apollo mission to have got to the Moon and back ten times over. That's progress for you...

Friday, 23 December 2016


The next step was to fire off an email about this shemozzle to the Mayor, Phil Goff. This was the response. It was not from him, it was from yet another bureaucrat.

RE: [Fwd: RE: [Auckland City] Allocated: Request 1832047  Priority 3: Rubbish Missed.]

Dear Mr Ceramalus,

Thank you for your email to the Mayor. This is an operational matter that the Mayor is unable to assist with.

As requested by Hazel Durkin, your permission is needed in order to carry out the collection of the item, as the contractor is concerned about potentially damaging your stairs. If you accept the potential risk, the collection can be arranged within the next week.

Please send your response to Lynda Totua, copied in.

Kind regards,

Alison Grant | Correspondence Manager
Office of the Mayor of Auckland
Level 27, 135 Albert Street
Victoria Street West, Private Bag 92300 Auckland 1142,
Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Weasel words. Notice how bureaucrats minds work. They state a 'seems' or an 'is concerned' or a 'possibility' or a 'consideration' or some such term, based on nothing but bureaucratic imaginings. Next that groundless non-fact is treated as a hard fact.

Here, they have chosen 'concern'. Their contractor has a 'concern' that if he uses a trolley he will damage my steps (which they insist, wrongly, on calling stairs). To the other bureaucrats that 'concern' is then deployed as a fact. It ignores the real fact that the publicity about this stupid collection system says that items must be able to be 'carried by two men.' Carried is carried. But bureaucrats are like Humpty Dumpty: 'Words mean whatever I say they mean.' So now 'carried' is 'taken on a trolley.' But it is an unnecessary trolley, because this item can be carried 10 metres. Far further, in real fact, by two men. Real men. Men with muscles. Men who are not lazy and powered by bureaucratic mainsprings.

So having changed the English language they invent a 'risk' on top of it, and throw their brainless ball back into my court. I must take the 'risk' of 'damage' to my 'stairs' (steps, people, they are steps). So now they are happy. They have blamed me, so all the inaction on their part will be my fault.

Step 1: a groundless 'fact'. Step 2: Treat that as a fact. Step 3: use that to throw the onus off themselves on to the ratepayer. DONE!

The above email has established another thing. The Mayor is hamstrung, walled off by bureaucrats from the people who elected him in a landslide. He does not see an email addressed to him. It is diverted. He is prevented from doing anything.

It is not worth wasting any more life on this Empire of Mainliner Fools. The inorganic item in question can stay where it is. Unless I get it picked up by a commercial carrier, then take the Empire to the Disputes Tribunal to get reimbursed. Last time I took the Empire there I won.

Footnote: It has yet to be established that the Empire has the legal right to create this collection-system for inorganic rubbish in which they can demand access for their contractors to private property to ferret about for it. 'Warwick'. who is two rungs above Hazel Durkin says that making an appointment for them to come gives them that right, but that is a spurious argument, because the system is such that the 'appointment' is made under duress. If you want a collection you must give access, because the system they created demands it.

Thursday, 22 December 2016


Today--some time after I had sent an email on this bureaucratic nonsense to the Mayor, Phil Goff--I received this email from the incompetent outfit over on the mainland, which after a month has still not collected the small fridge-freezer  I put out for the inorganic collection (for 'mainland' read the depository of mainliner bureaucrats high on their own methamphetamine vanity and incompetence):

RE: [Auckland City] Allocated: Request 1832047 Priority 3: Rubbish Missed.

Dear Mr Ceramalus,

I am writing to update on your enquiry regarding the inorganic collection.

Please be advised I have visited the site to make an assessment and could agree 
with both your assessment and the contractors.

I have asked that the contractor returns with a trolley to assist in lifting the 
item up the stairs.

The contractor is concerned about damaging the stairs which are slightly loose.  
Please can you confirm you are happy to accept this risk?

We'll try to get back tomorrow, so please respond today if you are able.  
Otherwise next week is possible also.

Kind Regards,

Hazel Durkin | Senior Waste Advisor (Contracts)
Waste Solutions - Infrastructure & Environmental Services
Mobile 021 716 516
Auckland Council, Level 1N, 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland

This woman should be sacked. She says she agrees both with me and the worthless lazy contractors who refuse to collect this item. That is bureaucratic fence-sitting on steroids. They should pump those steroids into the muscles of their contractors; then they might be able to carry this thing.

First: the contractor does not need a 'trolley' to carry this. Two men--real men, with real muscles--can carry it. When it was replaced with a much bigger one, two men, one young, carried the replacement all the way down to my dwelling: 80 metres. This can easily be carried by two men--real men, with real muscles. The 'trollety' is and all the rest of it is just a plethora of excuse-making to cover all their collective backsides, it is just to reinforce the lying pretence that the thing cannot be carried by the 'two men' quoted in the leaflets.

Second: there are no loose steps. The stakes holding them go deep. Thousands of things, many heavy, have been carried over them over the years. She is inventing to cover her incompetent backside.

Third: this brainless, extravagant, incompetent, wasteful woman used ratepayers' money and time to come all the way out here on a ferry and a car/bus/taxi to 'visit the site'. That is a return trip of about four hours. The woman is a damned fool.

Fourth: when I tried to call her, she had of course had herself replaced by 'voicemail'. So had her boss. So had her boss's boss. They are meant to be public servants. That means being accessible to the public. That fact has obviously not entered their bureaucratic heads.

Fifth: that 'Kind Regards' is wicked hypocrisy. Weasel-words.

She is incompetent, a liar, a bureaucrat, a fool and extravagantly wasteful. She should be sacked, sacked, sacked. She does not deserve employment at public expense.

This lot couldn't organise its way out of a wet paper-bag with the help of nuclear weapons and a squadron of bulldozers. Would that we had our own council on Waiheke Island and no longer had to deal with dumb-as-a-brick mainliners like this!

If these arch-fools had been in charge of allied forces in World War II we would have lost the war, we would all be speaking Nazi German, and be worshipping the corpse of Hitler. No, I am not angry, I am livid that my rates and taxes are pouring in the pockets of creatures whose mental capacity and general competence is so rubbishy that they cannot carry out a simple rubbish-collection, either on the day appointed by them (which I was ready for), even when given a month since then to do it since then, even after repeated phone calls and emails, even when I did everything demanded by them in their false-hearted advertised rules. Such creatures are the scum of the earth; every single day they thieve time and money out of others' lives; they are mindless bureaucratic thugs. They are dysfunctional, they have a sub-functional mindset, they are incapable of acting in anyone's best interests. All such creatures should be sacked, sacked, sacked.

If the fools who run Auckland Council had a worthwhile neuron they would institute psychometric testing, and employ no one who failed. Then they would be employing public servants, not bureaucrats, who are sociopaths or psychopaths, and therefore they would save billions because they would not have to be employing anything like the number they do employ. Bureaucrats are egregiously wasteful. Public servants are efficient and prudent.

Sunday, 18 December 2016


Eleven days after the appointed inorganic pickup date for my address, and after only two phone calls
to the Council--only two!!--I was honoured with a call from a bureaucrat at the high-and-mighty
Auckland Council--that bastion of mainliners perched on a permanent high of their own petty power--a woman who announced herself as Hazel in a Pommy accent.

Bureaucrats don't have surnames, see, because they likes to live in Anonymous Land so that people
can't get at them... They doesn't like people, see. People is a nuisance, see. Worse than blowflies
at a picnic, see.

But my VOIP phone automatically records every single word of every single conversation in an MP3
file, so modern technology neatly defeats them boo-rock-rat wishes. It was stamped 09:54:00 on
06/12/2016 if you wants de boo-rock-rat accuracy.

(Not even the Pied Piper of Hamelin can get rid of boo-rock-rats. That's a well-known scientific
fact. Even more factual than gravity and the unwelcome pulling of ponytails.)

'The item was left because of the stairs,' quoth Hazel, as the MP3 file silently recorded. 'It
wasn't safe to carry the item down the stairs. They've made that assessment.'

I told her that that was rubbish (perfect pun, notice), and asked how did she think I got the thing
in here in the first place. And how did I manage to take it 70 metres back up the hill, all by my
unaided thread-like self, so that the Council's weak and timid collectors would not have to exert
themselves and risk their lives.

Of course, in talking to her I didn't use terms like 'thread-like' and 'weak and timid', because
mainliners don't have no sense of humour, see. (Maybe the full stop in that last sentence should be
after 'sense'. Then it would be 'Mainliners don't have no sense. Of humour. See.' Yes, much better.
Editing is such fun.)

'I don't accept that,' quoth Hazel, our unwitting MP3 Star. 'We actually had our independent
auditors out with them at the time, and they agreed with the decision.'

Whaaaaaaaaaaat! They carry 'independent auditors' about with them in their collection truck! So now
we know that they mainline on an overweening mix of steroids and petty power. Wow! That's progress.
Yes, my favourite one-word joke. Again. I get so many chances to use it in this midden world. And
getting more midden by the minute.

Hazel continued with her quothing: 'I support their decision. I can't ask them to go and collect
something that they think is a health-and-safety issue.'

But not a common sense issue, or even uncommon sense, or any kind of sense. Weak and timid, see.

Hazel quothed on: 'If you can get the item down the stairs, we will collect it.'

Small errors, there, Hazel. First it is up, not down. And thems is actually steps, not stairs.
Stairs is wot you has inside a building, O Unwitting MP3 Star. Steps is what you have outside, in a
path, on the edge of the porch, outside Pallymunt, etc. The fridge-freezer is waiting at the foot of
the STEPS--the foot--so it had to go up. UP, Hazel, not down. Wot an accurate report the
'independent auditors' did for our MP3 Star. They know not their up from their down or their stairs
from their steps or their health and safety issues from a piddling liddle fridge-freezer that they
had to carry a mere 7 metres.

And they cannot read their own advertising. The Orcland Council website says; 'Items should be able
to be lifted by two people. Accepted: Large appliances--fridges, freezers, washing machines and
ovens'. Misleading advertising, see. AKA lies.

But if I were do wot the MP3 Star wants and take the 'item' up the steps I would be leaving it on
the side of the road. Because that is what is at the top of them steps. But the high-and-mighty
Auckland Council calls that illegal dumping, and fines you up to $400, and sends you to Guantanamo
Bay without the option of a surfboard so that you can chat with radical Islamists for the next fifty

So I now have an ornament at the foot of the steps below my letterbox. A fridge-freezer. A very dead
one. Lying down. A bit of modern sculpture, some performance-art, entitled 'Death of Civilisation.'

Not everyone has one. But don't be jealous. You too can have one. You just put one out for Orc's
indigestible, incompetent, inept, infuriating inorganic-collection system. Which will leave it for
you, artistically positioned, and festooned with a note to say that it will not be taken.

Like boo-rock-rats, it's impossible to take.

Would that we could get rid of the Supercilious Supersilly and get back our own Council and run our own affairs, free for ever of the malign injections from those mainliners over the water!

Sunday, 4 December 2016


The new system for collecting inorganic rubbish is wunnerful, wunnerful, wunnerful!

You sign up for it, they send you an email to tell you what day they will be coming, asking you to
leave the stuff out (but not on the edge of the road, 'cause that's dumping), and they will come on
to your property on that day, some time after 7am, to take it away.


No, not fine. I put six items out, all of them ones on their approved list, and together nowhere
near the maximum volume ('no more than would fill a small trailer').

I arrived home at the end of the designated day to find that only five of the six had gone. What was
left was a small fridge-freezer, with a note to say that it was too heavy for them to take.

Of course I understand that. It was not too heavy for me to take--all by myself--the 70 metres from
my dwelling to where I left it for them--only 7 metres from the road. I did that, just me, using my
antique muscles, which are older than Methuselah (who is on record as having lived 969 years),
muscles only slightly stronger than a malnourished pipi running on flat batteries.

But it seems not to have entered the official skulls to employ a couple of hefty Maori blokes
capable of lifting the entire planet on the tip of one hand whilst scoffing a pile of chips with the
other one. No, their blokes cannot, even when there are two of them, lift a small fridge-freezer.

So I called 301-0101, went through the usual labyrinth on the phone, whilst listening at the normal
high volume to what someone brain-dead likes to call music, and was then put into the 'escalation'
process, which has a lead-time of five working days. Wunnerful!

Sadly, that will not give their weaklings long enough to bulk up so that they will be able to move 7
metres what my malnourished pipis could move 70. I can see this process going on for 969 years.

Which is yet another reason for me to call the word 'progress' a one-word joke.

The pre-collection advertising said that items had to be able to be lifted by two men. Obviously something that could be moved by only one did not qualify. Or perhaps political-correctness has redefined 'men'. It now means weaklings.

Update 1: Ten days after the original collection-time the fridge-freezer has still not been taken, despite two calls to the Council. The contractor has not yet even emailed me...

Update 2; It is now eleven days after the collection date. I have just had a call from a hyperbolically bureaucratic woman from the Council, who said that the fridge-freezer would not be collected, because carrying it up the steps to the road was 'a health and safety issue', and that that had been checked by 'independent auditors', and that she 'supported the decision.' Please! If those purblind fools at the Council insist on changing the system that has worked for years (we took our inorganic items to the side of the road), and replacing it with one in which collectors come on to our properties to collect it, that means that on Waiheke, which has a large number of properties with steep access, up and down, including some with flights of steps from the road that are many times longer than my short 7 metres, then they must accommodate a wide variety of situations. I told that very stupid woman that I have, by myself, carried heavy things up and down those steps many many times. There are only twenty-nine steps, in three short flights, with two landings on the way up for taking a rest. So their 'two men' should find it easy to carry a small fridge-freezer up. Two--me and another man--carried it down, years ago. Those people are intransigent bureaucratic fools, with a bad system and the attitudes of blockheads. To repeat, I moved the fridge-freezer, by myself, up the hill the 70 metres from my cabin, but those bureaucrats say they cannot move it the remaining 7 metres with two 'men.' 'Progess' is indeed a one-word joke.

Would that we again had our own Council and were not ruled by arrogant bureaucrats over the water!

Sunday, 30 October 2016


Those opposed to a Waiheke Council on the imaginary grounds that we could not afford self-governance are being blind to the colossal waste foisted upon us by The Empire Over The Water--by Rodney Hide's Supercilious Super-Silly. If we had our own hands on our own purse-strings we could cut out all of that. They are also being blind to the detailed, careful budgeting published by the Our Waiheke people. Of course we can run an island of 8200 on $24 million. In 2010 when the numbers were crunched the average rates were $1600; without Auckland they would have been $1300.

The hubristic Empire has a Rolls-Royce mentality and a waywardness with money that treats the
anguish of ratepayers with contempt. But it has to support its bloated staff of 11,000, and its
out-of-control 'Council-Controlled Organisations.'

Two large instances of waste out of many are easy to give. First the millions Waiheke missed out on
in NZTA subsidies for roads and footpaths, because for years they fell far short of applying for our
full entitlements. Second, the library. We needed a new one, yes, but it did not need to cost $9
million--after 'out of control spending' blew out an already exorbitant $5.4 million budget. A good
building with the same sort of facilities could have been built for a lot less than that $5.4
million, minus the fripperies and the huge waste in the planning stages. There was meeting after
meeting with expensive architects, making plans, plans, plans--which were inappropriate, and were
scrapped. So was the expensive newly-installed sign outside the old complex. The latter was an
example of failure to plan ahead. The Empire is incapable of planning a bunion.

Many small wasteful things add up to large waste. Small ones include the timetables in bus-shelters.
We used to put copies of the same timetables supplied on buses, which show all the bus and ferry
services all over the island, which is what people want to know. That was simple and cheap. But The Empire Over The Water decided to give unique numbers to all the shelters, and then to print numbered, customised timetables for each one, which of course must be reprinted and replaced every time there is a change. But each numbered timetable only shows the services from that stop, not all the services for the whole island. So now people do not get the information they need, but at far greater expense. Then there is manifold overspending on contracts, such as $3800 for four wood-faced steps in a bush track (which to add insult to injury were ill-made). That's about 6 metres of timber and some nails--roughly $30 worth. When I was on the Board I refused to sign it off. But they did it anyway. Rolls-Royce bureaucrats rule.

Auckland is a mess. An overspending mess. It is a overspending mess in its own backyard (look, for
example, at the number of times it has torn up and repaved Queen Street's footpaths). We do not need
that bloated mess in our backyard.

And to the people who have been running full-page advertisements about marine reserves demonising
some candidates. You are ignoring the fact that that would ONLY be done after an island referendum.
It would not be the decision of a few Board members.

Footnote: the 1989 takeover of the islands by Auckland City Council was illegal under the Local
Government Act. In the Act, three things must be true to be a city and a city council. When Auckland
took over the islands it lost two of them. Therefore from then on it was not legally a city. But no
one noticed so it was not challenged. We have the right in natural justice to get back was
unlawfully stolen from us in 1989.


Oh, goody!, said the boys and girls at AT. We have a really, really brilliant idea. We'll get the
Waiheke Bus Company to paint its buses in nice flash colours. Think how much that will improve the
bus service over there where all them hippies and drug-addicts live. They will be SO happy. And it
only costs $90,000 per bus. Not much to us city-siders. So they gave the command: paint them silver
or silver-and-navy-blue.

Oh, goody!, said the boys and girls at AT. We have a really, really brilliant idea. We'll get the
Waiheke Bus Company to paint its buses in new flash colours. We've changed our minds about silver or silver-and-navy-blue. Now we want different colours, and 'Waiheke Link' and stuff splashed long the sides as well. And it only costs $90,000 all over again. Not much. Not very much.

Oh, goody, said the boys and girls at AT. We have a really, really brilliant idea. We'll change the
bus timetables. But we won't reprint them in advance so that everyone can look up the new times--and we'll make a mess of the website so that they will be hard to find there. And because we are very clever we'll put on the website that the buses leave the bays at two minutes to the hour instead of on the hour as they have for ever and a day. Think how much that will foul up the lives of all and sundry! Yay! Aren't we clever city-siders!? Oh, yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How wunnerful it is to have our lives ruled by mainlanders. You see, they have superior brains. Very

Sunday, 26 June 2016


I have just prepared to upgrade to VDSL from ADSL2, because Chorus said it was now available where I am (I only have copper available not fibre, so VDSL is the maximum speed I can get). That should give me a much faster download speed, up from a present maximum of about 7.5 megabits per second to something well over 20Mbps, even more than 30Mbps, depending on which article on the Internet you read. Some data gives 50Mbps as achievable by VDSL.

But the super-brain technical bod who reset my router remotely so it would handle VDSL automatically when Chorus connected my line to a different circuit was astounded to see that even under ADSL2 it was signalling to the Waiheke exchange at a massive 21Mbps (and ADSL2 is meant to peak at 10Mbps). So why, if it is talking to the exchange at that speed am I only getting 7.5Mbps from the Internet?

The answer he said is that the link off the island over to that place called New Zealand does not have
enough bandwidth to cope when we are all on line. Which means that all the upgrades on the island by Chorus to ADSL2 and VDSL, even to fibre where it is available, are being hampered by the size of the 'pipe'--the bandwidth of the link between us and the mainland.

It is about time Chorus gave us a better link so that we get the full benefit of whatever category
of line we have. Otherwise upgrades are like the Tooth Fairy–a lot of fiction and only a sixpence
under your pillow.

Thursday, 26 May 2016


I wish these people and all ike them would give up and go away.

First they put the island through a long and expensive fight to prevent an ugly monstrosity of a marina in Matiatia Bay--a fight they rightly lost hands down. But now something even more monstrous is being proposed at Kennedy Point. Yet again it is over-the-top vandalism, this time of Anzac Bay.

Sunday, 22 May 2016


The way our rates are calculated is grossly unfair, and in the end will kill Waiheke.
Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 we have the right to a fair system, because section 27 tells officialdom that everyone has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice, which the House of Lords has ruled means 'fairness writ large.' And the rights laid down in our oldest law, the Imperial Laws Applications Act 1988, makes it incumbent on authorities not to bring ruin upon individuals or communities.
To base rates on assumed property values—which are now only rateable values with little or no relationship to actual market values—is iniquitous. It means that someone with an old bach that happens to have been built in what the market now sees as a prime location will be rated an amount that is highway robbery. Robbery by a bloated mainland regime with a highway mentality and speculators for brains.
Many islanders are asset-rich and cash-poor, because that insufferable idol 'market forces' has bestowed a high value on their property that has no relationship to their modest or minimal incomes. So they are rated out of their homes, which are bulldozed and replaced by sprawling palaces, which further increase rateable valuations in that neighbourhood, and so the vicious process continues like a Canadian wild-fire, until wonderful Waiheke has been destroyed. That process is accelerated by the fact that the palaces are often only part-time palaces, just super-baches, so the permanent community is eroded.
We know all that, but are powerless to stop it under the present regime. If we had our own council we could institute a rating regime that really would be fairness writ large, writ very large. So more strength to Our Waiheke's fight to get us back to having our own council. (In the meantime we could try getting feisty with the Super Silly and press for a fair system, and when the SS refuses, as it would, add that to our case for our own council, pointing to the way the SS has not acted in our best social, economic, environmental and cultural interests.)
We need a way of creating rateable values that would not drive out those on minimal, modest and middle incomes, and would militate against the spread of sprawling palaces. A simple way of achieving that would be to use a formula to create rateable valuations based on floor-area (and they would be purely rateable valuations, made only for rating purposes, not exorbitant 'market' valuations). Income and floor-area are well related: poor people live in modest houses not palaces; the wealthy do not live in cabins.
In such a formula the domestic floor-area would be the basis of the calculation. It would exclude external garages, workshops, livestock accommodation, etc. It would be just the home and any sleepouts (the home-space would include integrated garage-space).
Under that way of calculating rates the annual general charges would also be calculated on the same floor-areas.
So the total rates on a property would be the combination of a rate and an annual general charge, and if the formula was such that it traced out a rising hyperbolic curve for the whole island (a curve that starts fairly flat and rises ever more steeply as it assesses the sprawling palaces), the result would be eminently fair to those on minimal, modest and middle incomes, and also to those on high and very wealthy incomes. Everyone's rates would be a close match to their incomes. A thousand dollars to a billionaire is like a dollar to a pensioner widow. The floor-area basis would also discourage excessive enlargement of houses, and could be tweaked to make ones above a certain size prohibitively expensive.
A very fair formula is the one below,  in which R is the total rates and F is the floor-area described above. The first part of the formula, the bit before the plus sign, is for reckoning the rates proper, and the second is for reckoning the annual general charge:
R = 0.0005*F³ + F/.5
In words, the rates on a property would be the cube of the floor-area multiplied by 0.0005, and the annual general charge would be the floor-area divided by 0.5 (the 0.0005 and 0.5 were arrived at by experimentation, based on arriving at reasonable figures for average homes, but the most important thing is that the steepening curve produced by the cube in the first part of the formula and also by the divisor in the second part, not what multiplier and divisor might actually be used; those two just found to be good ones).
That would mean, for examples, that properties with houses with floor-areas of 30m², 50m², 90m², 125m², 300m², and 1000m² would have these rates bills each year: for 30m², $73.50; for 50m², $162.50; for 90m² (a common size for a 3-bedroom house), $544.50; for 125m², $1226; for 300m², $14,100; and for 1000m², $502,000.
The council would first reckon a total for the island then adjust those individual rates to match the budget it had arrived at after public consultation. For example, it might be that using that formula the total for the island would come to, say, $15 million (to give a purely hypothetical figure), and the council budget might be $20 million (ditto). In that case all the above figures would be multiplied by 20/15, i.e., 1.333, making them: for 30m², $97.98; for 50m², $216.61; for 90m², $725.82; for 125m², $1624.36; for 300m², $18,795.30; and for 1000m², $669,166. For a widow on pension in a 30m² cottage $97.98 has the same sort of relationship to her income as $669,166 does to a billionaire's.

Most people would be in the lower, flat part of the exponential curve. Excessive houses would be in the upper, ever-steeper parts. (It is obvious that homes with huge areas would face rates that might be prohibitive even for billionaires, so a ceiling could be set at a certain area, at which the rates curve would flatten off.)

That system would end forever the rates regime which if left will corrode and kill our community and our way of life. That must not happen.

Thursday, 5 February 2015


It has been reported that the Auckland Super-silly is to triple what Waiheke residents are charged for rubbish-collection.

If you think about it that is perfectly logical. Because from the point of view of the island the new, shiny, Hide-bound Super-Silly is at least three times the rubbish that the old council was, so it is perfectly logical that we should pay it three times as much of that inflated rubbish we optimists call money so as to keep it three times as rubbishly happy.

Obviously, therefore, if the logic is that impeccable, this latest 'highway robbery' by Overwater Bin Laden must be fair. I am surprised that anyone could possibly be in denial about that. ;-)

Thursday, 4 September 2014


For decades Waiheke's friendly bus-drivers have obligingly used as an
unofficial bus-stop the foot of Okoka Road, a side-road off O'Brien Road
(the main road into the Rocky Bay Village). There is no footpath anywhere in
O'Brien Road, and never should be there, because it would be prohibitively
expensive and would ruin that lovely bush environment.

Most passengers want to go to houses in Okoka Road or in roads off it or in
the nearby part of O'Brien Road, but if they a forced to alight at the
official bus-stop further up the road they are then forced to use O'Brien
Road as a footpath, which means they will have to be walking on the other
side of the crest of the hill on a semi-blind bend, perhaps laden down with
groceries or parcels, which will make them a target a metre and a half wide.
There are no houses anywhere near the official bus stop, so few people want
it compared with the numbers who want to alight at Okoka Road.

Obviously, it is much safer to let passengers off at the entrance to a quiet
side-road, where for added safety they can wait for a while in a parking
spot at the side, than be forced to walk along the main road. And while they
are alighting at Okoka Road they are kept safe by the bus, because for those
20-or-so seconds it will be blocking both O'Brien Road and Okoka Road,
bringing all traffic to a stand-still.

O'Brien Road is so narrow that it does not matter where it stops it will
block the road, so it makes no difference to traffic in that road, but it
makes a great deal of difference to passengers, both adults and children
getting off school buses, particularly when it is wet, or dark, or both, or
when they have a lot of stuff to carry, as islanders often do.

The safe, considerate practice of using the foot of Okoka Road has been
going on for decades, but a new manager at the Waiheke Bus Company decided
for no good reason to prohibit it. So now people are forced many times a
day, every day, to be in the least safe situation. They are forbidden the
most safe one.

Why? Because some time ago an impatient fool of a motorist could not wait
for the bus to move on and pulled out on to the wrong side of the road to
pass it and nearly hit a cop car head on. But the cop (who is no longer on
the island), instead of going crook at the fool, threatened the bus driver
with a hefty fine, and disqualification for weeks if he ever did that again.
The cop had no right to say that, he was wrong in law, wrong in sense, and
wrong to let anger and his blue shirt dictate to an innocent bus driver who
was only doing his job in the best possible way. But the new manager,
irrationally, chose to side with that coppish wrong-headedness.

Worse, an Auckland Transport bureaucrat has since chosen for equally
spurious reasons to back that dictatorial manager.

Must we wait till someone is injured or killed before those people see
reason and let drivers return to best practice?

Thursday, 31 July 2014


'Kim Dotcom joins Newstalk ZB's Tim Roxborogh and Tim Wilson in studio to talk about why he think he's a polarising figure, why he started up The Internet Party, also NZ's internet and Hollywood licensing and why he's waiting until September 15 to release his "bombshell" on John Key.'

For some reason they have edited it so that the second half of the interview comes first and the first half second.

But as always with public figures it is nice to see the real man speaking for himself, not the fictitious media constructs that we usually have rammed down our throats.

A rebel like him would be right at home on Waiheke, the island of rebels.

Tuesday, 8 July 2014


A couple of weeks ago about twenty property-owners in O'Brien Road recieved an incomprehensible circular from Auckland Council. It was written in opaque bureaucratese, it gave no useful information, it talked about proposed changes in 'overlays' in our street that might affect us. That meant little or nothing to most people, because 'overlays' is a technical term used in computer geographical information systems (GIS). Worse, if we tried to get to the bottom of what was meant and went to the Internet and carefully entered the link given, it proved to be wrong. A second letter a week or so letter admitted that it was wrong and gave us a new one. But it too failed to take us to the right place. It too was wrong.

After the first one, when I called the helpdesk number given in the letter to find out what it meant, the person who answered said he had only started in the job that day, did not know, and would have to do some research to find out. A day later he got back to me, and after I had laboriously wended through a plethora of web-links at his prompting I finally found out what this 'overlay' was all about, and what it would mean if the Council's bureaucrats were successful in imposing it via their new Unitary Plan.

Here is a screenshot of the map:

As you can see, meandering through all the properties near the top of the bluish overlay, from a little below
the intersection of Te Whau Drive and O'Brien Road to about halfway down O'Brien Road, is a bluish dotted line. The area bounded by it is what the bureaucrats have determined is to have new zoning rules, and have applied for them in the new Unitary Plan. It covers the public forest (the Kuakarau Bay Forest Reserve), which is fine, but it also 'overlays'--read 'imposes'--draconian changes in the rules that govern what all those property-owners are permitted to do in 25% to 90% of their own properties. What they could do as of right would be slashed.

At present, under the existing District Plan, they are permitted, as of right, to build a dwelling with a floor-area up to 10% of the area of their section. So someone with 1000 square metres of land is permitted, without a resource consent, to build a 100-square-metre house, up to 8 metres high.

But if the Council's big blue becomes law, that would be slashed, regardless of the size of the property, to a 25-square-metre dwelling. A shed. No more than 5 metres high. Worse, that would apply only to the blue area. So one part of your property would have one set of rules, the other an entirely different set. That would obviously have a big effect on many lives, as well as seriously affecting values, and therefore mortgages.

A senior planner in another part of the Council empire said that under Section 85 of the Resource Management Act and the case-law arrived at under it, it is illegal to unreasonably restrict development on private land.

What is reasonable is obvious: it is what has been decided during the democratic process that arrived at the District Plan. Thus anything that kneecaps the District Plan is illegal, and therefore one part of the Council is trying to impose what another part knows is illegal.

How silly that line is is underscored by the fac that down the bottom it includes a chunk of the sea. So the most anyone would be permitted to build in the sea in that area would be a shed!!!

When I appealed to the bureaucrats to admit that that meandering line was a mistake, and to redraw it along the common boundary between the Kuakarau Forest and private properties, not through the properties, and to pull the submission so that we do not have to go through the process of making cross-submission, they refused. They said we have to go through the process. Therefore we have to waste our lives correcting a bureaucratic botch-up. That is bureaucratic thuggery piled on bureaucratic thuggery.

For those who affected who want to add their voices to fighting this folly, cross-submissions can be made online. The relevant Council submission is 5716-222. This link will take you to where you can select the form.

Tuesday, 1 July 2014


As they say, it pays to shop around. It also pays to check and check on what you are told. For a long time the only access to the Internet available where I am was dialup, until by the grace of God ADSL broadband was made available in late 2012, about three years ahead of schedule. But when I investigated VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol--which means running your landline phone services over the Internet instead of on the traditional hardware, whilst retaining the same telephone number/s) I was told by what seemed a knowledgeable provider that ADSL was not fast enough. VDSL was needed. Which ruled out VOIP for me, because Chorus has not provided VDSL.

But when I refused to accept what that provider had told me and did some deeper research on Google I found a discussion site that seemed to prove it wrong. It also pointed to the cheapest VOIP provider in New Zealand: 2Talk. The discussion did put question-marks over 2Talk's service, but as one very satisfied person said, 'If it works you don't need support.' And in practice I found the support to be excellent.

I called 2Talk, and after waiting on hold for a very long time found out that ADSL is fast enough to drive VOIP, and helped by the helpful salesman I determined the best package for my needs. The prices were amazingly low, so if I swapped from Telecom I would save a lot, yet at the same time I would as a normal part of the deal be getting a huge range of services both basic and luxurious that Telecom cannot provide (or if it can it has never offered them to me).

2Talk referred me to one of its agents BanxSystems, a company that to my delight manifested superlative service, even in passing offering me other services, and far more capacity at far lower prices than other providers--such as ten times the storage capacity: a gigabyte instead of 100MB.

Even better they initiated all the switching-over for me while I was on the phone, and the VOIP hardware, a good British machine, was couriered to me the morning after I clicked on agreement. As the Courier Post lady said, 'You remember people like that.' You do indeed, and you keep dealing with them. When the transfer of the numbers actually happened it was a simple, smooth, error-free, worry-free change. Banx linked into my computer and did all the configuration for me, guided me quickly and professionally through a few queries, and I was away.

In these days when service is often so poor, or even non-existent, to it is a joy to deal with a company that gives excellent service, and even goes far beyond the extra mile. Take a bow Banx :-) You understand the basic of business: Look after your customers and the bottom line will look after itself; look after your bottom line and sooner or later your customers will look somewhere else.

Also take a highly-deserved bow Ben at 2Talk (a very service-oriented leader on their help-desk), because when 2Talk and Banx ran into a roadblock created by that band of knave$ called Choru$ (whose actions constantly show that it cares about money not people), he worked out a way round it--and thus provided what Chorus had refused to provide, despite the promises it had made years ago. Without his sterling efforts my transfer to VOIP could not have happened.

(The only broadband we can get in Rocky Bay is ADSL1, the slowest form of DSL. Chorus said years ago that its bottom line in New Zealand would be ADSL2, so no one should be on less, and by now most New Zealanders should be on VDSL or fibre. The 'roadblock' was that 2Talk provides its VOIP service only on ADSL2, but with a bend and tweak, some lateral thinking via a sister company and willing effort it can get past that and use ADSL1, and it did.)

On top of all that I was delighted to find that the performance of the broadband line was much better with 2Talk. Under Telecom the download speed was about 5.5Mbps on SpeedTest. But with 2Talk the test averages generally hovers round 7Mbps, plus or minus 0.1Mbps, with a best so far of 7.15Mbps, which is about the fastest you can expect from ADSL1. I have not seen it go below 6.5Mbps during the test. Not brilliant by international or even national standards, thanks to Chorus, but the best to be expected in the present technical circumstances.

As if that were not enough you get an amazing level of comprehensive, detailed control over your line/s via 2Talk's software, as well as options on your landline not available on the Waiheke exchange, such as Caller ID--all bundled at no extra charge. In fact, Caller ID is so clever that when a call is coming in it looks up the number in the White Pages and tells you who is calling. You also get as part of the bundle such things as hold music (the music of your choice), blacklisted numbers (so that people you do not want calling you can never get through), sophisticated forwarding options, multiple numbers on your one physical line with different answerphone messages for each, conference calls, all conversations recorded in full if you wish, call-history, a list of missed calls, and so on--the juicy list is long.

One small aspect of having a voip phone that I find a constant boon is having such wide-ranging and precise control over the incoming volume at my fingertips, because it enables me to shut down to a whisper the crass choices for on-hold 'music' made by the musically-challenged or damp down a loud voice or PABX whose output is too high.

My move to VOIP can be summed up by something the Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Auckland said to me many years ago when he was exulting over a new artificial-intelligence computer system that his department had just had donated: 'It's like having a Rolls-Royce when you only had a bicycle before.' I would never want to go back. I would upgrade his comment: 'It's like being beamed up from your bicycle to the Starship Enterprise.'

When you move to VOIP you do not have to chuck out your old analogue phones. You can use them as cheap, dumb extensions on your VOIP system. To do that you get an ATA converter (such as the inexpensive CISCO SPA122) from PB Tech (which is the best place to buy hardware and software in Auckland) and plug your old phones into it.

The $$$ bottom line? There are some one-off costs to set up VOIP--a phone, an ATA converter if you get one, and the cost of transferring your phone number and setting it up ($50)--but the savings every month will compensate for that, and the Rolls-Royce/Enterprise is a joy to use.


Footnote: It is amazing, given all the above, that Telecom (now calling itself Shark--whoops, Spark--for some peculiar reason known only to the snottiest little green men on Alpha Centauri's third rock) does not have a VOIP offering. Its staff think it will have one, sometime, but it does not have one now. How very odd! If it did it could be making a lot more money from the same number of lines, because if people now have, say, three physical lines, one for voice, one for the Internet and one for fax, they could put all three on one VOIP line, then Telecom could sell the other two physical lines to two other VOIP customers. Instead it is letting 2Talk and Banx and others walk away with its customers. And it is highly unlikely that it will ever get them back. It keeps blinding itself to the fact that it created and continues to create customers for everyone else. Every single customer with some other supplier is one that it created. It needs to change its mindset, not its name. Changing its name will only make things worse, because there is a lot of brand-loyalty attached to 'Telecom.'

Saturday, 29 March 2014


A Waiheke Island Myth

Part 1

On Waiheke Island, New Zealand, a myth has grown up among a handful of people in the Rocky Bay Village that both the village and the bay at its foot have an alternative name: Omiha. Or, worse, that Omiha is the 'real' name and Rocky Bay is only an alternative of little or no significance and not in daily use. And that 'Omiha' is the original Maori name. All that is at best an ignorant error or a mistaken falsehood, at worst a wilful lie.
As that map of the original subdivision proves, clearly labelled as such in the middle, the original Maori name of the land that became the Rocky Bay Village was Kuakarau. The land was a block of Maori land called the Kuakarau Block (plus a tiny bit of the Whakanewha Block in the bottom east corner, just above where it says No. 19 on the picture). The old spelling was Kauakarau, as above, but due to the late Kato Kauwhata, who was then the Maori Elder on Waiheke, that was corrected to Kuakarau and gazetted as that by the New Zealand Geographic Board in 2004.

The 'Omiha' thing was nothing but the invention of a couple of Irish-Belgian Pakeha, who grossly insulted Maoritanga when for marketing reasons they appropriated a whole lot of Maori symbolism in their marketing prospectus so as to sell what in today's money was over six million dollars worth of sections in their subdivision. For that they needed a Maori name, so they changed 'Rocky Bay', the correct name of the bay to 'Omiha Bay', which they had no right in law to do, then used the first word of that unlawful label as their name for the name of the village, which had nothing to do with the original name of the land: Kuakarau. But history and usage prevailed, so the right name, Rocky Bay, again became the name by which the bay was known by all and sundry, and therefore the village too. As the old saying goes: 'Truth will out.'

The bay first appears labelled Rocky Bay on an 1865 Maori Land Court map that accompanied a successful claim in that year by three Maori men to joint-ownership of the Kuakarau Block (there is a copy of that map later on this page). In none of the genealogies that they recounted to the Court, which it recorded in the minutes, and nowhere in the Court record, is there any mention of any 'Omiha' or 'Miha' or or 'O Miha' or 'Mihi' or 'Au Miha' (which covers all of the spurious verbal stories about the 'Omiha' name that have been bandied about at various times--none of them with any official documentary provenance and all false). The Court minutes make no mention of a single one of those variations on 'Omiha', only of Kuakarau. Why should it? They are all arrantly false. That block was acquired by a Pakeha in 1897, then farmed. Twenty-five years later it was subdivided and became the present village. As the photos show, such as the one below which was taken in or about 1922 before the subdivision, it was then only farmland and bush.

The error, the mistaken falsehood, wilful lie, or whatever it may be in whatever quarter... can be traced to the misreading of a Crown map of 1877--i.e., reading the name of a mere whare (a Maori hut) as the name of a bay, and ignoring the label 'Rocky Bay' and moving that label to Whakanewha Bay. To those blunders were was added work behind the scenes--outside due process of law--by parties with a personal interest that they did not declare, sometimes embellished with a nice little story for which there is no documentary provenance. To that has now been added misfeasance--wrongdoing by officials--blatant, egregious wrongdoing by officials who lied to the New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB) and wilfully misled it into a wrong judgement.

No private, unoffficial sign can change any of the facts, even if it has just been refurbished (in mid June 2017) with a lick or two of paint. An error is an error, not matter how many times it is repeated, or painted.

In New Zealand law there is only one lawful way to put a name on the map, and unless that has been done a name does not have true legal status. You must apply to the New Zealand Geographic Board (NZGB), which must investigate the truth, and when it has established the true name, which should be very easy, it gazettes it. That is the due process of law. But in the case of Rocky Bay a few people worked illegally, behind the scenes, to 'establish' a falsehood--namely that 'Omiha Bay' is the original Maori name for the bay, and 'Omiha' the original Maori name for the village above it. Their unlawful efforts have given rise to the 'Omiha' myth, because they created a particle of 'provenance', which looked like truth, but was and is entirely false. Their unlawful efforts were nothing but artificial insinuation, the seeding of illegal records, which were then innocently copied over and over again by people who did not know better and assumed that the falsities were true. Groundless habit stomped all over the Crown and free-custom facts and circumvented due process of law.

As well as being unlawful the 'Omiha' myth is wrong: it is entirely untrue. The proof of that was established long ago. In 1877 the government, the Crown, did an extremely detailed map of Waiheke Island, a map so detailed that it even recorded the names of whares (Maori huts) as the names of those who owned them or dwelt in them (in those days roads were virtually non-existent and thus postal addresses had yet to be so dwellings were marked with names). That map clearly recorded the name of the bay as Rocky Bay, as had the Maori Land Court map twenty-two years earlier. And in the area above it, which became the Rocky Bay Village, the map also recorded three whares: Kuakarau, after which the block was named, and two subsidiary whares, Ohinearei and Omiha. So Omiha was only the name of a whare, never the name of either the bay or the village.

The notion that 'Omiha' is the alternative name for Rocky  Bay is therefore erroneous, a misreading of a map, a misreading that for some became wilful, a misreading given false provenance by force of personality, by mana, by endless self-reinforcing repetition, by the scornful rejection of every bit of the hard evidence to the contrary, by pulling fictitious strings behind the scenes, etc. Worst of all, none of that activity employed due process of law, it evaded, avoided and ignored the process laid down in the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008 and the equivalent  legislation that preceded it. In short, 'Omiha' was illegally inserted on to the map (by Pakeha who shall not be named here to protect possible sensitivities).

There is not a skerrick of true documentary evidence for the notion that 'Omiha' was ever the Maori name for either the village or the bay at its foot. On the contrary. But the solid, independent evidence in official, Crown documentation done in 1865 and 1877 is for Rocky Bay--and no other name--for the village and therefore also the village--all Waiheke's seaside villages take their names from the bays on which they are situated. But, unfortunately, repetition of any myth takes on the semblance of established fact, and in the case of 'Omiha' that has now reached such a state that anyone who shows the documentary proof that there is only name--Rocky Bay--for both the bay and the village is likely to be treated with contempt, pilloried, mocked and scorned, ignored, even abused. In earlier years what was then called the Waiheke Community Board appointed me as Rocky Bay spokesperson, which was perfectly correct, but then, to my astonishment, refused to have Rocky Bay gazetted.

Misrepresentation and falsification of history remain misrepresentation and falsification no matter how many times they are asserted. Assertion does not create fact. Fact is what fact is. Endless repetition of an unlawful falsehood does not make it true. The undeniable fact here is that Rocky Bay is the name of the bay and the village. Not 'Omiha.' It does not matter how many times you claim that the Earth is flat, it remains round.

To repeat what bears repeating, because it is so often dishonoured, in New Zealand law no geographic placename is official until gazetted by the New Zealand Geographic Board, as laid down in the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008. Unfortunately, 10,000 New Zealand placenames have yet to be gazetted--including Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Waiheke Island, etc., etc., etc. Thus in the twenty-first century the map of New Zealand is a mess, because there are a vast number of names in everyday use, names that are well-established in free custom, even with a great deal of Crown provenance, but have no official standing in law. That includes Rocky Bay; for despite being recorded officially by the Crown in 1865 and 1877 it has still not been gazetted!!! Or even recognised. One hundred and forty years, surely, is enough time for a branch of modern officialdom to notice what the government's judicial and administrative branches laid down in the nineteenth century--for Crown employees to obey the Crown.

Unfortunately the bureaucrats who advise the NZGB, the so-called secretariat, has repeatedly lied to the Board--they committed misfeasance--by claiming that 'Omiha' is the original Maori name, which has misled the Board into making rejecting the truth: Rocky Bay. Original means first, it means that nothing preceded it, and that that is a demonstrable, documented fact. None of the those qualifications apply to 'Omiha'. It is not even an original Maori name for the bay or the village, only for a whare that was there in the nineteenth century, and by 1922 had been long gone. But, of course, bureaucrats cannot bring themselves to say 'We goofed; we'll fix it', so they still fight to maintain the 'Omiha' falsehood. Still, they are in effect rudely telling Rocky Bay people that they do not know where they live.

But the official vacuum of 10,000 has enabled unofficial, de facto 'standards' to multiply, and in the case of Rocky Bay they have added seeming credence to the Omiha myth by repeating it in ways that look official but are neither official nor lawful. Google Earth, for example, has picked up the error, as have other publishers of maps, from the worst of those de facto 'standards', and the source of many repeats of the Omiha error, which is the unofficial system, the Address Finder, created and administered by the New Zealand Post Office under the management of a Mr Geoffrey Pearse, its Addressing Services Manager. That system not only perpetuates the myth it has gone so far as to enforce it rigidly. Its Address Finder refuses to recognise Rocky Bay; it only recognises Omiha; it threatens large organisations with the loss of bulk-mailing discounts if they do not comply with its system; and its online version bluntly declares Rocky Bay invalid and only Omiha valid. That bureaucratic ignorance and instransigence means that the computer systems of entities all over the world which access the Post Office system to check the validity of New Zealand addresses are being wilfully and unlawfully misled; and in consequence when people in Rocky Bay fill in their personal details on paper or online they later find that the 'Rocky Bay' they put down has been altered to 'Omiha'--a place that does not, in truth, exist on Waiheke. And is confused with Omaha on the mainland.

NZ Post/Mr Pearse points the finger of blame, excuse, justification--call it what you will--at other entities, including the Fire Service, Auckland Council, and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), and LINZ's list of unofficial placenames, from which NZ Post has chosen not to select Rocky Bay-- despite copious evidence against that and many presentations of the truth. Officers in LINZ, which serves the NZGB, point a finger at the Council and, despite the indisputable documentary provenance, falsely claimed that Omiha is 'the original Maori name' for the 'locality'. Then they compounded that falsehood by not putting it square on the village on its ungazetted map, instead off the side!). So a horde of falsehoods circles the main unlawful falsehood, like crippled rats round a cache of rotten food.

One of the countless entities that have been boondoggled by the combination of the Omiha myth and the enforcement of it by the Post Office's unofficial system is of course the Electoral Commission. One effect of that was that not long after I arrived on the island many years ago I found myself disenfranchised--removed from the electoral roll--because my new address would not go into the electoral system. Since then the Electoral Commission has had to add a private area to its system, an area that only its staff can access, in which they can store correct information to counter whatever wrong information the Post Office might insist on. The national call centres of the three emergency services--ambulance, fire and police--also have the wrong name for the Rocky Bay Village in their systems, which creates a dangerous situation, because people in Rocky Bay may only have time to blurt out 'Rocky Bay' before they have to hang up, so the response may be too late. Life and property are constantly at risk due to the bureaucratic botch-up, the unlawful label, the wilful messing about behind the scenes.its system.

That danger must be emphasised by repetitition. If you live in Rocky Bay and have an emergency, and only have time to gasp out your street and village, the service you needed would not be able to find you. Your big heart-attack would kill you, the thugs would invade your home, your home would burn to the ground. Therefore that artificial insinuation of a false name, outside law, is not just a chronic nuisance it is life-threatening.

The Earthquake Commission is another of the countless organisations that have the wrong information, thanks to the unlawful Omiha myth and Post Office's unlawful enforcement of it (which caused an EQC officer to think that she could drive all the way to the island, because she thought the person in Rocky Bay who wanted an evaluation lived in Omaha, which is up north on the mainland, where the Prime Minister has a holiday home). A huge amount of time and energy all over the world is being wasted, because people are obliged by myth and bureaucratic Post Office intransigence to 'fix' computer data that was never wrong. The danger caused by wrong information in the emergency services is increased by the fact that 'Omiha' and 'Omaha' sound exactly the same, and that there is coincidence of like-sounding street-names Omiha Road and Omaha Drive.

The unlawful Omiha myth and the enforcement of it by the Post Office can mean, and does mean, that items destined for a Rocky Bay address may not arrive. They go elsewhere, or you may be told that delivery is impossible so they will never be collected, or they may be returned to the sender marked 'undeliverable'. I was on the verge of being accused of theft because a valuable item from Dell Computers, which was to be paid for on arrival, did not reach me. I finally tracked it down to a courier bin in Christchurch, and the courier company told me that there was an address very close to mine in that city, but it had not been delivered because everything in the address did not match there. In that case I knew something was missing, because of the close call with a serious accusation, but I often wonder how many deliveries never reach people, which they never knew about.

It is long past the time that the Omiha myth was acknowledged as a myth that was perpetuated unlawfully, and dismissed and killed off. Only accurate information should rule. Inaccurate information always causes problems, major and minor, and it always wastes time--in this case the time of people responsible for computer systems all over the planet.

To get things right, Rocky Bay, and that name alone, should be gazetted for the name of the village and the name of the bay. It alone has the indisputable provenance; it alone has the indisputable evidence; it alone is indisputably the true name for both.

The statutes are crystal clear. The Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 says that when due process of law is not followed, when justice and right are denied or even only deferred, then any decision made is 'void and holden for error' and 'shall be redressed and holden for none' (there shall be legal action and the wrong action will be made nothing). That specifically applies, amongst other things, to 'free customs', which that Act gives legal force in Crown low, and in this case 'Rocky Bay' has both government provenance, Crown provenance, and long-established free custom. 'Omiha', the whare long gone, has neither. On top of that, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 says that in official decisions 'everyone has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice,' and the Privy Council has ruled that 'natural justice' means 'fairness writ large.' Thus any decision that does not support Rocky Bay as the name of the bay and the village, to the exclusion of anything else, is unlawful many times over. It is not just, it is not right, it is not natural justice, it is not fairness writ large, it has nothing to do with due process of law. And thus it is open to legal action--which should and must be taken against wrongdoing--'shall be redressed'. This matter of the right names of this bay and village should have been fixed years ago with a simple please and a thank-you, but the unlawful actions and misfeasance determined to perpetuate a false name and give it legal claim have now escalated this matter to war. That is most regrettable. But take notice, all those officials who attempt to support the wrong names and refuse to support the right ones, you will face legal action. And statute and provenance and free custom will by the grace of God hand you defeat. Crown provenance of 1877 and the usage of free custom establish the truth; the 'Omiha' myth cannot stand against it.

(All those who are in any way related, however distant, to the man or woman called Omiha [both genders have been claimed], and whose hut is labelled on the 1877 map, should declare their interest and stay out of the discussion. The same goes for any who seek, by whatever spurious excuse, to support the unsupportable, false assertion that 'Omiha' is the original Maori name of the bay and the village. It was the Kuakarau Block; it was Kuakarau land; 'Omiha' was at most a subsidiary whare)

Behind the Scenes
A part of this constant push behind the scenes to get Omiha as the name of the village arises from a nice little story that it goes back to a captured slave woman called Omiha who lived where Omiha Road now is (but NZGB bureaucrats have suggested that it was actually a man called Moses and that it was O Miha, meaning 'Of Moses'; and have also suggested that it is Au Miha meaning rough seas and whale calves). But although strong feelings about an ancestor are very understandable, that does not give those who may have them any right to trample on history, the truth, common practice, established practice and due process of law to get their way, and thereby endanger life and property because 111 calls will  bring a speedy response or no response at all. Perhaps the notion that 'Omiha' was the name of the whole village was originally a misapprehension coloured by romantic desire, which then became an article of fond family faith, but the best way of keeping faith with ancestors--indeed the only way--is to stick to the truth. It is certainly not keeping faith with any forebear who got things wrong by blocking attempts to set things right.

One of the more recent attempts to set things right was again blocked by behind-the-scenes efforts.They are obliged to be behind the scenes because there are no facts to support them. That has been going on for years: unlawful manipulation behind the scenes to make semingly official the will of a few, perhaps of only one or two families. Every attempt to install the truth has been invisibly killed off.

It is disappointing that prime movers for one family deploy great mana to triumph over the historical facts. Those persons are most wonderful and admirable, truly most wonderful and admirable,  but even great mana cannot make endlessly repetition of false facts into true ones. And in this case, if they were to be true to what they usually are--blindingly honest and manifesting great integrity--they would change, would side with historical fact, would side with long-established common usage by the rest of the world, would side with due process of law, would cease getting at decision-makers behind the scenes, would put public safety at the top of the list, and would admit the truth--namely, that the two places where 'Omiha' might look official (village and bay) are only false provenance arising from groundless repetition. Then the only support for be for the only name that has true provenance as the name of the village and the bay: Rocky Bay.

The Facts, the Evidence, the Indisputable Historical Provenance
Again, one of the earliest pieces of documentary provenance for the name of the bay being Rocky Bay is on the official government map dated 1877, registration number 1667, held by the Auckland War Memorial Museum, which shows 'land adjudicated by the Native Land Court, land sold under Sir George Grey's Regulations 1853, old land claims, penny-an-acre grants, grants under Auckland Waste Lands Act 1858, and land alienated to general government.' The entire map covers Waiheke Island. This is the bit that covers Rocky Bay:

As all can see, the name of the bay is Rocky Bay--and nothing else. In those far-off days there was no village, just a collection of Maori establishments on which there were four Maori names recorded, two for areas, two for whares. The two names for areas were Kauakarau (a misspelling of Kuakarau that was later corrected by the late Kato Kauwhata who was then Waiheke's Maori Elder, and the correction was confirmed and gazetted by the NZGB), and Ko Hikapua. (Kaukarau is on the map twice, and circled between the repeats is what the librarian at Auckland Museum has identified as 342, a survey number associated with Kauakarau). The names of the two subsidiary whares recorded were Onhinearei and Omiha. Omiha  is said by some to be a woman, by others to be a man, who lived in that whare; others have other explanations. That spot is now the western end of  Omiha Road, so the name of the road, and only that, has excellent provenance. Unfortunately, the name of the Ohinearei whare has been lost to history, because nothing is named after it.

The big bay east of Rocky Bay, labelled Whakanewha Bay on the 1877 map, which is now the seaward edge of the Whakenewha Regional Park, and was in those days the seaward edge of the Maori block called the Whakanewha Block, is also misrepresented by the New Zealand Geographic Board's secretariat, as well by many uniformed printers of maps, which label it as 'Rocky Bay (Whakanewha Bay)', which is quite wrong, a fact underlined by the placement of the modern label 'Whakanewha' on the land above that bay, land that does not spill over to the land above Rocky Bay. So Rocky Bay is Rocky Bay; Whakanewha Bay is Whakanewha Bay. Two separate names for two bays. That is also what modern usage has long established. Whakanewha Bay is also clearly labelled as that and nothing else on an 1857 Crown map prepared by the Admiralty (detailed further down in this blog article), indeed far more clearly than on the 1877 map.

The documentation with the government's 1877 map, which was supplied by Auckland War Memorial Museum, states that the then government recorded the names of Maori whares. They were clearly marked with a small squarish dot beside them to differentiate them from other details. In the Rocky Bay area there are two names beside square dots: Ohinearei and Omiha. Omiha was a whare. A whare. A whare is not a bay or a village. It is a whare. A Maori hut. That makes nonsense of the chronic false insertion of 'Omiha' as the name of the bay and the village. As does the photo taken before the subdivision was done in 1922, which shows no whare; whatever had been there was long gone.

Underlining that the definition of 'whare' in the on-line Maori dictionarywhare


1. (noun) house, building, residence, dwelling, shed, hut, habitation, suit (cards).

Not village, not a bay, not a beach. But even if it did include any of those words the government map of 1877 does not plonk 'Omiha' in the bay or splat it across the village area. It places it on a spot that is now one end of Omiha Road.

Added to all that ineluctable provenance is Wise's Auckland Provincial Directory of 1950-51, 'containing the official list of over 1200 townships' extending from Gisborne to Whangarei. It had an entry for Rocky Bay on page 132 between its entries for Riverhead and Roranui, but between its entries for Omapere and Oneroa there is nothing--there is no Omiha. Indeed, there is no Omiha anywhere in Wise's, not just not on Waiheke Island. The listing for Rocky Bay did not show the names of every resident, only forty-nine of them, including the New Zealand Insurance Agent, J.F. McAuslin, and Mrs Annie M. O'Brien, after whose family Bush Road was changed to O'Brien Road, which is Rocky Bay's central main road and became the road into the village when it was extended up to the quarry later in the 1950's. Thus it is clear that the Omiha myth has been wrongly pushed upon us behind the scenes in far more recent years.

Added to those provenances is the note on this genealogical site (click on the link and search in the text on 'Rocky Bay'), which shows that the famous painter C.F. Goldie, who was born in 1870, holidayed in Rocky Bay in the early part of the twentieth century. There is also the undeniable fact that the Rocky Bay Regatta has been running since 1948, and is never called the Omiha Regatta.

In Islands of the Gulf by Shirley Maddock & Don Whyte published by Collins in 1968, she refers on page 280 paragraph 3 to 'the Hodsons at Rocky Bay'. ('Omiha' is of course not mentioned anywhere in the book--it is a non-fiction work).

Added to that is the fact that a local Rocky Bay society set up in 1933, which was persuaded to call itself after the woman/man called Omiha whose whare had been close to a parcel of  land it purchased, and so was persuaded to call itself the Omiha Recreational and Welface Society Incorporated (OWRS). But, despite that baseless oddity, it states clearly in Clause 3 of its articles of incorporation, dated the 19th of October 1933, that it is there for the Rocky Bay community; it makes no mention of any joint name; it is all Rocky Bay, Rocky Bay, Rocky Bay, and nothing else.

False Pillory
There may be some who see exposing the unlawful Omiha myth as an affront to the OWRS, even as an attack on it. It most certainly is not. The OWRS is not affected by establishing the geographic facts from solid historical evidence. Its name remains the same. A society in a village or town or city is not obliged to use the name of its locality, even if logically it should. It can call itself whatever it pleases, as did the OWRS--but as shown it clearly stated that the reason for its existence is Rocky Bay.

There may be some who think that exposing the Omiha myth is an attack on Maori and Maoridom. It most certainly is not. It is only on an error that happens to be a Maori word. If things were the other way about and the provenance were for Omiha and the myth was for Rocky Bay it would be the latter that would be attacked as wrong. I have successfully applied for the gazetting of three names on Waiheke Island: Te Akau O Hine, Tanerore Cove, and the correction of a misspelling--Kauakarau Bay to Kuakarau Bay. All are Maori names, and I was proud and happy to establish them in law.

No, the attack is on an error and nothing else. Certainty of nomenclature for our whereabouts is important and untoward consequences are always caused by uncertainty and error, particularly in this electronic, Internet age. This is all about setting the record straight.

Mr Jones has the right to be called Mr Jones and nothing else, because that is what his documentary record shows and proves. So does Rocky Bay, for the same reason. To persist in calling him Mr Smith because someone decided to prefer that is not just perpetuating a pointless myth, it is not just perpetuating a left-field 'mistake', it is wilfully perpetuating a lie. He is Jones, Jones, Jones.

In the real world the road-signs and bus-signs etc., have it right. It is long past time for everything else to do the same:

The graphic below is what the official map should show, and what the New Zealand Geographic Board should gazette--these names in these places, and nothing else. That is established local usage, long-established, and it alone should be respected above all else--not a name only used erroneously because of a blunder, a misreading of a map years ago.

Part 2: More Crown Provenance

Until recently what is in Part 1 was all that was known. But now even more forceful Crown provenance has been discovered, with the admirable help of librarians at the Auckland War Museum Library and three divisions of the Auckland Public Library. That multiple provenance adds further proof (not that any more was needed) first that Omiha has no claim to be on the Rocky Bay map as the name of the village or bay, second that to call it the original Maori name is arrogantly false; and third that the true name of Whakanewha Bay is exactly that.

The land that is now the Rocky Bay Village was in 1877 known to the Crown as the Kauakarau Block. It had of course been Maori land, and most Maori land became Crown land and private land, sometimes via the Crown and sometimes by direct negotiation with chiefs. (again, 'Kauakarau' was found to be a misspelling of Kuarakau, and was corrected and gazetted by the NZGB, so the fully legal name of the bay to the left of Rocky Bay in the above map of Rocky Bay is Kuakarau Bay.)

A clearer copy of the 1877 Crown map of Waiheke Island, showing only the Rocky Bay area and its immediate surrounds, is below. As can be seen, Kuakarau (to give it its corrected spelling) is on the map twice, once with dot beside it, which denotes a whare, and once without a dot beneath the claim number 352, which denotes an area. So it is obvious that the owner of the Kuakarau whare was also a major landowner.

When the land that is now the Rocky Bay Village was subdivided and sold to the public in 1922 by its then owner Judge O'Brien, it covered the Kuakarau Block and a tiny part of the Whakanewha Block (the bottom south-east corner of the village). So the only Maori words that have a Crown claim on the Rocky Bay locality are, primarily, Kuakarau, and to a very small extent, Whakanewha. The whares called Ohinearei and Omiha, which were on the Kuakarau Block, have no claim of any sort to be the name of the village or the bay. They were subsidiary whares on Kuakarau land, and are long gone, and were long gone in 1922.

The subdivision map shows clearly that the land was the Kuakarau Block. An excerpt is below, preceded by the clearer scan of the 1877 map referred to in Part 1. The first, to emphasise again, is a Crown document; it is Crown provenance, irrefutable. The second, the 1922 subdivision map, employs Crown nomenclature for the blocks of land involved, the Kuakarau and Whakanewha Blocks.

Before those 1877 and 1922 mappings, another map was done, in a survey from 1849 to 1855 by the Royal Navy, the Admiralty, a Crown entity, which mapped the approaches to Auckland Harbour, and that of course included a map of Waiheke Island. Its date of publication is 1857. It shows Whakanewha Bay labelled as that, which was perfectly fitting, because it was the seaward edge of the Whakanewha Block, which is now the Whakanewha Regional Park, and therefore the name has Crown provenance twice over, for land and sea, and has the name has also been in free custom since. This is that Crown map:

And close-ups of the relevant parts (Kuakarau is here misspelt as Kowhakarau):

In short, Whakanewha Bay is that, and nothing else. It is not 'Rocky Bay,' it is not 'Rocky Bay (Whakanewha Bay)', it is not 'Half Moon Bay', or anything else it might have been called in word or on maps that have ungazetted terms.

And Rocky Bay is Rocky Bay, both the bay and village. It is not 'Omiha Bay' and the village is not 'Omiha'. 'Omiha' has no factual or lawful claim to be a name for Rocky Bay, or any locality on Waiheke Island. Any map that says so is ignorant of Crown fact, it is unofficial and illegal.

Part 3: Fatal Consequence

The Post Office Address Finder, run by Mr Geoffey Pearse, is assumed to be both official and accurate because it is on the Post Office website under the Post Office logo. It is neither. It would be better called Mr Pearse's Address Mangler; it is not official, and is only as accurate as his thoughts. Its consequences can be fatal, and have been, because computer systems all over the world, public, private and corporate, are linked to it.

When people who live in a place called ABC, and call it ABC in free custom, particularly when their free custom is backed by long-established provenance on nineteenth-century Crown maps, but the correct ABC is replaced by an incorrect XYZ in Mr Pearse's Address Mangler, the first consequence is that they have been insulted. It is very bad manners. Because when the people in ABC fill out their address, a data-entry person somewhere in the world will find that that will not go in. No matter how hard they try ABC will be blocked by the Address Mangler, which will force them to enter XYZ. That means the people at that ABC are being treated as so stupid that they do not know where they live, and must have their ignorance and stupidity corrected by people with superior knowledge. That is an insult. And the time of countless data-entry people all over the world is being wasted.

Further up the scale of consequences is the inconvenience, wasted time and disruption caused by problems with mail and courier deliveries, because they are delayed, or misdirected, or lost, or people are told they cannot be delivered and must spend time making corrective arrangements. The envelope or parcel has ABC on it, but the delivery people are told by the Address Mangler that there is no such place, and they may, as has happened, send it off to some place that has a similar address.

Next up the scale is problems with the Electoral Commission, with the worst being that someone may be disenfranchised until the Commission can sort things out. That is on top of the Commission having to spend time and money adding a private part to its database in which it could record the ABCs despite having to print the XYZs on the rolls.

By far the most important computer systems linked to the Address Mangler are the ones at New Zealand's national call-centres for the Police, the Fire Service, and the Ambulance Service. When those services are called, people are not talking to local services, they are talking to the national centres. So when someone living in an ABC is faced with a criminal threat such as a home-invasion, or has a house-fire, or is having a heart-attack or some other medical emergency, and calls 111, they are talking to people far away in national centres. And those people know only what is on screen in front of them--which is fed from the Address Mangler, which does not have the ABCs. It has XYZs. So if callers only have time to scream down the phone. 'I live in HIJ Street in ABC' then hang up, the emergency services will not find them, or will take so long to realise the truth that they may arrive too late. 

That has happened. The worst consequence was fatal. For example, a young woman died on the west coast of Auckland because the emergency services were directed to the wrong place. The national call centre was not at fault. It was the Address Mangler.

In the case of Rocky Bay, even adding 'Waiheke' to the scream may not help, because there's a Waiheke [River] in the South Island, so time may be lost on that aspect of the confusion.

If Geoffrey Pearse gets it into his head that a place is called XYZ, because someone failed to look up an authoratative source, or lied out of a vested interest or a family interest, or exerted false political interference, or a LINZ official was ignorant, careless, stupid or misfeasant, etc., etc., then Mr Pearse will record XYZ in the Address Mangler--then will stubbornly resist all attempts by anyone in ABC to correct it, particularly if the same unlawful false information has also been artificially insinuated into some Council paper.

So all those responsible for illegally perpetuating the 'Omiha' lie and using it to replace the right name, Rocky Bay, the name long-established in Crown provenance and free custom, are all guilty of perpetuating a situation which at best is a daily insult; at middle is inconvenient, disruptive, time-wasting and anti-democratic; at worst is damnably dangerous, and could easily prove fatal. They have put a demonstrable falsehood above fact, above law, above human life. The lie is easily fixed; but they cannot be bothered. Gazette Rocky Bay, then Mr Pearse will be forced to correct his Address Mangler.

Those responsible for perpetuating the 'Omiha' lie in some way include Waiheke councillors, members of Waiheke Community/Local Boards, council bureaucrats, Geoffrey Pearse and other Post Office bureaucrats, and misfeasant staff serving the New Zealand Geographic Board.

The lie is on their heads; the chronic law-breaking is on their heads; the blood is on their heads.

Here, for the final word, is one of the most authoritative words on Rocky Bay, which is the 1865 Maori Land Court map, a map that accompanied the successful claim to joint ownership of the Kuakarau Block by three Maori men, Haora Tipa, Te Kapihaua Tuhi, and Hauauru Taipari. This map clearly labels as Rocky Bay the bay still called Rocky Bay by locals, as it was also labelled on the 1877 Crown map; and it labels the land as Kuakarau (to use its corrected, gazetted spelling); and shows the positions of the same three whares shown more clearly on that 1877 Crown map.  This map is as supplied by the New Zealand Geographic Board under an Official Information Act request; it was sourced by Board staff from New Zealand's historical archives.

It has three minor errors: Waiheke is misspelt as Waiheki in one place, 'Wakanewha Bay' is misspelt and oddly misplaced from the correct position shown on the 1857 Admiralty map, and Kuakarau Bay (the bay to the left of the promontory) is not labelled at all, but Rocky Bay, the label on the bay to the right of the promontory, is where it should be and still should be and still would be, but for a clerical boo-boo and some actions outside due process of law.

Finally, here are the concluding minutes of the 1865 Maori Land Court hearing that that map accompanied, in which three-way joint ownership of the 212-acre Kuakarau Block was certified by the Court.

Part 4: Regardless of truth and law, the lies, lies, lies and more lies prevail
Despite all the above, the farragoes of lies continue.

The most reprehensible lie bandied about, which has misled hundreds of people, is a damnable farrago. It says that Omiha is derived from O Mihi, and that Mihi was a woman from the Te Arawa canoe, and that when it called in at Waiheke in the thirteenth century on its way from Hawaiiki to its final landing place on East Cape she chose to stay on the island because she wanted to be with Ngati Paoa rather than continue on with her waka. A part of that story is that Mihi was a princess.

The facts prove that all that rubbish is lies, lies, lies, lies.

Firstly, the Te Arawa canoe did not call in at Waiheke, as this official record proves: (https://teara.govt.nz/en/map/2340/landing-places-of-the-tainui-and-te-arawa-canoes)

Secondly, Ngati Paoa did not come to Waiheke till the nineteenth century, so anyone stepping off a canoe in the thirteenth century to join them would have been rather elderly by the time they turned up. (https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/4022/waiheke-island)

Fourthly, it is very obvious that Ngati Paoa did not exist till long after the original canoes came from Hawaiiki. That iwi is descended from a man called Paoa, who arose much later, about the 1600s, the seventeenth century. So it was impossible for anyone to be joining that tribe in the thirteenth century.

The truth is that the original Maori name of the land that became the Rocky Bay village was Kuakarau. As already shown that is the name shown on the nineteenth century maps produced by the Maori Land Court in 1865 and the government in 1877, and the name shown on the 1922 subdivison map. It was a block of Maori land called the Kuakarau Block. And on both the 1865 and 1877 maps the name of the bay at the foot of what is now the intersection of Glenbrook and O'Brien Roads is clearly marked 'Rocky Bay.' Not 'Omiha Bay'.

'Omiha' was never anything more than the name of a minor whare on the Kuakarau Block, a subsidiary whare to the Kuakarau whare, as was the Ohinearei whare. It was never the name of a locality, only of a whare. It was illegally adopted as a marketing name by the pakeha subdividers in 1922. They had not a drop of Maori blood in them or their families, but outrageously chose to steal Maori symbolism because they obviously thought that 'Omiha' would sell their 488 sections more readily than 'Rocky Bay.' They also lied in their marketing prospectus, claiming things about the village that were palpably false, which was a criminal offence.

Those are the facts, over which the lies have been preferred by knavish bureaucrats, and by which the foolish Minister has allowed herself to be misled. The bureaucrats were lied to, they put the false name on maps as the unofficial name, and pretended it was the original name, and when an application was made to make the customary name official, they chose to make the lie official, and, worse, to confuse the issue by changing the false name by adding a macron over the O, to be oh-so politically-correct. Macrons are a pain to have to add to text on a computer, and many typefaces do not have them, and replace them with something else, so what they won will not be used, which makes the farce even more farcical.

The misled 'Omiha' contingent wanted that name; they wanted that unaltered. But what they got from the Minister on the advice of her bureaucrats was an alteration--its spelling changed to a macron-O. Which only PC-diehards will ever use.

The gross immoral of this story is that in New Zealand in the twenty-first century if you repeat silly lies long enough and loud enough and trick enough people into believing them and giving them loud support, including from dishonest 'journalism', the lies will beat the truth and the law any day. That's progress!!!  That 'Omiha' thing is an edifice of lies: marketing lies, fanciful lies, historical lies, 'politically-correct' lies, childish lies, racist lies, 'journalistic' lies, click-bait lies, photographic lies, lies of all sorts. An edifice of lies, an orchestrated litany of lies...

The phrase 'the naked truth' comes from a fable in which Truth and Falsehood went bathing. Falsehood emerged first from the water, and stole Truth's clothes. Truth, unwilling to wear the clothes of Falsehood, went naked. The truth stays ever true, it stays ever true to itself, it stays ever true to reality, no matter how many lies try to destroy it, and no matter what rank the liars might have.