Finlayson on Treaty settlements

April 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

A must read article by Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finalyson in the Herald:

Treaty settlements are not about one group of people being unequal under the law. This country has one law for all – the Treaty guaranteed that. The settlements process is about recognising those instances – regrettably common – where the Crown did not treat all the people of New Zealand equally – where people in New Zealand under the Crown’s protection were stripped of land they owned, or deprived of the right to be treated fairly, despite its undertaking to stop that from happening.

And an example:

Anyone who thinks the Treaty settlement process is about securing privileges for Maori need only familiarise themselves with the recent Waitangi Tribunal report on the history of the Urewera region. It does not make pleasant reading.

It presents the detailed history of the Urewera region for the first time. The tribunal describes the Crown’s confiscation of 24,280ha of Tuhoe land on its first real contact with that tribe.

It details the attacks on the tribe in the Bay of Plenty to apprehend Te Kooti – raids that started as justified military action, but led to the intentional slaughter of civilians and prisoners, and were described by one senior military officer at the time as “extermination”.

Tame Iti may be an attention seeking idiot, but Tuhoe do have some legitimate grievances.

Within days of signing the Treaty in 1840, the Crown bought 1214ha of downtown Auckland for 281.

Within six months it resold just 36ha of that for 24,500. It is pointless to feel guilt about this. For one thing, none of us alive today was responsible for what happened then. However, those who hold the levers of power in the Crown must take action to redress these wrongs, because it was the Crown that caused these grievances.

So purchase price was 23c (converting to dollars) a hectare and sale price six months later was $681 a hectare.

We cannot give back all that was taken, and to their credit no claimants have demanded that the Crown do so. The cost of settlements is around 5 per cent of the value of what iwi lost. According to some estimates, it is much less.

There is no way of knowing what the real figure is, and it does not matter. The Treaty settlement process is as much about recognition and healing as it is about recompense.

Sir Douglas Graham often made the same point.

It’s why other parts of settlements – like restoring traditional names, or co-management of culturally significant land with the Government – may not have any monetary value. They are important to iwi and the way they relate to the country.

Yep.

Treaty settlements are good for the whole country. There has been much talk of economic stimulus recently. Treaty settlements help unlock the economic development potential which exists in the regions and in the Maori community.

This is true, and Ngai Tahu are good examples of this. However it is worth remembering what Don Brash said – the gains for Maori from lifting educational and economic achievement are a magnitude higher than any gain from Treaty settlements. The settlements are at best a catalyst.

Settlements address our past and invest in a common future. The wrongs of history are real. Failure to address genuine grievance creates a new grievance.

But by providing an end point for the injustices and reaching durable and just settlements, we can move forward as a country – together.

I’m looking forward to most of the outstandinghistorical  claims being settled in the next six years.

Tags: ,

43 Responses to “Finlayson on Treaty settlements”

  1. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    >So purchase price was 23c (converting to dollars) a hectare and sale price six months later was $681 a hectare.

    I agree with the rest of what you and Finlayson wrote… But the difference in land price really represents the difference in value between land used for hunting and gathering, and land used for a developing city. Compare the price per hectare of the Congo jungle compared to that of New York. I’m guessing the difference will dwarf the figures quoted for Auckland, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    The British in 1840 had one of the most advanced economies of its day that was in the process of industrialising. The economy of NZ was essentially that of the stone age. While there was some cultivation of crops and excellent long distance sailing and navigation, there was no metal working and no wheel. Maori NZ had to trade to catch up to the modern world. But no one was going to be interested in importing stone tools and flax, and refrigeration hadn’t been invented so Maori couldn’t export food. So they traded what they had… land… for what they wanted… the benefits of the industrial age. I think they got a good deal on the whole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    davidp

    “But the difference in land price really represents the difference in value between land used for hunting and gathering, and land used for a developing city. Compare the price per hectare of the Congo jungle compared to that of New York. I’m guessing the difference will dwarf the figures quoted for Auckland, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.”

    Granted. But the question is, who should have gained the extra value created by the changed use? Why the Crown, and not Maori directly?

    As for the original Finlayson article, I’m highly impressed. In fact, the more I see and hear of Finlayson, the more impressed I am. He’s everything an Attorney-General should be. So far at least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Komata (1,191 comments) says:

    I have one major difficulty with the Treaty settlements, namely that casual observation seems to indicate that none of the ‘lower ranks’ seem to get much of what is paid out – the money always seeming to hover around the top of the tribal hierachical pyramid.

    The tribal nobility, leaders, and their immediate families get the money and use it on themselves (SUV’s are a great status-symbol), while the ‘proles’ get nothing (perhaps the crumbs from the important-ones’ tables if they are extra favoured), and stay on the benefits they have been on for years, dependent on government hand-outs even when their ‘tribe’ is rolling in cash!

    It appears that naming-rights to stadiums and casinos and ownership of shopping complexes and fishing companies is far more important than repairing the tribally-owned houses inhabitted by their elderly or helping Maori families at the bottom of the tribal heap.

    The fact that said houses are in very poor condition, and that many families are in economic strife is not apparently important to those who control the tribal purse-strings

    This to me seems totally wrong and inequitous, but, once again, nothing is said by those in Maoridom who profess to be concerned for their people – possibly because they are also of ‘the noble ranks’ and would not of course want to rock the boat (self-interest and all that).

    Maori have been given so much money, yet the quality of life of the average tribe member – especially those in tribe-owned houses has not been improved to any great degree; the money, as I said, seems to be concentrated at the top.

    Evidently ‘nobless oblige’ is a foreign concept (but, as it is ‘Pakeha’ perhaps this isn’t surprising. . .)

    The ‘Gravy train’ roles on, and their own don’t get a drop. Sad really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “It’s why other parts of settlements – like restoring traditional names, or co-management of culturally significant land with the Government – may not have any monetary value. They are important to iwi and the way they relate to the country”

    what a load of crap. We are one country, and things like place names should only be changed by a majority view – all of NZ and not by a ‘group’ claiming to represent 13%

    If continually giving in to maori demands assists “iwi and the way they relate to the country” then what has the last 25 years of ‘giving in’ shown to how they “relate to the country”? Here’s a clue -Take a look at the prison population

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    AG>But the question is, who should have gained the extra value created by the changed use? Why the Crown, and not Maori directly?

    The extra value goes to those people who created it. If I buy some scrub land, clear it, build a house, and landscape it, then I’m the beneficiary of the increase in value. The person who sold me the scrub doesn’t get to profit from my work. If Maori had thought to clear the bush from the Auckland isthmus and build a city there, then they could have sold the land for more than they did. But they didn’t have the skills to start to build a city or develop an international trading network that would require a port. It was tough being stone aged people in the age of the industrial revolution. But they weren’t a charity case… they sold land and invited settlement in order to benefit themselves.

    And those benefits are obvious. Modern Maori have vastly increased lifespans, all the advantages of living in a modern economy, and all the benefits of NZ’s advanced human rights. They got all of that in less than 100 years, and all it cost them was some undeveloped land and an agreement to work as equals alongside settlers. Bargain!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    I personally don’t think the crown should own any land, especially the national parks etc.

    Surely it makes sense to return these lands to Maori Stewardship/ownership, in return for an end to treaty claims. Also, any costs associated with the upkeep would then fall on the tribes, rather than the tax base.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Within days of signing the Treaty in 1840, the Crown bought 1214ha of downtown Auckland for 281. Within six months it resold just 36ha of that for 24,500. It is pointless to feel guilt about this. ”

    Thanks for that Chris, but here’s some news- I don’t damn well feel guilty. Not in the damn least. It was SFA to do with me, and it still is SFA to do with me.

    “For one thing, none of us alive today was responsible for what happened then. However, those who hold the levers of power in the Crown must take action to redress these wrongs, because it was the Crown that caused these grievances.

    Bullshit. So land was brought and sold at a quick profit in 1840 by some sharp operators. How the damn hell does this involve me today, in 2009 when everyone involved has been dead for more than a century, and given that I wasn’t involved, what the hell gives you the right to take my money and use it to address these ephemeral things you refer to as “grievances” ????????

    ????????????????????????????????????????????????

    “The Treaty settlement process is as much about recognition and healing as it is about recompense.”

    Spare me the weak arsed pseudo liberal propaganda. That sentence is completely devoid of real meaning. You’re talking law, legality and tax payer’s money here Mr. Finlayson, and such things do not rest on bullshit like that sentence.

    There is no healing process (whatever that really is) under way. The whole thing is a complete damn scam, with so many negative connotations for the country as a whole it should be abandoned right now.

    This reparations business is just negative country splitting and culturally divisive bullshit that this country does not need and can definitely not afford.

    The so called TOW tribunal is a farce in many ways but in one way more than any other and that is there is nobody acting with any zeal for the defendant, and if you’re wondering who the defendant is readers its you, and me, and every other NZer alive today who is producing revenue for the government.

    Nobody is representing our case in the so called Tribunal. It is a one sided farce where so called Maori have reportedly won concessions by merely turning up there with a bunch of photocopied rubbish.

    Its about time our representatives in Government, thats you Mr/ Finlayson and the rest of the damn politically correct bunch of jerkoffs called the National Party, started being accountable to the taxpayers who have elected them and not loud mouthed posturing fringe groups of bludgers and takers.

    Where in a damn serious economic recession. If the TOW process can not be stopped completely right now, it should at least be put into abeyance, the TOW employees laid off on the understanding the process restarted again when economic bouyancy has returned and the idiocy can at least be afforded.

    The preference is that the whole damn farce be stopped right now, and stopped for all time.

    Stop pandering and do your damn job for once.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. MT_Tinman (3,186 comments) says:

    Yet another apologist for racist theft, typical of his party.

    To paraphrase Mr Cullen, the settlers won, the maoris lost, eat that!

    To steal from all current New Zealanders, a great many of whom had no historical presence in the colony during the times of these historical actions, simply to give to a racist crowd who were not born at that time and not, in return, charge that crowd for the gifts given them by the settlers (e.g a written language, the printing press, paper, a transparent justice system, the wheel) is not just plain stupid, it is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    oh for godssake. Maori politicians have no grievence whatsoever. The maori of the treaty era surrendered and signed a treaty. Then they came out of the bush, integrated and worked in the cities and now drive euro cars and use crown currency. You don’t see Britain paying France and Germany for wars and territories lost in ancient wars. Maori politicians are living in a dream world, wringing the state for all they can via this treaty rubbish and it’s supported by other liberal politicians of equally distorted thinking. If they really have a beef, they can give up all the modern things europeans brought them and stop being such whiney hypocrites. They’ve had the bad and the good from contact with europeans, but they only ever acknowledge the bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    reddy says:

    “Bullshit. So land was brought and sold at a quick profit in 1840 by some sharp operators. How the damn hell does this involve me today, in 2009 when everyone involved has been dead for more than a century, and given that I wasn’t involved, what the hell gives you the right to take my money and use it to address these ephemeral things you refer to as “grievances” ????????”

    Here, at 12:37 on April 22, reddy comes out in favour of the state using its imbalance in power and knowledge to profit at the expense of its own citizens. I now expect posts praising the IRD for demanding tax payments it knows are not required by law, and damning local councils for paying true market value to people whose land is compulsorily acquired for roading purposes. Because it is A GOOD THING for the state – the government – to seek to rip off the individual.

    Has someone stolen redbaiter’s log-in information? Or is he just so anti-Maori that his usual libertarian blathering ends when it is them that are ripped off by the government?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. EverlastingFire (286 comments) says:

    I think the treaty along words like “Mana” and “Tangata Whenua” are just bargaining tools to gain benefits/privledges in this age. The Maori (whatever that is these days) need to pull their head in and worry more about building their people up and not having things handed to them. I can’t see why giving them power through charitable means like Auckland supercity seats builds “mana”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Has someone stolen redbaiter’s log-in information?”

    Go away bore. Nobody needs your frantic convoluted self strangling contortions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    The Maori (whatever that is these days) need to pull their head in and worry more about building their people up and not having things handed to them

    See DPF’s Ngai Tahu reference…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    A deal is a deal.

    Whatever price anything changes hands for at any given time is its true worth at that time.

    This happens all the time in business and commerce. Notably on the share market. That someone might make a profit on a deal at one time or another does not need to give rise to any feelings of guilt.

    Chris Finlayson’s politically correct language merely exposes him as someone mired in a wet pseudo liberal mindset and a cause that is long past its use by date.

    NZers have had it up to here with such bullshit Mr. Finlayson.

    Wake up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. baxter (893 comments) says:

    I agree with REDBAITER who sums the situation up accurately…I note that the recently inducted director of Kiwibank whose chief qualification was to bankrupt the country, and to hand over $500 million to Maori Tribes who had no right of claim whatsoever to the Central North Island Forests, has already declared that no way will he allow all claims to be settled by 2014.He having been allowed on the Treaty settlement gravy train as well by grateful recipients of his largess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    “This happens all the time in business and commerce. Notably on the share market. That someone might make a profit on a deal at one time or another does not need to give rise to any feelings of guilt.”

    But should the same rules of commercial behaviour apply when it is the state relating to its citizens? For instance, it is common business practice to inflate invoices in the hope that the other party will pay a bit extra for the goods/services supplied. Does this mean it is OK for the IRD knowingly to bill taxpayers for more than they are required to pay by law?

    You’re overlooking that this wasn’t a transaction between private parties. It was the state interacting with the citizenry. Where are all you libertarians now? C’mon … are your purported principles REALLY that shallow and easily dispensed with?? Pussies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nigel (514 comments) says:

    A deal is a deal, mmm, that is a valid comment assuming the free flow of information, or at a minimum free access to information. This was not the case in the sale of Auckland and for a “Partner” in a treaty to deliberately profit like that is wrong, it’s not the role of government to be property speculators, in fact I’d argue it was insider trading & as such if done today would be found illegal.
    In the end though the treaty settlements are about clearing the slate & moving on, we just can’t afford as a nation to have 13% of our population under performing productivity wise & if nothing else if the treaty settlements fix that, money well spent, but they will do more than that & that is a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Baxter is right. The Grievance Industry is a scam and a con and a Mafia style enterprise underpinned by networking and cronyism and even gangsterism.

    Don’t make yourself part of this gangsterism and cronyism and robbery of the NZ taxpayer Mr. Finlayson.

    Do what is right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “You’re overlooking that this wasn’t a transaction between private parties.”

    A deal is a deal.

    if anything is sold for a certain value it is sold for a certain value. Who the parties may be doing the deal has no bearing on the issue. You’re just grasping at logically convoluted straws as you always do go. Please go away and come back only if you can think of a real argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “we just can’t afford as a nation to have 13% of our population under performing productivity wise”

    ..and the reason we have that is because there are too many idiots who think welfare is the answer to every perceived disadvantage.

    “& if nothing else if the treaty settlements fix that, ”

    They won’t. They’ll only make it worse, with more dependency culture and less production.

    “money well spent”

    Its nothing like that. It is fostering welfarism, depriving a whole culture of their pride and independence, it is leading to cultural and racial conflict and it is robbing the taxpayer.

    “but they will do more than that & that is a good thing”

    Its bullshit, and so is your line of argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    “I’m looking forward to most of the outstanding historical claims be settled in the next six years”. Keep taking the happy pills David. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle and if the National government can put it back in then I’ll eat my hat. It’s not called the treaty industry for no good reason.

    Nigel, how many claims have now been “settled”, forgive me for been the cynic that I am but I have not noticed a huge jump in productivity from said claim settlements. In fact I would so far as to say treaty settlements have done sweet piss all for the common Maori but kept several heavy duty gravy suckers from rocking the boat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “Not all land was taken by force. In some cases the Crown bought land and did not pay a fair price.Within days of signing the Treaty in 1840, the Crown bought 1214ha of downtown Auckland for 281. Within six months it resold just 36ha of that for 24,500”

    sounds like the deal Toll Holdings did with Cullen! ….. and with Cullen now giving advice to Iwi cant we expect more claims for another 160 years?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tvb (4,422 comments) says:

    I don’t get the Labour Party’s attitude to this process. For years they had Margaret (“I would rather take a maori title”) Wilson and then Mark Burton. Finally their inactivity became too embarrassing so they put Michael Cullen on the job and things began to move. Couple that with the Seabed and Foreshore – though Michael Cullen again seems to have agreed the issue needs re-opening. Combine that with Labour’s attitude that no maori ever gets a senior portfolio under Labour despite considerable political support, combine that with their inflexible approach to maori providing actual services under contract one begins to build up a picture. Labour want maori to be on welfare, to keep quiet and to vote Labour (or national will strip your support away). Their idea of Maori having an economic base independent from the State is anathema to them. They should be kept down and treated like children. They really don’t care. It is the racism of diminished expectations all wrapped up in token gestures like “I would rather have a maori title”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    test

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nigel (514 comments) says:

    ssb, you are not seriously suggesting Nga Tahu have not invested wisely & are not increasing the productivity of their tribe are you ?.

    Have the settlements produced some instant miracle of productivity, of course not, are they making a difference that is positive & will that increase accelerate I believe so.

    ‘Baiter, go home to South Africa circa 1965, either that or get that chip off your shoulder, you & H1 are absolutely two peas out of the same pod when it comes to having philosophical blinkers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Baiter, go home to South Africa circa 1965,”

    You clod hopping black hole dense ignoramus. It is your kind of thinking that is taking us back to apartheid when most civilized nations have recognised the need to move away from it.

    There is no need for Maori to be a separate race in this country.

    Abolish every government department pandering to Maori and you will find the improvements you seek so much quicker.

    Do you ever ask yourself how Maori manage to succeed in Australia? How they do it with the guiding hand and help of pissant patronizing liberals like you? Think about it you bottom shelf dimwit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    without the guiding hand of help of pissant patronizing liberals like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    huh – I wonder if the maori party being part of the government makes the allegation of an aparthied system far more relevant than it has been before? – after all NZ is a signatory to the Rome Statute
    Aparthied – “the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    “Do you ever ask yourself how Maori manage to succeed in Australia? How they do it without the guiding hand and help of pissant patronizing liberals like you? Think about it you bottom shelf dimwit.”

    Sigh. Once again reddy takes a complex issue, simplifies it out of recognition, then triumphantly wields it as a killer blow in the argument (all the while spewing his customary abuse and buster to distract from the threadbare nature of his arguments). Anyone really interested in the reasons why some Maori are comparatively more successful in Australia than in NZ should start with Paul Hamer’s report for TPK (available at http://ips.ac.nz/staff/team/Paul%20Hamer.html).

    reddy – I assume it is a part of your bulging evidence file of useful information that backs up your every claim? But tell me – has your Mom asked to have her basement back yet? Can she do the washing with all your papers lying round?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    PS;

    You seem to think that the definition of “apartheid” somehow is relevant to NZ. This is not entirely self evident. You need more argument to make the link. In particular, you need to spell out just how Pakeha have established “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination” over Maori. Do you mean through the educational system (which fails Maori at a far higher rate than non-Maori)? Or through the prisons (which contain a far higher proportion of Maori than non-Maori)? Or is it through the labour market (which concentrates Maori in low-skill/low-paid/seasonal work, or denies them work at all)? Some more detail to back up your claim that Pakeha are systemically oppressing and dominating Maori, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RainbowGlobalWarming (288 comments) says:

    and the rest of the western world looks on and laughs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The only interesting statistic on that mish mash of a site is that of the 100,000 Maori estimated to live in Australia, only about 600 voted for the Maori Party. That’s almost worthy of a sneer, but seeing it is a matter attached to one of your posts, not quite worth even that. I’ll just give it a guffaw. Haw haw.

    “You seem to think that the definition of “apartheid” somehow is relevant to NZ.”

    Whatever a thing may seem to you hardly has much attachment to reality. It was your groan inducing soul mate Nigel who first broached that issue.

    As for the paternalism of the bleeding heart liberals, it could quite easily fit the definition you have chosen- “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination”. Something is keeping the Maori down, and the only thing that hasn’t been tried here is leaving them alone.

    As they are left alone in Australia, where 100,000 of them choose to live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Elvis Christ (29 comments) says:

    “Treaty settlements are good for the whole country. There has been much talk of economic stimulus recently. Treaty settlements help unlock the economic development potential which exists in the regions and in the Maori community.” Really ? Isn’t this a case of the government “picking winners” with taxpayers instead the market deciding the best way to invest that money (assuming the money remained in the hands of taxpayers).

    What makes Maori anymore deserving of fiscal stimulus than any other group ? What makes Maori any better at investing the money than taxpayers ? This just sounds like a convenient cover for robbing the taxpayer to give money to a vocal pressure group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    AG
    what part of preferential treatment of one race over another by a government don’t you understand? – I’m not talking about whether its been successful or not, neither does the Rome Statute
    (and just in case you’re really thick – I didnt make a claim that kiwis are systemically oppressing and dominating maori- other way around numpty)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Can she do the washing with all your papers lying round?”

    Its digitised you moron.

    ..and anyway, we have a group of maids who do washing and stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    PS:

    “(and just in case you’re really thick – I didnt make a claim that kiwis are systemically oppressing and dominating maori- other way around numpty)”

    If you honestly, genuinely, truthfully believe that maori are systematically oppressing and dominating “kiwis”, then the numpty is you. It is. Really.

    I also have a bridge I’d like to sell you. ‘Cause you’re clearly gullible enough to buy it. Drop me your email, and we’ll do business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    “..and anyway, we have a group of maids who do washing and stuff.”

    What a way to describe your sisters. Shocking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    They told me they moonlight on K’ road and Hunter’s Corner, so they’re more likely to be your sisters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    “They told me they moonlight on K’ road and Hunter’s Corner, so they’re more likely to be your sisters.”

    Gosh. Hooking on Auckland’s streets. That’s quite a commute for them!

    Now, in addition to your obvious addiction to internet activity, you’re telling us you frequent the company of women who require money before providing sexual favours. You do realise the picture this is painting of you as a person, yes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    You should have quit while you were behind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    AG. If maori are the race receiving preferential treatment, then the races not receiving the same treatment are, by definition oppressed.
    If the ‘maori party’ are part of the government then they could be considered, under the Rome Statute, as that ‘institutionalised regime’

    “Drop me your email, and we’ll do business” – I seriously doubt you have ever done any business in your life

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    and its fucken rich that I lose my next tax cut so these pricks can get another handout.
    The recession is only for the whiteys I guess

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10568131

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chris Rennie (2 comments) says:

    Redbaiter says:”Whatever price anything changes hands for at any given time is its true worth at that time”. Only if there is an fully informed market. That’s why we have anti-insider trading legislation. In the deal Finlayson refers to the Govt was probably well aware of the true market value of the land – but in any case it wasn’t an ordinary deal, because the Govt (Crown) had a fiduciary duty in law as trustee to the tribe involved to protect its interests, which it apparently did not. English law (remember, that’s the one we’re all equal before because of article three in the treaty of cession) and now NZ law is quite clear on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote