Finlayson on Auckland Treaty Settlements

February 1st, 2010 at 6:12 am by David Farrar

Chris Finalyson writes in the Herald:

An important election commitment made by the National Party in 2008 was to set a goal of concluding just and durable Treaty settlements by 2014.

The reasons were simple – by healing the grievances of the past, all New Zealanders could move forward.

It was not an option to forget the past and the legitimate claims of iwi, but nor did we want to be stuck there. Settlements ultimately benefit everyone.

Getting past grievance mode is a win-win.

It should be borne in mind when National became the Government in 2008, there were about 60 settlements outstanding. Fully 20 per cent of these are claims in the Auckland region.

Dr Cullen did a good job in making progress on settlements, but alas his Labour predecessors not so much.

Sometimes iwi ask for a say in how a natural resource can be looked after. Again, Ninety Mile Beach – Te Oneroa a Tohe – provides an example.

Not only is it of spiritual significance to Maori but it also was an ancient food-gathering area, for the famed toheroa and for mullet.

Those food stocks have deteriorated over the years and the iwi wants some say on how the beach can be restored. This seems reasonable given the historical connection they have with the beach and so the Government is prepared to involve those iwi in looking at ways in which environmental damage can be repaired for the good of all beach-goers.

Sounds reasonable.

These are exciting times. The opportunity exists for concluding just and durable settlements throughout the Auckland region, something that a few years ago would have been regarded as a pipe dream.

Iwi are keen to get on with the business, the Crown is keen, and everyone agrees that public access can never be compromised.

That is why this Government is moving with such determination to resolve historical Treaty issues. Settling historical Treaty claims by 2014 means just that – settlements have to take place.

Governments cannot just talk about settling – they actually have to do the deals. The Crown and Maori are determined to work together to undo the heavy burdens of the past and move on. It is a time for optimism and positive thinking.

The 2014 target is ambitious, maybe even aspirational. But it would be a massive achievement to have all major historic treaty claims achieve final settlement during this Government’s tenure.

Tags: ,

55 Responses to “Finlayson on Auckland Treaty Settlements”

  1. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    As Margaret Mutu said – Most Maori consider that these settlements are not full and final. The next generation will be back for more. – those are her words and I think we should listen to them.

    Politicians ignoring all the problems the settlements are creating for the sake of a few photo opportunities and hearty pats on the back, while typical, sucks big time.

    I don’t want my kids and grandkids living in the state of apartheid we seem bent on creating.

    Governments need to be sure that the deals they do are watertight as full and final settlements otherwise NZ is heading for some bad times culturally.

    [DPF: I think Mutu's words should be enough to stop a settlement happening with her Iwi while she is the chief negotiator. It is a sign of bad faith.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    This only works if there are no hidden clauses to come back for more!
    and existing cluases are revoked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Countess (157 comments) says:

    Sounds reasonable ?

    Win win !

    A game of two halves perhaps

    That target of 2014 is now ‘aspirational’ . Now what was that other target again that turned aspirational ?
    Some would say its political speak for BS

    [DPF: As it takes two sides to conclude a negotiation, the 2014 target was never a hard target. But great to see you are so pleased that National is making such good progress]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. southtop (262 comments) says:

    given the number of times treaty claims seemed to be ‘settled’ I imagine my children will watch from overseas as the treaty claims are resettled again. we are are like a dog eating its own leg.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    This: “The reasons were simple – by healing the grievances of the past, all New Zealanders could move forward.” is NOT the goal of treaty claims. In fact there is a group among Maori who believe they have an inalienable right to go to the taxpayer every the years or so and get a top up and there is no such thing as a full and final settlement. “Moving forward” is the last thing they want.

    This is not my delusional assertion, I am simply repeating as explained to me by a lecturer who advised the class that the entire country has a high standard of living (except Maori) based on stolen land so it’s entirely reasonable to charge rent on a regular basis. There wasn’t any mention of the benefits that came with the evil white man like a massively increased life expectancy, the enforced end of slavery and cannibalism of course. It’s all about being the victim.

    Untill we can actually address this issue then any settlement at all is firmly based in la la land and not worth the paper its printed on. Pretty much like the treaty itself which wevidently only has one article these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Countess (157 comments) says:

    Not a word on the previous settlements that were full and final being reopened over the climate negotiations.
    How long was that ? less than 15 years ?

    National has allready signalled that the current settlements are only ‘temporary’.

    So get in now to enjoy the fruits, the Maori party will reopen the door again.
    Perhaps its only Labour and NZ First that see the separatist agenda of the so called Maori Party and the best way forward would be to win their seats and with 2-3% they will be history.
    You could say it was a stomach stapling operation that saved the Maori party . And she wanted to be around for a wayward teenager? . Never mind that Hone is more of a problem.
    Did the Maori party come up in the polling that Fran revealed?. Was that something she held back on reporting?

    [DPF: So hardcore Labour supporter Countess is against treaty settlements now. How sad - as desperate as Goff]

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

    “The reasons were simple – by healing the grievances of the past, all New Zealanders could move forward.”

    I stopped reading after coming across this sentence of meaningless crap. In a short sentence of 13 words Mr. Finlayson has managed to encapsulate all of the vapidness and hypocrisy and despair of this despicable racist cronyist political farce that the TOW “industry” has become.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    ACT campaigned on full and final treaty settlements at the ’99 election I believe, maybe even earlier. Then we were called “racist”. Now it seems to be “sensible”.

    *Sigh*.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. CharlieBrown (889 comments) says:

    These settlements are all bullshit. How can todays maori claim ownership of property that they havn’t managed or owned in 150 years? On top of this, it is debatable they owned it in the past as they were nomadic and warbound.

    A true example of this race based bullshit is the south island fisheries where maori run things. To get paua and toheroa you have to get a permit from the iwi, yet my family used to go down to the beach for an ocasional meal of these for generations as well.

    NZ needs to settle all greivances financially, not through land. Look at all the maori trust farms out there, most of these are poorly managed, so its of no benefit to NZ or all but a few maoris (only the fat cats in the board of the trusts).

    Whilst the majority people of maori culture believe they are entitled to things they havn’t worked for then they will never succeed. Hard work and smart decisions are the only real way for a culture to get ahead in life.

    [DPF: You really need to read some history. With some of the grievances there was no dispute over ownership - the Crown agreed to purchase it from the Iwi, but simply never paid. Theft, is theft, even is done by the state]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    The list of aspirational’s grows and grows a bit like Pinocchio’s nose.

    Tax cuts, welfare cuts, Super funds invested in NZ assets(not cash), Treaty Settlements, catching Australia by 2025 and more.

    HMM, just realised that Mallard was booted from the house for making these insinuations about “Hone” John.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. CharlieBrown (889 comments) says:

    “The reasons were simple – by healing the grievances of the past, all New Zealanders could move forward.”

    Hmmm, lets all grieve for wrongs done to our ancestors, for those ones that none of us were never alive when we were born, were never alive when our parents were born, were never alive when our grandparents were born. Its this pathetic attitude we are having to live it, but worse, the government is in partnership with these wankers, its analogous to giving a child those lollies that they scream for at the supermarket.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (13,326 comments) says:

    “But it would be a massive achievement to have all major historic treaty claims achieve final settlement during this Government’s tenure.”

    The “final settlement” phrase has been uttered so many times that has lost all credibility and is only worth of a Tui ad.

    There is a well established “industry” that makes money out of all this, a.k.a. the gravy train. Crook lawyers, Maori elites, and unscrupulous / corrupt politicians will continue to facilitate the existence of treaty claims and the appeareance of new ones.

    Little hope to see this issue resolved. Another nail in NZ’s coffin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    We came, we saw, we conquered… we feel really bad about it. Move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. fatman43us (166 comments) says:

    I am sure the 400 000 of us in other countries will be inspired by this loose and trembling toddle down memory lane. When will we arrive at a time when we can say we are all New Zealanders, and it is time to progress again. Not in my lifetime I suspect.

    Meantime the Wellington Gravy Trains steams on….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Jack5 (4,569 comments) says:

    Chris Finlayson says in the article “Settlements ultimately benefit everyone.” He also talks of “secure just and durable Treaty settlements across the Auckland region.”

    Finlayson obtained for Ngai Tahu first and second rights to purchase South Island crown assets – for ever.
    How does that benefit white South Islanders not in the Ngai Tahu tribal blood book, or non-Ngai Tahu Maori living in the South Island, who outnumber Ngai Tahu, who may have as little as a sixteenth or less Maori blood?

    This was such a rort I have no faith in Finlayson when he talks about just treaty settlements. Here’s what Finlayson said in his maiden speech to Parliament about achieving the Ngai Tahu deal:

    … I acted for Ngai Tahu in its claim against the Crown. The proudest moment of my professional career was being at Kaikoura on 21 November 1997, when former Prime Minister Jim Bolger and Sir Tipene O’Regan for Ngai Tahu signed the deed of settlement…

    Ngai Tahu have said they will make an additional claim if settlements with other iwi were at a level that will trigger this. How is this just?

    [DPF: It is just because as the first major settlement they had no idea about what the relative value was. They had a clause in their contract that agrees to this, so if the clause is triggered it is not a new claim, it is just settling a contract]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MT_Tinman (2,985 comments) says:

    Dear Maori, you have a say in administering 90 mile beach as well as all the rest of NZ.

    It’s called the vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    MT_Tinman dear Pakeha, I’m happy for all the beaches and foreshore to be owned by the crown as long as there are NO exceptions.
    So dear Pakeha, would you agree with grabbing back foreshore and beaches that are in private hands ?
    Or do you want different rules by skin tone ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    Dear Maori

    Get fucked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikeysmokes (269 comments) says:

    Tell us how you really feel Swiftman

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Swiftman the infidel (329 comments) says:

    There is no such thing as ‘Maori’.

    From the very early 1800′s there was no white poontang in New Zealand. The only whites here were low class sailors and they rogered over most of the Maori women.

    Since then further interbreeding has resulted in ‘Makeha’ or if you like, ‘Paori’.

    There is not a single Maori anywhere in NZ today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Swiftman the infidel What, follow the pakeha habit of having sex with a dead woman, no thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    I’m stuffed really – I’m only an immigrant to these fair isles.

    If I had been born here, I could claim to be Maori too. Access to special grants, medical aid, tertiary funding, fishing rights, etc etc etc. I’d be set for life.

    Choo, choo. Watch that gravy train roll.

    Rufus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mikeysmokes (269 comments) says:

    Thats just silly Swiftman, by that rationale theirs no French people, italians or poms

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Manolo (13,326 comments) says:

    The Maori elites will endeavour to keep the grievancy industry alive to continue extracting money from the government of the day. On the other hand, the common Maori folk will undoubtly get bugger all from these settlements, final or not.

    It’s always good and a nice prop for Maoridom to have someone else to blame for its shortcomings. No, it’s never their fault, but the responsible of the White colonialists, the oppresors, the capitalists and so on. Listen to the racist Maori Party politicians to confirm this view.

    Only when New Zealand puts an end to the non-sensical “gravy train” industry, not only Maori but all NZers will have a change to forge ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    Mickysmokes 12:59

    What makes Maori so distinct?

    My ancestors were kicked around by the Romans, Germans, the Spanish, Dutch and a whole lot of others.

    Should I try to claim our land back?

    Rufus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Theirs – posessive, they own it
    There’s – there is

    DNA testing for all treaty settlment recipients. More than 50% non-maori and guess what, you’re just another white mofo so nothing but more taxes for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Jack5 (4,569 comments) says:

    Swiftman (12.42 post):

    It would be nice to discuss and debate treaty settlements without racial slurs. The PC mob take them as justification for shutting down debate about issues around the treaty.

    The only whites in pre-1840 NZ low-class sailors? That’s a sweeping generalisation. Some of those whalers and sealers were pretty rugged but solid individuals. And what about the missionaries?

    Also, if we are on the way to there being no “fully Maori” Maori, then we are also on the way to having extremely few or no “fully white” pakeha. (If such descriptions have any valid genetic meaning any way.) My guess is there will just be New Zealanders.

    Skin colour’s important only in UV protection. The climate eventually will decide it, so in a millennium or two you will likely find folk at the very north of the country quite a bit browner than those at the very southern end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Yes Jack it would but Hone and his ilk still insist on their overt racism as their primary if not sole method of communication.

    Thats the playing field we’ve been given so it where we play.

    By the way thats for the anti-maritime slur that sailors were all low calss. You circumnavigated the globe with a sextant and watch recently? Taken on a honking greta whale with a rowboat and a sharpened stick at all?

    Are you another lattee slurping jafa Jack?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    I like the term “New Zealander”.

    I can’t stand the term “pakeha”.

    When will the grievances of the past have finally been paid for?

    I suspect never.

    Will “the Maori” whoever they are, give us a discount for introducing them to English, written communication, the wheel, modern technology etc and for lifting them out of the Stone Age?

    Rufus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Rufus, as a visitor to NZ should you not be grateful that we allow you to stay ?
    After all one of your countrymen who is here believes that those who were the first arrivals in Britain should chuck the others out.
    And I for one have no problem in doing that to visitors to NZ who believe in the BNP creed.
    Oh, care to explain what NZ owes Britain that we should take you as a visitor ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    grumpy since Maori defoliated a third of the country they washed up at, were responsible for the extinction of half the native species and the introduction of rats, dogs, people and other pests to the land, destroyed themselves with intrerminable intertibal warfare and slavery shouldn’t they be jumping up down a bit less for reparations for damage done?

    That bill could look pretty damn tricky to pay in fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. CharlieBrown (889 comments) says:

    [DPF: You really need to read some history. With some of the grievances there was no dispute over ownership - the Crown agreed to purchase it from the Iwi, but simply never paid. Theft, is theft, even is done by the state]

    If my great great great grandparents said they owned the moon and then the government agreed to buy it but didn’t pay up would the government be steeling of me?

    Anyway, I said that settlements should be in cash only, not property.

    [DPF: The settlements only involve public land, not private land - as it should be. And this is not about the moon. This is akin to someone buying your farm off you and refusing to pay for it]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    Hi Grumpy –

    NZ owes Britain nothing as far as I’m concerned. Maybe some recognition for setting this country up. And I’m not British.

    Just wondering when the debt will be repaid.

    I am grateful for being allowed to stay here. We have great freedom and a great lifestyle in this beautiful country.

    No question Maori suffered as a result of the British coming here.

    They’re just very very lucky that the British pulled them out of the Stone Age, gave them the advantages of modern civilization, rather than killing them all off, which some other colonizers might have done (ie the Dutch or French).

    I’m wondering to what extent the negative impact of the British colonizers on the Maori outweigh the positive impact.

    I’m also very concerned with the whole “maori vs. the rest” attitude that is so prevalent here.

    Why should my grandchildren still be paying in the future for some wrongdoings that happened centuries ago.

    As I said before, my ancestors have also suffered loss over the past 2000 years. We moved on.

    Rufus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    Hey Grumpy,

    I’m not actually a visitor – I’m an immigrant. Someone who’s made NZ a home for himself and his family.

    Much like the original Maori and anyone else living here.

    Rufus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    You ungrateful old bastard grumpy didn’t we wean you cheeky darkies off eating each other by giving the gift of KFC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. CharlieBrown (889 comments) says:

    Maori have about as much right to claim the beaches, water, fisheries, lakes, any more land as Germany has the right to reclaim territories lost in world war 2 and world war 1. It was over 150 years since the treaty was signed. It was signed in two different languages, one of which wasn’t written until a couple of decades before hand, and each version didn’t have the same translations, any contract signed under such dubious circumstances would be declared invalid.

    Its time we burned the treaty and set up a proper consitution, one that mentions nothing about culture, race and religion… a proper new start under equal and fair circumstances. Pita, Hone (the maori supremecist c&nt), Tariana (the racist cow who compared the setlers to Nazi’s) could then piss off and live of all the money they already have bludged of ordinary NZ’ers… maori and non-maori alike.

    [DPF: Many historic claims are not even about the Treaty. They are about the Crown simply stealing land they agreed to pay for, or in one instance declaring a 1.5 mile *wide* highway to gain some land they wanted, despite the fact the seller did not want to let it go]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Rufus, Maori killing each other off, funny that I lost three relatives in WW1 and four in WW2, that European war cry of onward colonial soldiers got boring real quick for all Kiwis.

    Now you did your homework on NZ no doubt, coming to a nice civilised little country with a few problems.
    Tell me, did you whine to immigration that the settlements were unfair to you ?
    Or did you keep your mouth shut until you were safely in NZ ?
    Do not like our policies the answer is easy, lots of airlines in the phone book

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. CharlieBrown (889 comments) says:

    [DPF: Many historic claims are not even about the Treaty. They are about the Crown simply stealing land they agreed to pay for, or in one instance declaring a 1.5 mile *wide* highway to gain some land they wanted, despite the fact the seller did not want to let it go]

    Those claims are fair enough, but this should be handled through the same justice system as every other NZ’er. The whole idea of a maori land court is f&^king disgusting. But being able to make claims on lakes, rivers, and shorelines is criminal, these people are mongrels and if they protest to try and get their way then they deserve to be round up and beaten with batons.

    [DPF: I am disturbed you think people should be beaten up for protesting, and that you refer to groups of people as mongrels. You are also wrong - the Maori Land Court can not hear claims for lakes, rivers and shorelines. You obviously have little idea of what the Maori Land Court does. I think you are mixing it up with the Waitangi Tribunal]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Two wars in which Maori were exempt from conscription.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (14,876 comments) says:

    Again I hope you are truly grateful grumpy that the white Yankee’s saved your sorry brown ass from a Jap bayonet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. mikeysmokes (269 comments) says:

    Maybe you should have killed all the Maoris and then you wouldnt be having this argument. The fact is you couldnt and you went the way of a treaty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. CharlieBrown (889 comments) says:

    [DPF: I am disturbed you think people should be beaten up for protesting, and that you refer to groups of people as mongrels. You are also wrong - the Maori Land Court can not hear claims for lakes, rivers and shorelines. You obviously have little idea of what the Maori Land Court does. I think you are mixing it up with the Waitangi Tribunal]

    Yes I know the two are different, next time I’ll put lines between my points:

    * Maori land court – racist and separatist

    * Claiming for assets that physically cannot be owned and used (eg, lakes, rivers, sea beds etc), even if everyone has historically used them, and still uses them, regardless of the mechanism to get it – racist and just plain wrong,

    Protesting for such a cause is plain wrong, it is as bad as white supremecists protesting to have all non-white people’s lands and assets taken of them. I refer to both extremes as mongrels, and if they are to cause civil disobedience then it would be nice to see them beaten with batons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Rufus (621 comments) says:

    Grumpy 2:57 Rufus, Maori killing each other off, funny that I…

    ??Where did I say that?

    And I believe the Maori volunteered to fight for NZ in WW1 and WW2. The vocal ones now seem to fight against NZ…

    As for “Now you did your homework on NZ no doubt, coming to a nice civilised little country with a few problems.
    Tell me, did you whine to immigration that the settlements were unfair to you ?
    Or did you keep your mouth shut until you were safely in NZ ?

    NZ doesn’t really advertise the TOW mess to potential immigrants – they just show pictures of lovely green hills, blues skies, endless golden beaches and smiley happy people.

    You learn the other stuff as you live here.

    RE: me leaving – tempting. I did for the last decade – USA and UK. We’ve actually thought of moving to Aussie, but family ties here are too strong. Too much invested in NZ at the moment.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love NZ, I love living and working here.

    I’m just sad that in 20 yrs this TOW mess is still so far from over it’s not funny.

    Rufus

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    What really gets up my nose is that there appears to be no representative of the people in so many of these claims. Two of the recent ones are the Wellington one where a bunch of Maoris from Taranaki get to make a claim, even though they turned up after the white mofos, and get to have first right of refusal to buy “surplus” Crown land for the next 100 years. I guess that is better than the Ngai Tahu forever. I would love to know who sets the rate for these “surplus” taxpayer owned properties. Especially as Ngai Tahu increased their wealth substantially by buying “surplus” properties. And FYI the Maori name for Mt Egmont back then was Haupapa.

    Then there was the $500,000,000 settlement on the Treelords deal . I understand this land was sold to the Crown for a very good price. It was developed with taxpayer money. Then given to a bunch of iwi who are not party to the Treaty…. Tuhoe, Te Arawa, and Tuwharetoa.

    I am looking forward to the day I can help my Maori mokopuna put in their claims for whatever takes their fancy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Rufus, I’m probably different from most other Maori in that I am against the settlements, but, I also believe those pakeha farmers squatting on Maori land in the Taranaki should be chucked off with no payments, they can take their fences and houses off the Maori land.

    It is amusing that when I bring this solution up a lot of pakeha whine that two wrongs do not make a right.
    Now care to guess what each hori will get on a per capita basis and how much the land was worth on a per capita basis ?
    Twenty years for TOW settlements so far, care to check the time frame in which land was stolen ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Murray, Unlike the Pakeha conscription was not needed for the 28 th, they were never short of recruits.
    But, it is amusing that Maori were expected to fight but a lot of bible bashers were not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Jack5 (4,569 comments) says:

    Murray at 1.35 asked:

    Are you another lattee slurping jafa Jack?

    Nope, Murray. Cantabrian. Can’t hold my little finger vertical while drinking so have to avoid latte. Would like to sip Cognac six times a day, but can afford it only about six times every three years.

    By the way I was defending the early white sailors who married Maori, not attacking them. I don’t consider early seafarers to visit NZ “low class”. That was “Swiftman the Infidel” at 12.42. Sealers left on some Southland or southern island coastline for a year or two were tough and resourceful. So were seamen who pulled oars in whale boats. One of the most interesting southern whalers was Paddy Gilroy, of the Chance, who pinched whales abandoned in Southland storms by Yankee whalers. Paddy had Maori bodyguards and a mixed crew of Maori and white seamen. Paddy’s descendants are around NZ, and some may still be in Bluff. The ones I have come across are of mixed Pakeha-Maori descent, and fine folk, like Paddy, who as his name suggests, was Irish.

    But nope, you are right, I haven’t circumnavigated the globe recently with sextant and watch. If I was going to sail away I’d rely pretty much on GPS. Remember Murray, the Polynesians weren’t bad navigators, either, and without sextants or watches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Huiroa (3 comments) says:

    When will it ALL end? When Maori have the same levels of income, same levels of education, same health statistics as ‘mainstream NZ’…and speak their native Polynesian tongue. Why are Maori at the bottom of the heap? Maori aren’t inherently inferior to Pakeha. The Native Land Court’s systematic stripping of the resources of Maori and redistributing it to Pakeha and institutions controlled by Pakeha is a pretty good head start. Pakeha have inherited wealth and priviledge and control of all institutions – their success is not purely and simply all down to their hard work. More so the hard and at times unscrupulous activities of not too distant ancestors. These settlments assist tribes to rebuild their structures to again be effective managers of group wealth to be redistributed to their people. Many pre-settlement iwi already spend huge amounts of their own $$ on education, health, social housing and community development. Even more resources will be channelled this way post-settlement. These are as Finlayson says exciting times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Inky_the_Red (734 comments) says:

    After the Treaty is fixed up is there a date for full and final settlement for farmers?

    Yes they produce the raw material of many of our exports. Should we really give them government support
    1. each time there is a flood – surely they could invest in flood protection or get private insurance
    2. each time there is a drought (couldn’t they find some way storing all that water from the last flood)

    Also why should tax payers be responsible for cleaning up all the mess in the waterways after effluent, fertilisers or pesticide contaminate them.

    Does any other business in this country get this level of government support?

    The fact is farmers do need assistance and private insurance would be too expensive to maintain agriculture against products from other nations where government assistance is higher.

    As for full and final settlement for treaty settlements, 2014 seems unlikely. It worth resourcing the process to avoid delays but in reality some court action takes longer than others. More historic information does come to light. Deadlines need to be flexible not set to political slogans

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Jack5 (4,569 comments) says:

    In a comment on my post of 10.18 yesterday (Monday) about Ngai Tahu having the right to come back for more state money depending on levels paid in subsequent compensation of tribes), DPF said:

    It is just because as the first major settlement they had no idea about what the relative value was. They had a clause in their contract that agrees to this, so if the clause is triggered it is not a new claim, it is just settling a contract.

    Surely this would be just only if there was also a clause in the settlement requiring Ngai Tahu to repay some of the settlement if new tribal claims indicated Ngai Tahu’s settlement had been too high.

    As for Inky_the_Red at 12.14pm saying final settlement in 2014 is unlikely, because “re historic information does come to light.”

    This statement shows that treaty settlements have moved from compensation towards blackmail.

    Further evidence lies in the preposterous claim to pay Maori for the switch from analog to digital television (see link below). This follows piss-weak governments giving Maori allocations of frequency spectrum.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10622897

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. jackp (668 comments) says:

    Huroa wrote “When will it ALL end? When Maori have the same levels of income, same levels of education, same health statistics as ‘mainstream NZ’…and speak their native Polynesian tongue. Why are Maori at the bottom of the heap? Maori aren’t inherently inferior to Pakeha.”

    Huroa, why do you have to depend on taxpayers for what you are asking for? Why are you depending on the government for the same level of education. It comes from the family. Look at the Asians, they come here with nothing and they build something. God knows, you have more income than your average Pakeha family with the settlements you are receiving. Where is it going? I asked one Maori that question and he proceeded to tell me that Pakeha is the cause of the fighting between Maori and proceeded to stick his tongue out at me. It takes balls to be disciplined and change. Maori were great fighters but I don’t think the present day Maori have the balls to take responsibility for their lives and go after the things you mentioned. Instead, they see the gravy train of the TOW and are greedy. The ones that do, which I have met, I truly respect and enjoy being with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. jackp (668 comments) says:

    By the way, Finlayson is leaving those settlements in Aukland open with the clause to renegotiate which means more treaty settlements. The same ones that are suppose to be finished are not. They will be drudged back up. He is suppose to be negotiating for the taxpayers. I wouldn’t let him defend my dog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Manolo (13,326 comments) says:

    Do dole and DPB payments count towards those settlements? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    If he’s leaving them open then it’s because John Key and cabinet have voted for them.
    So that does National out of government as we want it done and dusted and all previous agreements annulled that have those clauses in them, hidden or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. jackp (668 comments) says:

    This whole excercise will continue if those clauses are left in. Why they are in there beats me except to keep the TOW industry going.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.