A view that I will never accept

September 14th, 2012 at 6:31 am by David Farrar

I’m pretty liberal on issues to do with the Treaty of Waitangi, customary rights, common law rights, historical settlements. I’ve said I accept some Iwi have some rights around some .

However I will never accept this view:

said had always owned the water.

Sorry, no you do not. You get certain rights from having moved here 600 years or so before the rest of us, but you do not get to claim ownership of all the water in New Zealand. We do not live in a country where the first wave of immigrants get all the rights, and the second wave get no rights over essential resources such as water.

The power to manage and control water and allocate water rights should rest with Maori, rather than the regional councils, he said.

This would make all non-Maori an inferior class of citizen.

If those who attended the hui wish to assert they own all the water in New Zealand, and that Maori should have total control of water management and allocation, they of course have that right. But they are risking a huge backlash that will dry up the considerable good will that exists in this country and allows settlements such as Tuhoe to have broad political support.

It would be relatively easy to get 300,000 signatures on a CIR on the topic “Should Maori own, manage and allocate water rights in New Zealand”. It would be an ugly divisive campaign, and set race relations back considerably. But it would get a record turnout, and a record no vote.

Now not all those who attended the Hui share the view of King Tuheitia that Maori own all the water in New Zealand, and should manage, control and allocate water rights. Ngai Tahi saud:

Ngai Tahu chairman Mark Solomon said Maori all agreed on a collaborative approach toward settling water issues.

“From a Ngai Tahu perspective we don’t believe the asset sales will affect the rights and interests of Maori from reaching an agreement.”

The issue of whether or not asset sales impact any water rights that Maori do have, is one the courts will decide, so I’m not too worried about that particular issue.

The issue that worries me is having the Maori King assert ownership of all water in New Zealand. I do not believe that view can be left unchecked. I hope media ask Labour’s Maori MPs if they agree with that view. Ask the Greens also – in fact all Maori MPs in Parliament.

I also do not think that would be the view of the majority of Maori living in New Zealand.

Tags: , ,

209 Responses to “A view that I will never accept”

  1. MT_Tinman (3,186 comments) says:

    I agree.

    In the mean time please hand Maori a bill for all the water damage done to property (land, buildings, everything) in NZ since 1840.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Positan (390 comments) says:

    What a bunch of consumate idiots!

    If anything underlines the extent of Maori greed, the total lack of concern for what they so often refer to as “principles of the Treaty” when applied to their Treaty partner, this must be it.

    End everything. Let Maori have their own system of “government,” let them pick up their own costs of maintaining their benefits. They’ll all die out within three years – and all their greedy nonsense with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. big bruv (13,899 comments) says:

    I would wager that you would get a truck load more than 300,000 on a CIR DPF. The figure would be close to 1 million.

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

    “This would make all non-Maori an inferior class of citizen.”
    Isn’t this fundamentally already the case?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. rg (214 comments) says:

    The Maori King’ was initially set up as a challnege to the Queen of England so his stand is consisitent with that.
    More importantly his statements show the follly of settling Treaty claims with co management deals.
    John Key sets great store on these but by saying that even though they have been given co management over the Waikato river , they intend fighting for more, Maori are saying that accepting co management deals is just stage one for them. By givivng away any more co management dealsJ ohn Key is just setting us up for more claims in the future.
    I am sick of greedy maoris.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    I hope media ask Labour’s Maori MPs if they agree with that view. Ask the Greens also – in fact all Maori MPs in Parliament.

    I don’t think we can expect much of them. Nor National. Nor UF or NZF. Parliament doesn’t seem to know how to stand up to continuing claims of Maori, and excesses of Maori claims.

    Maoridom has combined a powerful network into a potentially very strong voice on water rights. As an interest group they are pushing for as mucha s they can get. Good on them if they can pull it off.

    The-Rest-Of-Us-dom (probably many with some Maori ancestry) need to stand up and fight for what’s important to us. If water rights are important to us then we need to stake our claim and fight hard.

    Just don’t expect politicians to do it for us.

    It means doing much more than commenting as individuals on social media, which is little more than whimpering on the sideline.

    Who here is willing to join a Pan-All-Of-Us voice to claim our water rights too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    A sensible position from Ngai Tahu and Mark Solomon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Who is this parasite King?
    The response from this government to the Stone Agers should be strong and unequivocal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    This issue is far more fundamental than the asset sales programme. Maori have never owned the water and if the government grant any form of concession on this the country is in serious trouble

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori (2,252) Says:

    Alan Johnstone I take it if the treaty is declared null and void that all land titles will be the same ?
    In other words we are back to 1840 when it comes to laws, land titles etc.
    Got my eye on a few hundred acres in what was Remuera
    ……………………………

    That’s your problem: Under the treaty “we own everything”. Under aboriginal title “we own everything”.
    So that makes another option likely…… kick your fat useless arses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    It would be relatively easy to get 300,000 signatures on a CIR on the topic “Should Maori own, manage and allocate water rights in New Zealand”. It would be an ugly divisive campaign, and set race relations back considerably. But it would get a record turnout, and a record no vote.

    I think I’d take that bet.

    [DPF: How much would you be willing to bet?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    On paper Queen Elizabeth is the highest authority in the country. But that monarchy is old and toothless.

    The Maori King has orchestrated something potentially far more powerful here than Liz from the other side of the world.

    Are Maori effectively becoming New Zealand’s upper house, with a post-parliament say on anything that interests them? Maori Water King beheads Queen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Grumpy old hori really does deserve remuera =his arse burnt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    A sensible position from Ngai Tahu and Mark Solomon.

    I cannot agree with that. It’s the thin edge of the wedge being used to extract more concessions and money.
    The answer must be unequivocal: nobody owns the water in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RF (1,398 comments) says:

    Maori A.K.A (also known as) Greedy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    I dislike landlords and landlordism because I see rent taking by a parasite class as the last degenerate stage of capitalism before revolution.

    Rent taking via a privileged elite “clipping the ticket” is a huge handbrake on economic development, whether that elite be Spanish speaking grandees in some tin pot central American dictatorship or an Iwi aristocracy. In any society, creating a class with a sense of entitlement to unearned rental income is a sure precursor to civil unrest and discord. The Maori king seems to be proposing we create a privileged brown elite who can derive unearned income from rents on successful entrepreneurial activity. I oppose such thinking, be it coming from the Maori king or the head of Telecom or a high country farmer or whoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    also known as IWI.. ( I want it )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    Well as every parent knows, if you keep giving in to every little demand and foot-stamp, you get more and more outrageous behaviour.

    Send this lot ot the naughty corner for a couple of decade and life will get a lot better, of course we’ll need leadership prepared to ignore a tantrum of epic proportions but that’s what good parents do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    @Pete George
    Yes we have a problem with democracy:

    [from Civil War & Other Optimistic predictions by David Slack]

    “Chris Trotter maintains the issue was captured by an elite of politicians, public servants, academics and vested interests, and that as long as there was a consensus across the political parties to stick to the mission, the voter had very little say in the matter. But that came to an abrupt halt at Orewa and subsequent polls told the story of a disaffected public.”
    ……..
    it’s the same with immigration policy and chances are the opening up of NZ’s physical assets to the rest of the world by the Clark Government has given Maori impetus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    NO Manolo

    The statement “Nobody own the water” is a cop out.

    The fact is the Government of New Zealand owns the water on behalf of ALL New Zealand people. And fuck me if this doesn’t include Maori as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    John, you know what to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Mobile Michael (451 comments) says:

    If Maori made a sensible claim – that they had used waterways near Pa for food, drinking water, and other uses; they used waterways generally for navigation; and the Crown had reduced those rights by diverting waterways to other uses (including power generation) so wanted compensation for that loss then no-one but the rednecks would complain.

    An equivilant scenario is leaky homes, government action contributed to the situation where peoples homes were substandard, but people who are being compensated for that error are not being given control over building regulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    One of the problems with King Tuheitia is that hes is a complete and total idiot – in comparison with his mother who had both brains and class.

    This ex truck driver (not that there is anything inherently wrong with truck drivers – but those with limited brain power tend to fall back on the tempting truck drivers mantra – which is “might is right” in reference to the size of the truck and the observance of road rules – and Tuheitia has certainly done this) started his reign by going onto a marie and telling a woman who was objecting to the way Tainu was run that “If she didnt like what was going on she could just fuck off”. This of course added “foul mouthed’ to his other titles.

    (see:http://erakablog.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/have-we-hit-rock-bottom-yet/
    ….|”The Maori King displaying his great oratory skills and excellent command of the English language by eloquently telling one of his irritating subjects to fuck off. Lovely stuff aye what and that other clown Tuku daring him to sack Tania Martin.
    The arrogance of these pricks using somone elses marae to launch their personal attacks on one of their own team.”…..
    or:http://www.waikatopolitx.com/2012/07/tuheitia-paki-does-not-know-how-to-make.html )

    What amazes me is that other maori not connected to the kingi movement take any notice of this fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. kowtow (8,485 comments) says:

    AS long as the treaty,its principles etc are on the books then it will always be the case that at least some maoris will make claims of one sort or another.

    You can’t say soe bits are OK and others not.

    Scrap the whole thing,one law one standard of citizenship.

    Have a referedum on that,no didn’t so.

    And a big finger in the eye for Mr Inclusive Key. He bent over backwards to be nice to these guys and look at the shafting he’s getting. Same thing happened to Clark. What idiots,when will they learn?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    At least one of the Maori leaders seems to be related to Penny Bright.

    Hokianga leader Rudy Taylor accused Prime Minister John Key of “driving us apart”. He told the hui that Maori on the Hokianga had never ceded ownership over water, but were paying $300 to fill their water tanks over summer.

    What you are paying for, Rudy, is the infrastructure that someone else set up to catch the water, store it, possibly treat it, then load it into a water tanker (which someone had to buy), drive it to your home (using petrol, which they had to buy), and fill your tank.

    I catch all my own water. As I have two large tanks, only three people living at home, and manage my water useage wisely during summer, I have never needed to buy water. Never. Thus, I get all my water for free. Anyone else can do the same.

    Apart from that, he is confusing the day-to-day use of water for drinking, cleaning, etc., with the separate issue of rights and use of rivers, lakes, and the like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    And now for a different point of view.

    Everyone who says, “Nobody owns the water” – exactly which water are you talking about?

    If a farmer lives on a 1000 acre farm, with a large lake on it, who owns the lake? Who owns the water in that lake?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    DPF: my standard bet is $20. I say that if there is a CIR over the ownership of water, that it will neither have the highest turn-out of any nationwide referendum, nor result in the greatest margin of victory* for one option of the other.

    * phrased this way in case it’s not a no vote, but a yes to “we all own water equally” question, or between two options, neither of which is yes or no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. David Garrett (7,281 comments) says:

    Lots there…

    I will take the bet too Graeme E…John Ansell could more usefully organise such a CIR than what he is doing now…

    This bullshit is the entirely predictable result of years of appeasement of ever more fantastic claims, culminating in the calamitous decision to grant “co-management” of the Waikato river to “river iwi” in 2010. ACT was the only party to vote against that legislation, and we predicted just this sort of extortion from. and blackmail of, the rest of us..Dont take my word for it, go and check Hansard.

    I will always remember as both Finlayson and Key solemnly said in the House “this is a one off deal; it is not a precedent”, Tariana Turia and Sharples sitting in front of me saying “Oh yes it is..this is the breakthrough..Wanganui is next”. And so it has proven to be.

    I fear it is already too late to stop this nonsense, but if Maori get away with this, we really all might as well F off to Australia, while its borders are still open to us. It would however be interesting to know the division of opinion in “Maoridom” [what a stupid term, suggesting every Maori thinks the same way]…I suspect many Maori wouldn’t want a bar of this.

    Graham: Well said. I catch mine from the sky too…should I be paying a royalty to the young Maori slouching around Helensville on the dole?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    A CIR is I suspect almost a certainty.

    @ Peter George not so sure about NZF I think the Maori King might have dealt him a a useful electoral hand with that speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    David, I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate here … :)

    Got water tanks on your property? Who owns the water in those tanks?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    We own the fishery ……compromise
    We own the airwaves….. compromise
    We own the foreshore and sea bed ……compromise
    When will the government learn? When will we learn?
    Place the treaty back on the shelf as an interesting yet not binding historical document. Under the international law of treaty’s If the party’s of a treaty don’t agree on the contents and the different versions have different meanings The document is worthless.Remove all references to the treaty in legislation. Continue to negotiate past grievances directly with the Party’s involved in good faith
    Disengage from all who all talk of partnership and apartheid.Remove all government funding from bodies that are racist

    One Nation. One People. One Law for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    David Garrett @ 8.6am

    You are exactly right – Appeasement has raised the expectation of entitlements and rights

    Question – Will National fold on this? Will the Maori Party push for a negotiated solution?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. projectman (224 comments) says:

    “This issue is far more fundamental than the asset sales programme. Maori have never owned the water and if the government grant any form of concession on this the country is in serious trouble”

    It’s more basic than that. It brings the whole purpose of the Treaty of Waitangi into question.

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

    If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

    I suggest all NZ citizens claim tangata whenua status. That should level the playing field, and everyone can get a slice of the action. The definition of ‘Maori’ already seems incredibly loose. And who is qualified to define indigeneity?

    End NZ apartheid now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. David Garrett (7,281 comments) says:

    Graham: I was serious. All my water comes from the sky and is stored in tanks on my property.

    Griff: Well said. As I have said though, I fear the appeasement has gone on so long a catastrophe may occur if we say “enough”…but what choice is there? I certainly don’t intend to spend the last half of my life as a vassal of some Maori run state…and that’s where this is heading brothers and sisters, make no mistake….Maori have always been prepared to play a long slow game, with the odd metaphorical haka now and then to scare the horses and the timid…

    Forget John Ansell…I will organise a bloody CIR if someone will fund me….I simply don’t have the resources…this is a damn sight more important than three strikes…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. markm (114 comments) says:

    Perfect reason to call early election.
    Stand up for the rights of the 86% of New Zealanders who aren’t Maori.
    Lose Maori Party .
    Call early election and force Labour and Greens to support New Zealanders or Maori.
    Peters will support New Zealanders and have to throw his lot in with National wether they need him or not.

    Perfect.
    National in for three more years with resounding majority.
    I suspect a lot of Maori other than the uneducated ruling elite, will support National

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    We believe that water is a universal resource and that everyone in New Zealand should share any rights to use water, and everyone should be able to have a say in how our water is used and managed.

    If you share that view please show your support by Liking and Sharing: http://www.facebook.com/WaterRightsForAll

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    “The definition of ‘Maori’ already seems incredibly loose”

    The Maori ‘academic’ smirking, interrupting and mocking Winston Peters on TV1 last night claims that it doesn’t matter how much Maori blood you have- in which case I want MY cut of the $1 billion or so this is potentially going to cost us Mr Finlayson…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (23,565 comments) says:

    >blockquote>…this is a damn site more important than three strikes…

    And it’s a damn site more important than asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Dave Mann (1,222 comments) says:

    DPF, I would say that the degree of nambypamby liberalism that you displayed in your post goes a long way towards explaining the racial catastrophe which faces this country. I’m not blaming you for it of course, but so many of our leaders and opinion makers and all of our parliamentarians it seems seem to hold this view:

    “Yes, of course the Maori are special and they deserve special priveliges over everybody else…. but golly gosh chaps, let’s not go too far… ”

    Given this weak limp wristed approach, what do you expect to happen exactly? If I was a radical Maori I would push for everything I could get at every opportunity. ‘Moderate Maoris’ can see where the power lies and are taking advantage of it and even those with 1/32nd Maori blood (I know some personally) are jumping on the gravy train.

    You had better get your CIR going quickly, or you’ll find the people’s Republic of Aotearoa pretty unaccomodating and not a very friendly place to live in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. kowtow (8,485 comments) says:

    CIR? And the bastards will ignore it,like all the other ones. All referenda should be binding.What a crock democracy we have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Graham do you own the water in the tanks or do you have a right to use the water in your tanks.
    Once you drink the water do you own it? Piss out the water do you still own it. As it evaporates still own it? Water the garden still own it
    The very notion of owning natural water is absurd. The water collected in your tanks is not owned. A right to the fruits of your labour for collecting it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    DG: Sorry, I didn’t read carefully enough, I missed your last line on your 8:36 post.

    I’m also serious. We have emotions running very high on both sides, and some emotionally charged statements being made: “Maori own all the water”; “No you don’t own anything, piss off”. Neither position is helpful.

    My own feelings on this particular issue are probably even more liberal than DPF’s. I have said before that I could understand Maori claiming a spiritual link or understanding of certain rivers and lakes. Exactly how that plays out today is unclear. I can understand Maori wanting to ensure that these rivers and lakes are looked after and cared for; that they are kept free of pollution, for example.

    Ownership … hmmm. Bloody tricky. The Maori King commented that when his mother died, his tribe had to seek permission from the regional council to take her by waka to her resting place on Taupiri mountain. Now if you lived on a big farm, and your mother had commented that when she dies how nice it would be to scatter her ashes over a certain part of that farm, would you expect to have to get permission from the local council? Of course not. But if Maori feel (rightly or wrongly) that they own the Waikato, I can see how that would upset them.

    I don’t know what Maori ultimately want. What do they mean by ownership? Are they content to merely have it said, “The Waikato belongs to Maori” for example, but free useage and access by all people is guaranteed? Do Maori want to control access? Do they want to charge access rights? If Maori could articulate exactly what it is they want, then I suspect we could all have far more sensible conversations without the hysterical rhetoric on both sides.

    (Oh, and if anybody thinks that Maori would seriously seek to restrict access to our favourite beaches – I look forward to watching the scenes when they try charging for access to one of Auckland’s more beaches this summer, and hundreds of fishermen, families, boaties, water-skiers etc. turn up in force :))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    The iwi are so rich now the government is almost powerless to fight them. A faction of elite whites, overrepreseneted in National ranks enjoys this because they get to partner in the ventures to cream off the profits. that’s why they support the foreshore and seabed scam.

    What we need is a party who speaks for us – the hard working taxpayers who pay for all this bullshit. First policy = repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation and not honour any deals made in the meantime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. greenjacket (466 comments) says:

    The Labour Party is strangely silent. Yet their second principle is: “The natural resources of New Zealand belong to all the people…”
    It is bizarre that Maori claim some unique (and totally mysterious and conventiently unproveable) spiritual link with water, considering in the 19th century they were all Christian. I suspect the principle spiritual attachment is to dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Delay, delay and delay again appears to be the tactic employed by the Stone Agers.
    The longer it takes, the more money to collect is their “logic”.

    http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=154175&fm=newsmain%2Cnrhl

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Dave Mann (1,222 comments) says:

    @Kevin I think you are probably talking about NZ First here. Griff’s positioning statement “One Nation. One People. One Law for all” is the idea that would galvanise thousands behind them on this. Of maybe I’m displaying my ignorance here…. is that theirs already?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Damn, becoming a member of the live off the rents set, with my peasants working hard to keep me in a style I and only I deserve.

    Jeez the frothing at the mouth by visitors to NZ is amusing, how do I put this, oh yes, it is none of your fucking business.

    No what we really need is a Balkan solution, now who is going to volunteer to chuck those darkies out of Burnham ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Plus its provides a smokescreen while the iwi and white aristocracy carve up the foreshore and seabed between them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    David Garrett (2,577)
    ‘Graham: Well said. I catch mine from the sky too…should I be paying a royalty to the young Maori slouching around Helensville on the dole?’

    You needn’t worry David, the money never gets to those people. Only the elite at the top get their snouts in the trough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. duggledog (1,558 comments) says:

    Yesterday’s hui was an attempt to get everybody to agree to challenge the Crown and do it ‘on the same page’ so to speak. If that actually happens then it’s clearly a problem.

    However anybody who has any knowledge of inter-tribal Maori politics knows they have great difficulty agreeing on anything – in my experience they all (privately) run other tribes down and bring up all sorts of feuds!

    Be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Moari do already claim a right to restrict access to water just because they don’t do it on your favourite beach does not mean that it does not happen I have had it claimed and I can give you names and addresses for others who it has happened to in Auckland. Also police and court records for the resulting theft and intimidation. I can also give you witnesses and police and court records for an assault on a wedding party that was made under the claim that moari own it all and we can not restrict moari access to a private function. The government may claim that the sea bed and foreshore issue has been resolved. some in moaridom ignore this and use intimidation and assault to enforce their claims.
    Hysterical rhetoric ?or just that you have not been effected YET

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    Grumpyoldhori- Are you suggesting that the brave boys of the NZ Army would not actually uphold their sworn Oath of Allegiance to the Queen?
    Aren’t you the one who is always ranting and bleating about them being the best and most loyal soldiers on the World??
    Shit they’d be a pretty crummy army to throw in their lot with Hone, Tame Iti and the ‘Bros’….And what about the Pakeha and Pacific Islanders amongst them??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Where are your brains David, are you drunk?

    “Sorry, no you do not. You get certain rights from having moved here 600 years or so before the rest of us, ”

    NO.
    NO.
    NO.

    We are equal Citizens not different classes of citizens. One law for all.
    When the Mori Ori and others killed and eaten by Maori get compensation and their rights back then I’ll think it fair for the Waitangi Tribunal’s existence..
    and even then NO as where does it stop?
    Colonisation has been the human lot since the beginning.

    John Key was suppossed to stop this rubbish and get rid of the Maori seats.
    thats what National told the country as did commentator (propagandists) like you.
    Have they, have you?

    No, the entitlements still go on.
    WFF is still there.
    Tax cuts haven’t happened.
    The real financial situation of the country isn’t clearly stated.
    The truth about who pays tax isn’t stated.
    We sign up to agreements with secret clauses which we have no knowledge about.
    More Un interference or potential interference in the future is not cut off.

    The Govt is there for all Kiwis.
    Not non Kiwis but Kiwis 1st and foremost.
    then others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Dave Mann (1,222 comments) says:

    Griff, did you create that phrase “One Nation. One People. One Law for all” yourself? If so, then you have made a powerful rallying cry for New Zealand there, mate. If it’s been around for some time then I can’t understand why its not being quoted more often.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Gruby old hori you gonna get Bill Henry “Willie” Apiata to fight which side do you think he will be on the crown or a bunch of self serving stone agers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    It’s time for this namby-pamby and timorous government to act decisively and make a pronouncement with an outright rejection of the “ownership of the water” claim.

    Time to disabuse the parasitic King he owns anything but the enfeebled minds of his greedy Maori servants.

    C’mon John Key and National Party, the rest of New Zealand awaits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Dave Mann
    Meh who knows I have used it here before. where i got it from ? You absorb to much in a lifetime to tease out such things

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Dave Mann (1,222 comments) says:

    @Griff and David Garrett…. We’ll, David that would be a fantastic slogan for you to hang your campaign on if you choose to start it. Go for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    Maori claiming ownership ofthe water is like claiming the ownerhip of the air we breathe. It is simply nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    You get certain rights from having moved here 600 years or so before the rest of us

    So the whites in Europe have additional rights over and above immigrants? This is what Maori are implicitly asserting.

    Again, Maori are attempting to assert property rights only in cases where they benefit. In all other situations – most notably the benefit system based on the forcible extraction of workers’ incomes – they vehemently reject the principle.
    If Maori are entitled to compensation for land that was taken by the government they we the workers are equally entitled to compensation and restitution from Maori for all the money they have taken off us over the decades.

    As Kevin says, we are now in the situation where the workers are subsidising rich country land owners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    David is compromised by the past and I am more so…….A misspent youth that would spell death in politics. :lol: :twisted:

    We need a movement that is unsullied by the past deeds of its leaders and has no political baggage to haunt it PG

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    Where is Neville Key these days? Has this modern-day John Major returned to NZ yet?
    Or is he intentionally keeping a low profile about water claims in the vain hope they will die down and go away?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Parliament doesn’t seem to know how to stand up to continuing claims of Maori, and excesses of Maori claims.

    Well said Pete, quite true.

    Couple of thoughts:

    There is nothing so vigorously defended [or promulgated] as a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction.

    I think there is an opening to lay things on the table here in a national debate, over an issue which has been simmering since certainly the radio waves and possibly since the fisheries. This is not what people argue about, which is: to what extent does a common wealth exist and to what extent are Maori permitted to alienate it via property rights?

    The real issue that we don’t debate is: why do Maori think that? Why, why, why? And that’s what could become a fruitful discussion on a way through this. Because in this case we’re mature enough as a nation and experienced enough in this endless reconciliatory process, to legitimately ask Maori to pray explain. Everyone likes water and needs it, so if it’s a Taonga to you, then pray tell us why it’s not an equal Taonga to us? This puts directly to Maori the need to explain why they think, as they seem to, that they and only they are capable of having the true magnitude of compassion and feeling and love of this land of ours, which we all share. I daresay if you had an emotionometer and you measured a third or fourth family generation of farmers you would find exactly the same human feelings in them as you found in any Maori anywhere, even Tama Iti. I mean I get a deep feeling from rivers too, how come that doesn’t count?

    That’s what’s never been discussed and if we put that on the table, directly through the media reports in print, online and TV, that’s when this endless process could finally perhaps gain an endpoint. Yeah yeah, the hills would be alive with the sound of music and we’d be dancing with the Gweens awound the maypole singing tra lalalalalalalalalalala. But seriously the time is right take this approach and if it doesn’t work what’s to have been lost for at the worst, what it does is give Maori a chance to explain themselves. They won’t like that, not one little bit. But how can they say no if Key leads the debate in that direction and what’s to stop him from doing so. The lefties can’t criticise him, not even Hone, since it’s an entirely reasonable question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Manola 9.42 … He has, they have, and interestingly enough, so has the Shearer fellow.

    This whole exercise demonstrates the charade the Treaty settlements ‘industry’ has become with process highjacked by greedy Maori. It does not reflect well on Maoridom. As for the Maori King … what a joke. The Kingitanga movement has no traction outside the Waikato. Most Iwi would run a mile rather than ceed their Mana to him.

    GOH … are you REALLY serious or just stirring? Hope it’s the later because I never saw you as a Timothy McVeigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Dave Mann & Griff.

    Come on guys – thats from NZ FIRST or One Nation. Cant remember which but i think One nation first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. duggledog (1,558 comments) says:

    David Garrett ‘ACT was the only party to vote against that legislation, and we predicted just this sort of extortion from. and blackmail of, the rest of us..Dont take my word for it, go and check Hansard’

    I don’t have to check Hansard as I remember that clearly.

    David, answer me this, because personally I have never been able to get my head round it. A referendum shows overwhelmingly that kiwis wanted tougher penalties for the worst offenders. Yet the one party – yours – who proposed 3S law just doesn’t get the corresponding votes at election time. There are many other policy examples of course – so why the massive disparity?

    I come across so many people whose core values and desires for the future of NZ align perfectly with ACT principles & policy; after hearing the dissatisfaction (sometimes in a taxi or at the timber yard or on the farm) I ask them if they vote ACT, yet they virtually never do.

    Why the disconnect?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. cossackstomper (24 comments) says:

    Lets look at what Maori Already have!! we are already a race based society

    An aside I was told “Pakeha” as an entire word meant “stranger”!Not white man

    I wish I was a Maori………
    I have been wondering about why only Whites are racists,
    but no other race is…… so I got to thinking

    Maori call me a ‘Pakeha’, [Pa = village, keha = flea, vermin ]
    ‘Whitey’, ‘Honky’ and ‘Redneck’ and that’s OK,
    but if I call you Hori, you call me a racist.

    You have a race based Maori Political party, special Maori
    only parliamentary seats and Maori can stand as a candidate
    in any parliamentary electorate in New Zealand but white
    people cannot stand for a Maori seat or be on the Maori
    roll or a member of the Maori Party. You have ‘3 bites at
    the same electoral cherry’. White people have only one
    and yet you still say you are dis-advantaged. If I complain
    you call me a red neck racist.

    You have a race based Maori caucus in parliament which
    includes the Maori members from all parties. It concerns
    itself with protecting and advancing Maori values, not party
    political values. If whites or any other ethnic group had a
    multi party parliamentary caucus that dealt with the advancement
    of its own race or for whites only, and not politics we would
    be called racist.

    You also want to appoint your own representation on Local
    bodies and demand the granting of special seats or privilege.
    If not granted you scream racism. Yet Maori can be elected
    just the same as any person from any race. If there were seats
    on any local body that were just for whites only there would
    be great cries of racism.

    You have a flag of your own, which you insist be recognised
    and flown alongside the flag of our country.
    This illustrates your separateness and division from the rest
    of New Zealanders. If a white person flew and demanded
    recognition of a competitive flag for New Zealand, it would
    be tantamount to Treason.

    There are a number of openly proclaimed Maori schools and
    Colleges in New Zealand. Maori colleges and high schools
    specifically for Maori students. Yet if there were ‘Whites
    Only colleges’, they would be racist colleges.
    If whites had scholarships, college funds and Trusts that
    only gave white students Scholarships, you know they’d be racists.

    You expect whites and other New Zealanders to ignore your
    special tax payer funded educational institutions and when
    we complain or say you should teach your language and
    culture in the home as other races do you call us racists.

    Who pays for the running of Maori colleges? If whites
    objected to their taxes going to pay for them they would
    be called racist. If white people had their own schools
    and colleges they would be called elitist racists

    You have Government funded race based Kohango Reo’s
    [pre-schools] to teach your race your own language and
    even have transport to pick the children up. If any other
    race asked for the taxpayer to fund the teaching of only
    their own language, or transport to take their children to
    pre-school they would be laughed at and called racist.

    You have Maori Health Services. Special organisations
    within the taxpayer funded public health system which
    are run by Maori for only Maori. If whites asked for such
    special and separatist privileges from the health services
    they would be racists..

    You have a Maori TV channel funded by the New Zealander
    taxpayer. If there was a Whites only TV or if whites said
    Maori should fund their own TV, they would be called racists.

    You also have your own Te Reo TV channel which broadcasts
    solely in Maori. Of the 14 free to air Freeview TV channels
    Maori have two of them and yet there are also Maori language
    programs and news on the main network channels such as
    TV One and TVNZ 7. If we consider that an over representation
    of a language that the rest of us don’t want to learn,
    we are called racists.

    If we had any organisations, schools, trusts, and governmental
    groups TV stations, etc for whites only to advance OUR lives,
    we’d be racists.

    A white woman cannot be Maori sportswoman of the year,
    but any race can be New Zealand sportswoman of the year.
    A white person cannot be in the Maori All blacks or any
    Maori sporting team, but any colour can be in the All blacks
    or any New Zealand sports team. This separatism is decidedly
    racist but if a white person comments on it they are labelled
    racist. The fact that we have a Maori allblack team is as racist
    as is any race based sports team can be but if there was a whites
    only fallback team or any other whites only sports team it
    would be considered blatantly racist.

    You say the whites commit as much violence as you do.
    So why are the Maori parts of town the most dangerous
    places to live? Why are the jails so full of Maori?
    Why are so many children killed and bashed by Maori.
    But when I say that Maori are a violent people you call me a racist.

    You rob us, convert our cars, rape our women and bash
    our elderly. But, if a white police officer shoots a Maori or
    a Maori gang member, or assaults a Maori criminal running
    from the law and posing a threat to society, you scream racism..

    You are proud to be Maori and you’re not afraid to announce it,
    even though you may not be full Maori, but part Maori, or even
    only ‘trace element’ Maori, but when we announce our white
    pride, you call us racists.
    Why is it that only whites can be racists?

    There is nothing improper about this e-mail. It’s all true and
    illustrates that it’s time we started to pressure all politicians
    to eliminate special race based privilege and parliamentary
    seats based on race.

    Stop giving Maori special privilege and treat them the same
    as any white person, Chinese, Asian, Indian or Pacific Islander.

    There are many races that live in New Zealand, all were alien
    initially, now there are many minorities and if we don’t learn
    to stand up and stop privilege being accorded to any one
    particular group, the next group to start wanting separatist
    rules, favouritism and privilege will be alien religious groups.

    The great gravy train, a.k.a the Waitangi grievance Industry,
    has hopefully nearly finished it work of judging events of
    160 years ago through today’s eyes and making compensation
    awards in today’s money so now is the time to stop and ask:
    Do we want a privileged group enjoying special favour for
    no rational reason, or do we want racial equality in New Zealand
    with fairness and equal privilege for all

    It’s not a crime to be white YET.. but getting very close!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Another aspect to this is the property right factor and I think there’s a cross-purpose misunderstanding going on here. The public associate property rights with alienation and I don’t Maori perform the same association. They do on an intellectual level, they know what it is, but in their hearts they are a communal people and what’s mine is yours. You observe this behaviour a lot and I think it’s part of their DNA, which in our DNA has been reamed out through our centuries and generations of city living and capitalism civilisation.

    So I think it would be helpful to get that conflation out of the way too, since it’s only that, a conflation. I believe and many would agree I think Maori see this as a co-ownership deal, with consultation rights. Quite why they see the need to tack on massive fees for that I don’t understand, perhaps they wouldn’t do that quite so much if the lefties started telling them they’re not victims of oppwession, they’re creatures of light and furthermore warriors with all that entails, success in life wise, so pick yourselves up from your victimhood crapulence, dust yourself off, tap into your mana and excercise your heritage as to so conduct yourselves every single one of you, as the disciplined, loving, capable beings that you are. Perhaps if lefties started telling them that instead of explaining how they’ll never escape because they’re oppwessed by the big baddies and we’ll hewp you in your oppwession because we weally care and we’re the only ones who do, so there; Maori would stop asking for money in addition to consultation. But no, they won’t be doing that anytime soon, will they.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    A good politician is one who provides a veneer of moral justification for his constituents’ unprincipled greed.

    Hence they don’t propose to plunder the workers, but instead talk of “redistribution”, “social justice” and “equality.”

    All these euphemisms exist to allow people to give permission to themselves to forcibly take other people’s income. They’re not doing it for the money, they’re doing it out of principle!

    Maori politicians are classic examples of this. Their purpose is to provide a pretext for plunder. And if that means talking about magical pixies then magical pixies it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    Why the disconnect?

    I’d venture to suggest that most people don’t vote *for* National, they vote *against* Labour and vice versa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Wel lhere’s the test. Are John Key and the Nat’s prepared to Say NO and churn up the debate then call a snap election to get rid of the parasites?

    Answer No.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Why the disconnect? Media bias and political infighting and hijacking by those who are now in charge
    Have a look at acts principles and compare them to the press spin
    encourage individual choice and responsibility and the pursuit of excellence in all fields of human endeavour;
    enhance living standards for all New Zealanders through sustainable economic growth and international competitiveness;
    enhance choice and diversity, and raise standards of achievement in education;
    ensure that all New Zealanders have access to quality health care and have security in retirement;
    maintain social and economic support for those unable to help themselves and who are in genuine need of assistance;
    provide for the nation’s security and the protection of individual lives and property;
    explore and implement practical and innovative ways to protect the natural encourage individual choice and responsibility and the pursuit of excellence in all fields of human endeavour;
    enhance living standards for all New Zealanders through sustainable economic growth and international competitiveness;
    enhance choice and diversity, and raise standards of achievement in education;
    ensure that all New Zealanders have access to quality health care and have security in retirement;
    maintain social and economic support for those unable to help themselves and who are in genuine need of assistance;
    provide for the nation’s security and the protection of individual lives and property;
    explore and implement practical and innovative ways to protect the natural environment;
    maintain sound economic management, including (but not limited to) a balanced government budget, price stability and a free and open market economy; and
    limit the involvement of central and local government to those areas where collective action is a practical necessity.
    ;
    maintain sound economic management, including (but not limited to) a balanced government budget, price stability and a free and open market economy; and
    limit the involvement of central and local government to those areas where collective action is a practical necessity.

    According to the media act would do away with social welfare rape the environment and is only interested in the very rich !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    I’d venture to suggest that most people don’t vote *for* National, they vote *against* Labour and vice versa.

    This is true, and the same in the UK and the USA.

    It’s how we all came to be in this mess.

    Labour and National are two heads of the same party. Whatever happens, they win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Why the disconnect?

    Social engineering. Plain and simple. For example, didn’t you notice the assiduous way Hulun conducted a constant propaganda campaign under the label of “the failed policies of the 90’s.” The whole Hayeckian (a.k.a. Rogernomics for the lefties who haven’t heard of Hayeck – der) approach was discredited by the entire Liarbore caucus (and the lefty media Griff as you say), for years. This is not the only, but the primary dynamic that is responsible for the massive leftward shift we see in the NZ political centre of gravity, which occurred during Hulun’s regime. This dynamic combined perfectly with the GFC where with some justification NZ people look in disgust at the 1%’ers but most of the ones who aren’t polticos: i.e. 50-60%; fail to distinguish between countries like the US/UK and here, and fail to recognise that apart from the crooks in the finance companies, we did not do the same things are the ones over there did, and got away with. They fail to make that distinction and consequently hallucinate in their small, dim minds, that Queen Street simply swarms with similar people who just were simply way too rich even to be prosecuted.

    Isn’t it mental, but that’s what people think. And they associate ACT with those people.

    Hulun did lots of social engineering when she was around and seemingly it simply just passed most people by. No journalists used to focus on it, not one to my knowledge. For example, I never saw any journalist pointing out that by appointing herself Veterans Affairs minister she made people look at her left hand while her right hand was busily implementing her destructive anti-defence mindset she never ever lost since her days as a Vietnam pwotestor. One of her very first acts in power was to destroy the air combat wing, our most powerful weapon. And then as time went by she pretended to care by announcing massive capital upgrades but guess what, all of it went on things like LAVs, which didn’t have very many guns at al. and all the while her left hand was honouring the veterans and showing the media who lapped it up like the idiot mentals they truly in fact almost all of them actually are how much she weally twuly cared and how strong she was on all things defence. That’s just another example.

    And BTW on this court case, guess what Sian Elia’s Supreme Court is going to do with this? That’s right, and who cares what the rest of the country thinks. Another Hulun special that passed our alert Fourth Estate completely by. I mean everyone knows Elias is sisterhood right? She was like peas in a pod with Hulun, Simpson, Wilson and Elias. That’s who the ruling council were.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    what a greedy, disgusting bunch of people maori have become.

    800 at the hui yesterday? it was good they could all get the day off i suppose.

    fuck em.

    Dime predicts we are 18 months away from some sort of white power type political party picking up 2% of the vote. Im not saying id vote for them but it will be a damning reflection as to where we are at.

    I cant remember this country ever being so divided.

    I have never been anti-maori but fuck me. they need a bitch slap back to sanity.

    I wont be voting national next time. i have the last two times and i like johnny but it will be a protest vote.

    The other sad thing about these latest claims – it will just prolong the amount of time regular maoris will be down and out. generation after generation whining about what happened to some ancestor. using it as an excuse to be violent, rob people, do drugs, go to jail, take whiteys benefits, beat kids to death etc etc

    maori “leaders” arent going to help. they are all about scamming whitey for their own gain.

    Maori – youre basically a fucked up bunch and youre never going to bounce back. sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    dime, agree with what you say but please be careful with that vote. As bad as it is now, imagine Labour/Greens/Mana/Maori etc. It doesn’t bear thinking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    What happened to Article 1 of the Treaty? Maori ceded soverignty to the Crown. In return Maori became equal citizens according to Article 3.

    Regardless of whether any iwi were usually living beside a river, the way the law works in NZ is that ownership of water is not vested in any one party. That is part of the deal of cedeing sovereignty and gaining citizenship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Dime if we don’t vote to stop the rot or at least stop the left getting in we may as well sell up now ready to jump the ditch because if labour and the greens get power with their present policys your nz assets will be worth squat. The greens would like to gift the country to moari and labour will not be able to stop it. As to a white power party I doubt that white power will get traction its not about white rights its about equal rights for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. OTGO (551 comments) says:

    I get the feeling that this whole affair is going to end badly. I’m just not sure who for????!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    Dime predicts we are 18 months away from some sort of white power type political party picking up 2% of the vote.

    Why that’s more than that rich bisexual’s vanity party!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Dave Mann (1,222 comments) says:

    @Rouppe Well said!

    @barry….. thanks for the clarification. As I said, I wondered if was already an established slogan. It’s very powerful, though, isn’t it? If this is NZ First’s philosophy then that’s where my vote goes next time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Zapper – im starting to think that we wont get a proper government until after we have hit rock bottom.

    national just seem to make small gains but ultimately prolong the decline.

    ill survive a leftist government. ill still have my giant ass house and fat bank account. i may move some off shore but ill be ok :D

    who knows, if we see some actual economic policy from the conservative party i may even vote for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. virtualmark (1,528 comments) says:

    Maori want to see the New Zealand Government honour the Treaty. Particularly the bit they like about:

    Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession

    I say we help them. That exact sentence carries on to say:

    but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

    The New Zealand Government should immediately create a new Crown entity which will be the exclusive purchaser of all real estate owned by iwi bodies, Maori trusts, any land recorded by the Maori Land Court, or owned by voters on the Maori electoral roll. Legislation will be enacted that those parties can only sell their land to that Crown entity. No more selling land on the open market for you. Nope. If you’re on the Maori roll and you want to sell that lovely 3 bedroom house in Otahuhu then you call the “Native Land Corporation” and they’ll tell you what they’re prepared to pay for it.

    Honour the Treaty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Scott (1,800 comments) says:

    dime – “I cant remember this country ever being so divided.”
    I quite agree dime. For me this government has completely lost its way. They were elected to fix the economy, to concentrate on bridging the economic gap with Australia and get people back to work. They promote good governance and an end to social engineering.

    Now we see more social engineering. John Key has allowed and voted for the first reading of same-sex marriage. Even Helen Clark stopped short of same-sex marriage. John Key has indicated that he will vote for the euthanasia bill. We have the bill advancing the agenda of gay adoption. All of these are deeply divisive and totally against the expectations of the average National voter.

    Now we see that our government appears to be ceding control of the Uruwera’s to a tribe to basically begin their own nation along with millions of dollars of taxpayer money in compensation for the perceived wrongs of 1865 to 1872.

    Feeling emboldened Maoridim is now jostling for control of the water! No wonder the country is divided!

    Who knew at the last election that a National Prime Minister would be allowing so many radical measures to happen in such a short time? Gay marriage, gay adoption, euthanasia, a separate Maori nation and giving water rights to one ethnic group. Who needs radical leftist activists when we have John Key?

    PS – I think it was you that recommended swift key for my android phone? Thank you for that recommendation. It is such a great keyboard. Many thanks :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Paulus (2,627 comments) says:

    The so called maori King is Tuku Morgan in disguise.

    The so called king never says anything, he can’t, without it being scripted by Price Tuku.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    DPF said:
    “This would make all non-Maori an inferior class of citizen.”

    Nonsensical emotive rhetoric DPF that appeals to the prejudices of people and not to the logic at the centre of this debate which is that Maori do have rights to water resources and are legitimately entitled to claim it, just as any New Zealander is who may own a water resource on their property.
    David Garret quoted an example of water in his roof tank, that water belongs to him and he could sell it to his neighbour if he so desires. Another example was graham(129) who said that a farmer with a lake ( pond ) on his property could also in effect sell water to his neighbours for irrigation which is widely done. So what is the difference?

    King Tuheitia said:

    “The motto of Kingitanga is mana motuhake. We have never ceded our mana over the river to anyone,” he said.

    His was referring to the Waikato River in his statement that Maori had always owned the water.
    He also said:

    “In the eyes of our people, Pakeha law was set up to minimise our mana and maximise their own.”

    That is the view that many Maori share, that the Crown has not kept it’s promises according to the Treaty and have consistently failed to sort these issues out. Maori have no option but to force the issue through the Courts to get recognition and protection of their resources.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    The KevinH of this world are and will be eternal apologists for greedy Maori tribes.
    Woolly academics and politicians, whom ensconced in their ivory towers, are always ready to preach on how to help the downtrodden. Sigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    KevinH stop taking the piss. How long must this go on for? Do you think Maori should be given everything they ask for? NZ is going down a very dangerous path at the moment and the further we go, the worse the consequences for this country. Race relations is spiralling downhill every day esp when you have fuckwits like Rankin trying to claim the wind. I agree with settling greviences but it is going well beyond that and eventually somethings gotta give.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    scott – no worries.

    what is the worst thing that could happen if the government just told maori to go fuck themselves?? the fat slobs would start a walk the length of the country? oh no!

    how long til maori insist they shouldnt be paying income tax?? imagine that, we would have to hand out non-taxed benefits. at the 17 of them that arent in jail and work would pay nothing from their wages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Did you hear them all chanting the Maori Alphabet, led by their idiot king, at the Hui. It went like this:-

    ACC-DPB-KFC-TAB-WINZ

    Now I know my ABC, lets go
    claim the whole Country

    DPF says:- “But they are risking a huge backlash that will dry up the considerable good will that exists in this country and allows settlements such as Tuhoe to have broad political support.”

    I believe it has already dried up DPF as the goodwill has gone. Everyone can now see them for what they are – one of the most useless races of people on this earth. And I think John Key may have played this pretty well. He’s smart enough to know that if you give these idiots enough rope they’ll eventually hang themselves and show their hand (and real plan) for all to see. Their supporters however still remain a dangerous vocal liberal and misguided minority who have jumped on to the “poor Maori” bandwagon for all they are worth.
    “Grumyoldhori” – you might have spent a couple of days too many at Iti’s terrorist training camp in the hills he now owns. You keep talking about starting the Maori wars again though!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    wtfunz – good point. maybe johnnys end game is to have us snap!

    its working.

    we could play a game – name a more useless bunch of people in the western world. anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Dime going to join the white power party with the Nazi salute are you ? that will be amusing.
    Damn this is funny, all these pakeha visitors arguing that Maori own too much of NZ and Maori have been treated equally since 1840. I blame the education system for allowing that piece of fiction to go through as fact.

    A CIR, hmm. a good wording would be should Maori have the vote taken off them and should all water in NZ belong to pakeha visitors.
    The visitors would rush to vote for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    all these pakeha visitors arguing that Maori own too much of NZ and Maori have been treated equally since 1840.

    That’s not what’s being argued, as you well know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    wtfunz ‘He’s smart enough to know that if you give these idiots enough rope they’ll eventually hang themselves and show their hand (and real plan) for all to see’. And destroy any race relations in the mean time? I am not sure they have played it well at all. I think this is causing untold damage to relations between maori and other kiwis. National needs to come out strong on this as it is a make or break issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Damn I’m going to be busy sending invoices out to the neighbors for $500 each for the use of my water, hmm five hundred invoices, should be a nice little earner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    grumpy,

    Now you’ve nailed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori (2,254) do you think it is healthy for maori to continue on and on for another 100 years? How about 200 years? There is no end is site. How can it be healthy to continually complain about being mistreated hundreds of years later? Even worse is the money seems to make no difference to any of the problems facing maori. Maori are still overrepsented in child abuse crime etc. Do you think treaty money is solving maoris problems? Stats prove it is not and I would love to know why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    wat dabney Oh, why do so many of you visitors argue that we have had equality in NZ since 1840 ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Damn I’m going to be busy sending invoices out to the neighbors for $500 each for the use of my water, hmm five hundred invoices, should be a nice little earner.

    You sure none of your water was used in the Japanese tsunami?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    KevinH (794) Says:

    Nonsensical emotive rhetoric DPF that appeals to the prejudices of people and not to the logic at the centre of this debate which is that Maori do have rights to water resources and are legitimately entitled to claim it, just as any New Zealander is who may own a water resource on their property.
    ….
    The problem with that is the scope of what Maori claim: Under the treaty “they own everything”. Under aboriginal title “they own everything”.
    Hence when King tut says “we own the water” a wide meaning can be taken. Non Maori will only take so much… getting rid of institutionalised Maori propaganda would be a good start as they are nothing but a cancer (state money for state disintegration).
    ………….

    THe principled Green Party is prepared to partake in a bad marriage based on “principle” and “ethics” and let it all work through:

    Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Green Party
    2008年8月29日17:42

    You don’t have to look very deeply within the Green Party to see that one of the values that unites us all is an absolute commitment to integrity – both personal and collective. Every aspect of our processes, our policies and our behaviour as Greens testifies to a fundamental commitment to acting in ethical ways.

    The principles of the Green Party Charter are an embodiment of our collective commitment to values like honesty, fairness and respect for one another and for the planet.

    Our Charter also explicitly accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this country, recognising Maori as Tangata Whenua. Part of the public discussion that has followed from the recent arrests in Ruatoki and elsewhere citing anti-terrorism laws has been an assertion of Tuhoe’s “sovereignty”. The sense of consternation from some quarters that has greeted this assertion must remind us that this preamble to our Charter is not just a form of empty words but rather a commitment to principle that demands our action.

    We are moving into a new phase of the collective national discussion about the Treaty, and as Greens we have a responsibility both to be an active and ethical voice in that discussion but also to work to equip others to participate in that discussion from an informed and principled basis, rather than sheer short term self interest.

    Discussion to date has focused on the return of usually a small fraction of those resources unfairly taken from Maori as reparation, on reducing inequalities and on the rights of Maori as an ethnic and cultural minority with a threatened language and culture. While some of these issues have been addressed in part through the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, these issues are, in fact, largely unrelated to the Treaty. If there were no Treaty, as there is not in a number of other societies around the world, these would all still be issues that would need to be addressed in a fair and just society.

    The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori.

    Let us be clear that the meaning of the Treaty must be determined from the Maori text. Those writers of angry letters to the editor who cite the plain cession of sovereignty of the English text and declare “game over” in fact ignore the law, which makes it the responsibility of the party offering a contract to ensure that the party accepting it fully understands it. If disputes arise, interpretations of the contract are to be made according to the understanding of the accepting party rather than the party that drew up the contract.

    This means that the Maori text of the Treaty, and the explanations of the meaning of the Treaty given to Maori before signing, determine the Treaty’s meaning, and the English text is essentially irrelevant. At the heart of this deal, the “tino Rangatiratanga” of Maori would be respected by the British Crown and Maori would have all the right of British subjects, in return for a cession of “kawanatanga”. Kawanatanga was a made up word, based on “kawana” (for Governor). Maori were familiar with this new word because it was the Maori word that had been coined to describe the role of Pontius Pilate in the translation of the Bible. Explanations given to Maori at the time of signing emphasised the role of this kawanatanga in curbing the excesses of Pakeha settlers and protecting Maori. In contrast the Biblical use of Rangatiratanga had been to describe the Kingdom of God.

    It is plain that sovereignty was not ceded by the Treaty, but rather Pakeha were given a basis for establishing government (of Pakeha). No wonder the historical record is of Maori disillusionment and anger since.

    Obviously the case can be argued in much more detail than this, but this is the essence. A typical response from Pakeha at this point is to dismiss this as all in the past, and assert the need to simply move on from where we are now, doing our best to achieve equity of outcome for all citizens, whose rights are to be assumed identical.

    As Greens, this is precisely what we cannot do. Such a position is unprincipled and unethical. Our responsibility is instead to grasp the nettle and, trusting to our integrity and to our belief in ethical process, to work through what a balance of Maori Rangatiratanga and Tauiwi Kawanatanga might mean in a modern society.

    Nineteenth century colonisation worked pretty well the same way the world over: a beach-head of traders and missionaries was established and stalling tactics like treaties used to negotiate a safe space for the colonisers while numerically fewer. The coloniser then increased military strength until it had superiority (sometimes misjudging this, or almost doing so, in fact), at which point the treaties could be set aside and power secured by force.

    In our determination to breathe life into our Charter’s commitment, guilt and hand-wringing are unhelpful. Our particular contribution must be a resolute determination to do what is right and our toolbox of Charter principles that equips us to step into a leadership in this new discussion. Now’s good.

    This article was printed in Te Awa, the Magazine of the Green Party of Aotearoa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    So what the Greens are saying is (essentially) Pakeha live in a Maori country. That’s hater and wrecker standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhory being truthful to his “advanced” roots.
    You’re nothing but a bloody parasite and a disgrace to this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    grumpy,

    why do so many of you visitors argue that we have had equality in NZ since 1840

    You are not representing the basic argument accurately. You have created a strawman to argue against.

    The Treaty has been superceded by news laws. It is redundant.

    If you wish to argue for Treaty principles then you also have to argue against all the laws since then which touch on property rights.

    You can’t have it both ways: you can’t complain on the one hand that the state confiscated your land and on the other support the state when it confiscates workers’ incomes for the disproportionate benefit of Maori.

    ‘What’s mine is mine and what’s yours in mine’ is not a moral argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Grumpyoldhori – You have raised some interest here. Please tell me how Maori HAVEN’T been treated equally for the past 100 years at least.
    I’ll go first though as here’s how badly I see poor Maori being treated.
    More funding for low decile schools to educate them better than the Honkies.
    Maori housing loans – not for honkies. (nfh)
    Maori scholarships to university – nfh
    Allocated university spots to Maori – nfh
    Maori seats in Parliment – nfh.
    100’s of millons in “settlements” that real maori never see – nfh.
    The great con of this Govt “the Whanua Ora Billion $” shiiit – nfh
    I could go on but it gets too sickening. And now you want the water that falls from the sky. Get me a bucket.
    I wait for your list. My bet is I don’t see it as you caren’t actually think of anything that actually exists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

    A state’s consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the “essential basis” of the state’s consent

    The crown was under the impression that moari signed over sovereignty as stated in the English version that moari now claim the sovereignty was not signed over invalidates the treaty The myth that we must obey the moari version has been around for years

    One Nation One People One Law for all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    wat dabney And the treaty was overturned when ? property rights, pakeha argue the Maori do not own the foreshore except when their ancestors have bought some foreshore from Maori.
    Now unlike hypocrites on both sides I have no problem with ALL the foreshore with NO exception being in Crown hands.
    Pakeha whose ancestors bought foreshore from Maori, well tough, they get to surrender it to the crown with no compensation.

    I have no problem with pain, as long as it is felt on both sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Scott Hamilton (298 comments) says:

    ‘When the Mori Ori get compensation and their rights back then I’ll think it fair for the Waitangi Tribunal’s existence.’

    Go and read the Tribunal’s Rekohu report from a decade ago:
    http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/reports/rekohu/

    The report’s been the basis for the awarding of fisheries to Moriori and of funding for the Moriori language and a Moriori marae.

    I don’t think you’ll change your mind about the Tribunal, but you might at least drop one silly rhetorical trope. It’s amazing how so many folks on right-wing blogs like to invoke the Moriori but don’t have the slightest bit of knowledge about what that group of people think and do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    labrator what those pakeha wasted MY water, better make those invoices $600 each to allow for wastage by the customers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. David Garrett (7,281 comments) says:

    Duggledog and others: Why the disconnect between ACT’s message and the lack of people supporting/voting for them?

    Two reasons I think, to some extent connected. First, ACT never managed to shake the “party of the rich pricks” label that other parties – aided and abetted by a basically left wing media – bestowed on it. If I was given to conspiracy theories – and I am not – it could even be argued that that was another reason I needed to be “taken out”…I was and am most emphatically NOT a ‘rick prick” – bugger it – and everyone knew that.

    The second reason is the media which, as someone else said above, gleefully portrayed us as “rich pricks out to rape the environment and further do down the poor”. They were never ever interested in the reality, which could not have been further from the truth. We stopped having any sort of objective media in this country about the time Perigo said TVNZ was braindead, and that was close to 20 years ago.

    As Rodney said at the time of my downfall, the media now get to say who stays in parliament in NZ. I’m afraid that is true…look at the attacks on the Conservatives, and we are 18 months out from an election. And it is the reason Darren Hughes will be back in parliament in 2014 but I won’t – even if I wanted to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    grumpy,

    The Treaty was not overturned. It was simply rendered redundant when later laws trashed recognition of property rights.

    If Maori wish Treaty land to be returned and to receive compensation then they also have to return every cent of taxpayers’ money they have voted themselves over the decades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    David Garrett Come on, ACT members feed the media information about your background and the media ran with it.
    Are you saying if it was a Nat or Labour member they would not have ran with the story to the same outcome ?

    What right wingers do not get is this, after the Bolger government any party to the right of National will be looked at with suspicion, such as will they be selling all the hospitals off, unfair that Labour use those scare tactics, blame the TINA mob for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    grumpy, or any of your supporters, a simple list please. How have you been disadvantaged?

    Well done tho’ on the foreshore issue. The crown ie. all the citizens of this country, should own it. Yes – any existing title deeds giving title to any inividual, corporation or group/tribe should be torn up. Just as with the water, the wind, the air and the sun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Try doing anything with a property with riparian rights to get a consent you will lose the riparian rights and enough land for a esplanade reserve

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    wtfunz OK a couple of my own family, my Grandfather lost a leg on Chanuk Bair, when he got back to NZ he was discharged and because he was a Maori he recieved no weekly war injury payments that pakeha got.
    My father was in the 28th Maori battalion, he got badly wounded and after he got over his wounds applied for a rehab dairy farm, he was told quote, rehab farms are not for the likes of you.
    Of course members of that white only church who were not in action did get farms.
    Do you call that equality ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    @Hori – Get off the internets until you’ve paid your White Man’s Technology Licence fees, oh and hand over your car keys too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Manolo (13,775 comments) says:

    As an individual with big chips on his shoulder, it would be tragic if you have passed the same attitude to your offspring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. David Garrett (7,281 comments) says:

    grumpyracistname: I have also heard stories about Maori veterans of WW II – including a bomber pilot who completed more than one tour – being refused a rehab farm on the basis of race. If that is so, and it seems it is, that was and is an utter disgrace.

    But who would NOT agree with me? I suspect about 1% of foaming at the mouth Kyle Chapman-ites…and absolutely no-one takes them seriously.

    But because outrageous things happened not that long ago, that is no ground now for ridiculous claims that Maori “have always owned all the water.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    David Garrett reading some old articles by General Kippenberger sadly showed that the racial approach to rehab farms was all too common.
    What is a pity is the numbers who believe we had racial equality after 1840 in all fields of life, it makes one wonder if any NZ history is taught in schools.

    While I can be a stirrer I have no problem with total equality, a white farmer gets tossed off Maori freehold land, he gets what Maori have got on a capita basis, about $4000 dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    You are spot on David. These are personal situations such as mine. One Grandfather gased in WW1. Came back to nothing but 7 kids and a shack in Masterton where the Yanks had a rehab/recover camp with everything. He died in poverty – shit happened. My other Grandfather was seconded by the Govt to help gaurd at an internment camp where they put German and Italian immigrants for being nothing but immigrants. He had to close his business. – Shit happens. What about the poor immigrants – not sure they even got a “sorry about that!”
    The difference – some people get over it.
    Grumpy, I understand your point but look at the list I provided for you and I ask again – show me how Maori people as a whole have been disadvantaged in the last 100 years by our society?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. cossackstomper (24 comments) says:

    I would like to see a simple accounting measure put in place for any future Settlement claims to any tribes
    On the Credit side of the Ledger
    The Settlement Amount
    On the Debit Side of the Ledger
    Any Dole payments
    Any education grants
    Any Welfare Payments
    Any Pension Payments
    Any Sickness Benefits
    Any Acc Payments
    A cost per person for those that have been imprisoned
    Any un paid fines deducted
    Any un Paid Child support deducted
    A cost per person for education from that tribe. Acost per Person for their Health care from that tribe
    Alive or deceased
    This money then should be netted out of the Treaty settlement amount
    Wait for the Wailing and gnashing of teeth then. If you want to look at thing retrospectively then you also need to take into account pragmatically all the things that have been done to make life easier for Maoris there is a cost for those improvements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. alloytoo (543 comments) says:

    Given that a treaty, a defacto contract, should be a meeting of the minds,

    I somehow doubt that a Queen who’s empire spanned the globe, primarily on the basis of her wind powered navy would sign away water and wind rights in NZ.

    The notion is ludicrous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    wtfunz I could go through that list point by point, but there would not be much use when your knowledge of NZ history is to be blunt, shallow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. David Garrett (7,281 comments) says:

    At the risk of being dismissed as an irascible curmudgeon, I fear that most people under about 40 have either very little idea of New Zealand post Euro history – which is bad enough – or a completely false idea of “what happened when” which is arguably much worse.

    I will never forget hearing the maiden speech of Gareth Hughes, ages 17, and the incredible statement therein that “the British stole sovereignty from maori in 1840 at the point of a gun.” Afterwards, I asked Gareth if he knew how many British soldiers there were in NZ in 1840. He said he didn’t. I asked if he knew the population balance at that time was about 50-1 in favour of Maori…he vaguely knew that. He grudgingly admitted knowing that by 1840 all iwi were tooled up, as a result of the musket wars.

    The most frightening thing was when I accused him of knowing virtually nothing about post Euro NZ history he told me had a degree in it…from Victoria FFS….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    grumpy – why would i join a white power group? was just stating where i think this country is going. the silent majority will get the shits.

    as for white power – dime has no issues with islanders, asians, indians etc etc

    just you scabbing maoris.

    i love how im apparently a “visitor”. cause my family has only been here 170 years or so. what a stupid fucking term.

    does that make you half visitor?? cause at some point some white guy banged your nana, great nana etc etc or your great grandad banged some blonde little princess

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Griff has the mental picture of the moari giving back the ancestry of the white man
    how much will you give back hori your legs ,your arms ,your little balls?. All moari are part Euro want your country back give us our ancestors blood back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    have any protectors of the land/ caretakers of the water beaten their kid to death today?

    anyway, back to the bigger issue “gimme gimme gimme”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Grumpy and his ilk continually look at the past. No wonder they go no where in life..sad really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. LiberalismIsASin (290 comments) says:

    Citizens Initiated Referenda: those things the government of the day totally ignores.

    Frankly, this is just the logical conclusion of a society that has no guts or morality, eg it has no bravery to stand up for whats right. As for our spineless wimp of a PM, he of the dancing around with fags and “gay marriage” – in what way is the national party conservative? He has no guts, he will not call a halt to any of this. No morals = no courage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    DG,

    that’s a strange statement coming from Gareth Hughes, but it’s not an uncommon stance. i well remember discussing the circumstances of the signing of the treaty with a pommie immigrant drinking buddy, and he thought the whole might of the Royal Navy was just off the coastline waiting to pounce if Maori didn’t sign on the dotted line.I offered him some accessible Michael King history to read up about it but he refused because, in his view, anyone who thought other than he did was automatically wrong…and then along came Kiwiblog and I found he was not alone!

    John Key should take a bow for one stunning achievement, at least. The uniting of the tribes of Maori like almost never seen before. It’s a signal, albeit entirely unintentional, act. He should take a bow.

    About the theme that colonisation happened a long, long time ago and should be subject to a kind of statute of limitations, I came accross a cute cartoon recently which had three frames. The first depicted the Holocaust with the caption, ‘never again”. The second, 9/11, with the caption, ‘never forget’. The third an image of slavery and colonisation (of Africa, but the same principle applies here), with the caption, ‘get over it’.

    Get my drift?

    DPF had better get used to swallowing a few dead rats. I’ll enjoy the spectacle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “The first depicted the Holocaust with the caption, ‘never again”. The second, 9/11, with the caption, ‘never forget’”

    i didnt realise that people who lost family members in the holocaust had spent their lives trying to get money from various governments. i guess thats why jewish people no longer try. they just bludge off society. commit crime. beat their kids to death etc etc

    the fact that in your mind there is a connection between slavery and what happened to the maori is fucked up. then again, youre a sad individual so nothing really surprises me

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    The third an image of slavery and colonisation (of Africa, but the same principle applies here), with the caption, ‘get over it’.

    Get my drift?
    ……..
    no.
    Not many people see the need for decolonisation but rather a melting of cultures based on choice and practicallity
    .
    As for swallowing dead rats it may be haters and wreckers who have to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. wtfunz (133 comments) says:

    Grumpy – just as I said. You actually have no real list which summarises the entire Maori position to a “t”. Your only recourse is to make false accusations – exactly like we are seeing from all Maori today. My understanding is based on facts – not the fiction Maori have brought in to the Treaty. Changed from a document to “that’s not what we understood”. All the people said to “understand” are dead and never wrote a thing down. Your claims now are based on chinese whispers and out and out bullshit.
    Have the honor to produce a list for us all to reflect on please! I see you haven’t attacked my list at all and I can add alot more to it if you want. Hard to attack facts – easy to attack fiction!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    Yeah right.
    The Queen and her advisors signed off on not owning all the water and the land the tribes couldn’t control, and all the foreshore and seabed.
    But then Maori have got John Key and Chris Finlayson to secretly negotiate with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    De colonization fuckoff to Zimbabwe luc and see it at work first hand .
    Kipling The white mans burden has it so right all those years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Muriel Newmans petition to overturn the foreshore and seabed act failed because the media imposed a blackout on it. So what hope has a middle ground silent majority party got?

    If nz first or any other party would come out and with silent majority policies they would hold balance of power if not become a new major party.

    Eg
    Overturn foreshore and seabed and not honour any contracts under it.
    Respect for immigrants
    Lock crims up

    The we would have a party who speaks for us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Something else that interests me on this topic: John Key says English common law decrees that no-one owns water – let’s ignore that we all pay for the use of water, anyway – but for a coloniser to say that the law can only be derived from that of the coloniser surely is bereft of any kind of moral justification. Especially now that we have signed up to UNDRIP.

    Griff, sorry old chap, time is passing you by.

    Dime, that’s a strange comment even for you. That the same forces colonising Africa and India and China were colonising New Zealand and Australia, but you can’t see the connection? Cast your mind a little wider and think in terms of reactions to catastrophes, and how it’s OK for white victims to forever remember, but non-whites should just forgive and forget and kowtow to the white man until the end of time.

    Also, Dime, you should read Norman Finkelstein’s “The Holocaust Industry’. It wil open your eyes.

    hj, we gave up on assimilation a long time ago, primarily because the candidates for extinction didn’t like the idea.

    And reading the tone of most comments in this thread, or the whole site, for that matter, leaves little room for doubt as to just who the true haters and wreckers are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    – let’s ignore that we all pay for the use of water, anyway –

    You expect that water to be treated and transported to your tap for free luc?

    Stop confusing water and water ways with water supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    A long thread to read through.
    If anybody with the appropriate knowledge defined what the King meant I missed it. The hysteria is great but it would be interesting to understand what was said, the context of it, and how that would be understood to translate into the now. I know clarifying the message isn’t popular these days with many circling band wagons to climb on, but it stills seem the appropriate place to start.

    DPF pointed out that this (what ever this issue is when clearly defined) would exhaust goodwill. Even though that seems to be a popular position of the ‘sky’s falling.’ Someone even recommended law changes that could be interpreted to a modern day land confiscation. I note it is becoming unpopular to have a grievance these days, unless of course you have to be one of the many commentators that regurlarly bleat about their own grievances as we have seen here today to the point that it gets argued that ‘my’ grievance is bigger than yours for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Steve (North Shore) (4,563 comments) says:

    Te Tiriti belongs in the shitter, I agree with dime’s comments today.

    Oh, why is luc trying to hijack the thread, commenting on colonisation in other countries? This is NZ luc.
    Do you have something to tell us? Like were your ancestors cannibals? just saying

    How come the latest conquerers of the LAND have to pay the previous conquerers (Moari) who conquered a previous inhabitant and they pay them sweet fuck all?
    White man pay – how much? get the Govt checkbook

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Acid test for a biased sycophant: ask them if they agree that indigenous whites in Europe should have special rights and privileges in law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    “i didnt realise that people who lost family members in the holocaust had spent their lives trying to get money from various governments.”

    Yeah. Some actually did.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_Conference

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Why not vote Labour then? It’s National governments that seem to give away the really big bucks to Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Good call Kevin. The terms “ethnic”& “indigenous” have become a code word for non-European looking people. I have often made your point in various discussions, people look all confused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    I will never vote national again because they have given in so much. $1 TRILLION by 2008. Labour won’t repeal it because they have many in their ranks who think that giving in to maoris is “sticking it to the man”. national have done the dirty work for labour. In fact what they are doing is “giving it to the man” – iwi are now the establishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    And reading the tone of most comments in this thread, or the whole site, for that matter, leaves little room for doubt as to just who the true haters and wreckers are.

    If you want to see the “true haters and wreckers” you only need to look at the main stream media (or your comments)

    What you see here are real people speaking their minds. They represent a true cross section of Kiwis who care enough to have an opinion.

    If you do not like it here, you are free to go live in some place that embraces your ideology. Central Africa has many such places and they would love to take you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    That’s easy Steve. From somewhere above I read that matter has been settled by the Crown. Additionally, the defining point in time is 1840. Which puts the confiscations in the 1860s into the post treaty era. Interesting to note after the British were soundly beaten at Gate Pa by an ‘inferior’ force, soon after land was siezed. One chief when surrendering and finding out the extent of the expectation on he and his people, pointed out that he had not known that surrendering also meant losing his land.

    Reading some of the Maori Land Court settlements of the 1880s gives another picture. Around Hauraki for example a Government ‘agent’ James Mackay featured prominently in doing deals for himself and his mates to the extent of not paying proper values and charging exhorbitant survey fees. In many of the hearings (naively it would now seem) notes were attached to files as to whether claimants had been on the Government’s side or not – clearly showing another dimension of the confiscation. Volkner in Opotiki is another where the Government ‘killed and grabbed first, and spoke later.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ
    You have been reading far to much revisionist history
    soundly beaten would be the almo or the charge of the light brigade
    A force of 1700 had 100 killed or wounded in one skirmish the enemy then cuts and runs and its a victory
    for who?
    The New Zealand Settlements Act in 1863, The law of the land which moari were informed in fact warned about made the confiscation of land legal for warfare against the government Not all confiscation was legal or justified but it was a just payment for those who wanted to continue the wars of the pre treaty area only twenty years prior

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. RF (1,398 comments) says:

    I am so tired of the bloody moaning Maoris. For christs sake move on. What our ancestors did should not be our problem. I had a distant relation in Scotland that was hung for stealing cattle from the British. Should I go back and claim compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yep, rf go for it. the first rule of the compo industry – its always the fault of the person/organisation with the deepest pockets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. RF (1,398 comments) says:

    The Maori as a race used to be proud.. Now they are mainly thieving opportunists trying to make a quick buck at our expense. I no longer have any respect for them or their antics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    I think you’re reading the wrong history griff. As for a law change prior to starting hostilities to the benefit of the eventual winner – there’s a problem with that. Something like an expectation of the intention of the law makers, too transparent to be ignored in the modern revision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Poor ol’ Griff.

    What pre-treaty wars, pray tell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    It suits the Iwi’s purpose to have poor Maori in fact on a percent ethnicity basis Maori are not underprivileged – those that self identify as Maori are underprivileged. The iwi perpetuate the myth to get more money. The money goes into iwi pockets with a kickback to the white elite – the Maori rank and file gets,nothing. It’s,the NZ poverty cycle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kevin

    Did I miss where Europe has been overrun and conquered? Did this happen while I was at smoke?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    What pre-treaty wars, pray tell?

    You may want to ask those who chose to put on a barbaric public display of their “warrior ancestor” to every significant visitor to NZ.

    To even ask that question shows a profound lack of knowledge and you may be best to shut up and learn. Idiot.

    Oh and yes, much of Europe is over run, but not yet conquered, no thanks to pricks like you I might add.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Hastings for example. It’s such fun to watch you guys squirm trying to make out that white indigenous people are a different case. Except Irish of course. What NZ needs is an Ian paisley.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Than (473 comments) says:

    Luc: I can’t say, don’t know how long you have been smoking.

    But yes, European countries have been conquered; Google “1918”, “1945”, “Treaty of Versailles”, or “Treaty of Trianon”, for examples. If you want to go back to 1840 there will be many more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    Kea, struggling to control your anger just a tad old bean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    Phew Bro it’s phuckin good that Ngai Tuhoe settlement though eh?

    170M eh? Shit that’s about $4250 each! Lucky Murri’s eh!

    Wonder when the big chiefs will dole it out to the Bro’s eh? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    Your cheque is in the mail Johnboy. It was among the first sent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    And when they sell ureweras to the Chinese they will be allowed to because its theirs – private property rights. Therein lies the motivation – the govt couldn’t get away with it but our rich iwi mates will with a kickback. Because of labour and national our only remaining export commodity is land,so they have to find some way to sell it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kea

    ah, Griff was referring to tribal wars! I get it. Of course, we Europeans didn’t have our own tribal wars, ever did we?

    Your reply to my Europe comment is so predictable – I’m just wondering what a white country boy in New Zealand has to do with Muslim immigration in Europe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Luc hansen says:

    hj, we gave up on assimilation a long time ago, primarily because the candidates for extinction didn’t like the idea.

    And reading the tone of most comments in this thread, or the whole site, for that matter, leaves little room for doubt as to just who the true haters and wreckers are.
    ……………
    Without some sort of assimilation we have the square peg in round hole problem, like grumpyoldhoris (cultural fundamentalists) calling the rest of us “visitors” and wanting to extract rents for water.

    Helen Clark was referring to your type when she coined the phrase “hater and wrecker”. Would be the sort no one liked much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kevin, you don’t seem to have grasped the concept of co-ownership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Kevin

    Did I miss where Europe has been overrun and conquered? Did this happen while I was at smoke?
    ………
    Gengis Khan?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Co ownership = they own + we pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen (4,018) Says:
    September 14th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    Something else that interests me on this topic: John Key says English common law decrees that no-one owns water – let’s ignore that we all pay for the use of water, anyway – but for a coloniser to say that the law can only be derived from that of the coloniser surely is bereft of any kind of moral justification. Especially now that we have signed up to UNDRIP.
    ………………………
    We pay for the provision (infrastructure services) of water. When Maori are colonised they get the common law of the coloniser which says no one owns the water….
    You would prefer Maori own the water as the superior moral position because there were (60 to 70,000) of them here at colonisation ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    I don’t understand what the controversy is.

    Key has said that particular Iwi may have particular rights and interests in some bodies of water.

    That seems utterly fair and sensible. Luc, to say that todays Maori should have universal proprietary rights over all of New Zealand’s air, water, and land because they are Maori, is frankly ridiculous.

    I can only imagine that you support this concept because you yourself are Maori and stand to gain, because you are too intelligent to really believe that Maori should essentially be the proprietors of New Zealand’s elements simply because they are Maori, without any further specific connections.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Luc is a racial masochist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Read our lips Jonkey. F*** any race having any special rights or privellidges in law or otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Key has said that particular Iwi may have particular rights and interests in some bodies of water.
    ………………….
    and so do Pakeha.
    The problem is applying the treaty and or aboriginal title given that at time of colonisation the whole country was the property of Maori collectives. Another aspect is relating to people who (allegedly) live in a separate reality and (allegedly) dance to a different tune to the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Johnboy (16,554 comments) says:

    It’s all too late folks. No good protesting about losing the water and the air. It’s all a done deal.

    BIG CHOCOLATE owns the world! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. RF (1,398 comments) says:

    The Maori are now a joke and should not be taken seriously. They have no one else to blame as their greedy attempts to take ownership of anything not nailed down has shown them for what they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    We come back to the problem that under the treaty and aboriginal title justice for Maori is a function of whatever Maori feel like demanding.
    I suggest Maori use their grievances to store the worlds toxic waste; they’d make a mint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Unfortunately they have $ One Trillion to make us take them seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    It crossed my mind that each and everyone of those Maori that showed up at the hui, without doubt, would all live solely off the tit of the NZ taxpayer in some form or, another. I’ll wager a bet that there wasn’t one legitimate, successful, small business owner there who was a Maori, who had made it on his/her own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    My extended family is Maori. I love getting the financial reports from the various iwi organisations and, what a coincidence, the directors fees are always exactly the same as the nett surplus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Your reply to my Europe comment is so predictable – I’m just wondering what a white country boy in New Zealand has to do with Muslim immigration in Europe?

    I am more Syrian than most Maori are “Maori” as a point of fact.

    You really put your foot in it there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    There was a Maori bloke on telly tonight taking a claim against his employer for been sprung (via facebook) at a canoe event in another city, whilst on sick leave. He was duly fired. The Maori bloke is claiming his attendance at the canoe event was part of the Maori ’healing process’ and is taking his former employer to court . Spot the analogy, which by the way, is why I would never ever employ a Maori. (once was enough)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Griff was referring to tribal wars! I get it. Of course, we Europeans didn’t have our own tribal wars, ever did we?

    Yes they did and have very recently (Yugoslavia for example). So why the special pleading for Maori and other “not white” folk?

    You have no moral compass an no coherent point. You jump all over the place applying different standards on the basis of skin colour alone. I call bullshit on you brother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    The sad thing about all this, is that the majority of Maori are embarrassed by these absurd claims being made by a few Maori elite. Yet who can blame them, when the Govt continues to capitulate to them? One thing that Maori do well, and that is to exploit weaknesses. Hell, if I was a Maori, I’d be doing the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Maori get a bum rap because the iwi/remuera socialist/mainstream media axis portrays them as underprivileged criminals. In fact when I ran a business over half my employees stole from me and none were Maori . Don’t support the elitist scum by playing,their game. If the statistics were on a percent ethnicity basis instead of self identification Maori would be neither crminal or underprivileged. My kids are Maori but are not crims. They are underprivileged,though because all my money goes on taxes paying for this iwi /govt bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kea

    So obviously the intent of your original comment went over my head. Care to explain what you meant? Try to keep it polite.

    And my comments about European wars were intended as sarcasm. Doesn’t translate too well, I guess. Never mind.

    The basic point (nearly) all of you are arguing here is that Maori have no claim whatsoever over their dispossession by acts of the European colonizers overt and covert since 1840. Many of you put forward various reasons, from suppositions of law to the all Maori are scumbags concept.

    I simply point out the facts of the matter, based on practice now well established in national and international law, that Maori do have grounds for legitimate grievances and these should be addressed in a full and fair manner – and most recent governments generally have been very good at it, but this time JK let his ear for the polls run away with any sense of what is right.

    He’s the one who has put his foot in it.

    This doesn’t imply that I want to hand everything over to my Maori brethren, just a fair share.

    I fail to see the cause of all the hysterical abuse I receive for merely stating what is, in fact, the status quo. Grievances need to be received and considered in good faith in a transparent process. If injustice is continued for whatever reason, the grievance will arise again another day, as has this one over the confiscation of water rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Maori have no claim whatsoever over their dispossession by acts of the European colonizers

    Luc Hansen you finally said something that makes sense.

    No one cares about the retrospective morality of non binding “international” agreements. Go to some place in Central Africa, Asia, South America, India (that is most of the world white boy) and preach that shit. Then you will have some credibility (and be dead)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Luc what do you think regarding my earlier point? Should Maori as the king attests, have proprietary rights to all of New Zealand’s elements, in this case water, because they are Maori people in New Zealand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    The moari signed the treaty as a way of stopping the previous thirty years of brutal warfare. Warfare that resulted in a holocaust. Some tribes were annihilated totally , others decimated some where between twenty and fifty thousand were slaughtered by other maori varst areas of the country were left depopulated add the displacement and slavery and there was a catastrophe of biblical proportions. This warfare was halted by the signing of the treaty in 1840 The revisionist view is that moari signed for protection from the illegal acts of settlers or the threat of 1 boat load of french men
    absurd concepts of ever there was one. As a result of signing the treaty English law was introduced to stop further wars some moari attempted to restart fighting later and the law was used to stamp any ability to do so out. by confiscating the warmongers land. Yes some land was confiscated by greedy governments unjustly Not all confiscations were unjust or illegal. Maori gave sovereignty for protection from themselves and are now trying to claim it back The treaty exsist only because we allow it to it is null and void if the two party had a deference in interpretation at its signing so all rights of moari rest in our tolerance not in any law. if the treaty is null we own the county by right of conquest an undisputedable right under moari tradition to do as we please with the maori and all their possessions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    Can’t you do any better than that Griff. So in your revision there was a sudden crisis 800 years in the making that the British were able to console winners and losers alike to agree upon being ruled by a concept that they didn’t understand. The British had no designs on the land or resources and of course never prepared or had any ambition to take vast acreages once they had secured their position and built garrisons and otherwise shown they were ready for war. I wonder what will come down in the next shower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Mirror-me (7 comments) says:

    Luc Hanson: I totally agree with you, very well put.
    Like it or not, when Europeans first arrived en masse in NZ, Maori had possession of the land. How and when they gained it, is of no consequence, they had had possession for some centuries, and therefore have international recognition as indigenous people. With that they have certain rights regarding protection from exploitation that others do not have.

    People can argue all they like, but they will never alter that fact. The treaty was signed, and is a legally recognised document. You cannot just cancel it, because it doesn’t suit your agenda. John Key was warned of the consequences of tampering with state assets that relied upon water, which has both material and spiritual significance to Maori. He chose to ignore it, and not develop a ‘plan b’. Bigger fool him.

    It is worthy of note that Maori were more than happy to share the right to water with all New Zealanders, provided the sharing of it was equal and not exploited. The selling of shares means that only a few wealthy New Zealanders will ultimately benefit, and probably eventually be owned (partially) by overseas shareholders. Those water rights have a value, and if that value is not to be shared equally with all NZers, then I totally agree with Maori, those that use them, should pay the value of that use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. wat dabney (3,761 comments) says:

    The selling of shares means that only a few wealthy New Zealanders will ultimately benefit

    That’s plain wrong.

    As you yourself say, the shares are being sold, not given away.

    The money goes into state coffers.

    Moreover, out of state hands these generators can’t be used as a stealth tax mechanism to impose a regessive stealth tax. Another win, particularly for the poor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    There is some substance to Te Arikinui Tuheita’s assertion. The Treaty of Waitangi was drawn up in order to protect The “just rights and property” of New Zealand’s “Aboriginals,” “Natives,” “tangata wenua” (sic). They were guaranteed ownership rights of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and all other properties that were in individual or collective ownership. The version in te reo recognizes ownership of lands, settlements and “taonga.” Water is a taonga. Waterways (rivers, lakes, harbours, bays) are signifiers of iwi identity, second only to the principle landmark of identity (the mountain), and take precedence over iwi affiliation. Maori (including Moriori) are the indigenous people of these islands. They are recognized as such by the United Nations. Their interests and aspirations are covered by the International Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which the John Key led New Zealand government has endorsed. Suggestions of a CIR to determine the ownership of water are simplistic in the extreme. Gratuitous insults (“greedy Maori”) and petty racist taunts in the comments above add nothing constructive to the current debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Mirror me :
    you make a case based on aboriginal title as though this was an absolute rule. The rule however evolved and was based on justice. Justice doesn’t favour a small minority over everyone else.

    you also base it on the treaty citing international law. Do we assume good faith in signing the treaty or do we take into account the fact that the negotiators were in no position to come up with a constitutional arrangement suitable for the masses who arrived later, or do we take the “oh, well tough luck you lot” view?

    “It is worthy of note that Maori were more than happy to share the right to water with all New Zealanders, provided the sharing of it was equal and not exploited.”

    as always having played Shylock, impractical and devils advocate you put make up on yourself with the mandatory “Maori… more than happy to share…” otherwise you’d look like an arsehole and poser?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    The treaty was signed, and is a legally recognised document. You cannot just cancel it, because it doesn’t suit your agenda

    Cancel the treaty?
    A legally recognised document ?
    Are you disputing that there is different meanings between the English and Maori version?
    If there is a deference between the understanding of the two sides the treaty is null not cancelled null This is international law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    There is some substance to Te Arikinui Tuheita’s assertion that Maori have always owned the water. The Treaty of Waitangi was drawn up in order to protect The “just rights and property” of New Zealand’s “Aboriginals,” “Natives,” “tangata wenua” (sic). They were guaranteed ownership rights of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and all other properties that were in individual or collective ownership. The version in te reo recognizes ownership of lands, settlements and “taonga” (treasured possessions, heirlooms). Water is a taonga. Waterways (rivers, lakes, harbours, bays) are signifiers of iwi identity, second only to the principle landmark of identity (the mountain), and take precedence over iwi affiliation. Maori (including Moriori) are the indigenous people of these islands. They are recognized as such by the United Nations. Their interests and aspirations are covered by the International Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which the John Key led New Zealand government has endorsed. Suggestions of a CIR to determine the ownership of water are simplistic in the extreme. Gratuitous insults (“greedy Maori”) and petty racist taunts in the comments above add nothing constructive to the current debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    I think one day we will have to revisit our venerated treaty. It has worked as long as no body rocked the boat, however now we have hard liners like those on the left (like the Greens), who really have an agenda such that Maori nationalists will prepare the ground and they will plant Marxist beans*. Isn’t that right Catherine Delahunty?

    *ther’ll be te reo all over the p[lace”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    There’s is no need to revisit the Treaty. It is enshrined in New Zealand law. It is a living document, it has international currency. It is not obsolete as some contributors to this blog assert. Contributors should read about the Treaty on the excellent Treaty of Waitangi website before wading into this discussion so that they know what they are talking about and do not fabricate history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Maoriman says:
    The Treaty of Waitangi was drawn up in order to protect The “just rights and property” of New Zealand’s “Aboriginals,” “Natives,” “tangata wenua” (sic).
    …………
    on the other hand it is silly and disadvantages the vast majority so….?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    You have no idea what you are talking about. The Treaty is an empowering document for the Crown. All New Zealanders benefit from this. If you were a New Zealander you would know this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Moari are not all New Zealand and they are going to cope a big reality check in the next election
    the treaty was to protect moari from moari as much as anything
    The empowering bit in the treaty is the first clause the sovereignty held by our democratic elected government
    The living bit is pure happy dreams of those who see the world though a stone age tribal rock

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. maoriman (57 comments) says:

    Have you actually read the Treaty? There’s an excellent website which should help to lift the cloud of ignorance from your mind. I would also recommend Dame Claudia Orange’s authoritative book on the Treaty. It’s a great read. Really, with so much good information available there is no excuse for ignorance. You may not be aware that when our legal profession refers to the Treaty as a living document that is because it is enshrined in current New Zealand law. It has nothing to do with “pure, happy dreams.” If you were a New Zealander, and educated, you would know this, surely…? Your comment, by the way, is sub-literate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    The treaty has been used to create a landed gentry with guanteed intergenrational govt contracts and the rest of us surfs guaranteed to have to pay in perpetuity. Thanks goodness my kids got to see tarawera before it was closed to us. Now the only way my grandchildren will get to enjoy the beaches is by paying extortionist taxes to fund secret access deals to the beaches the iwi set aside for us and their national mates don’t want to build private resorts on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Have you actually read the Treaty? There’s an excellent website which should help to lift the cloud of ignorance from your mind.

    Its is a very simple easy to read document. Your reference to websites and books is intended to tell the reader what to think and to create the myth that the treaty says more than it does.

    It is not a living document. It is non binding and was not considered a proper legal document for most of its existence. It certainly has no “international currency”.

    The treaty was written and created with good intent. Thanks to people like you, the good intent is gone and the treaty is being used to selfishly divide our nation. This benefits no one, including Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Griff (7,719 comments) says:

    Have I read the propaganda yes do I believe the propaganda no.
    Have you actually read the history no you have read the modern interpretations of the history.
    Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed above), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

    A state’s consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the “essential basis” of the state’s consent

    The crown was under the impression that moari signed over sovereignty as stated in the English version that moari now claim the sovereignty was not signed over invalidates the treaty
    Oh and I do not give a toss if you consider me sub literate I consider you a fuckwit so I guess we are equal

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Nostalgia-NZ (5,211 comments) says:

    I guess you didn’t notice Griff the Vienna Convention on Treaties is not a consideration here. But you’re welcome to travel to Vienna and talk with some one about that, they’re probably expecting you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    maoriman says:
    The Treaty is an empowering document for the Crown. All New Zealanders benefit from this. If you were a New Zealander you would know this.
    …………………………..
    So the treaty is win:win for we tauiwi (“visitors in your land”) as well as you “people of the land”?
    The treaty is in two languages with different emphasis and that reflects the realities of the moment (i.e demographics, distances, cultures) at time of signing. It was no time to make an agreement and the treaty negotiators were working on behalf of British officials and had to get the job done somehow, so the idea that the treaty is a great piece of work that intelligently addresses the demographics and circumstances of the world today is silly. The myth has held up as long as nobody rocked the boat.
    You can quote international law and the UN all you like; as long as Boris De What’s his name types populate the UN and outsiders think that Maori ride whales you’ll have some outside support. Unfortunately your claims are too broad and outrageous. Just listen to yourselves: “we own the water”.
    What a bunch of narcissistic twerps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Your comment, by the way, is sub-literate.

    Welcome to Kiwiblog…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Your comment, by the way, is sub-literate.

    ……
    oh! dear missed a colon = fail Maori Studies (Phd’s for the sycophants).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Russell (1 comment) says:

    Maoriman:
    That’s merely the self-serving interpretation of “taonga” used ad nauseum; it first and foremost refers to the personal property of the tribe. The only water at it’s source currently in anyone’s possession is ponds and small lakes on private property. The significance to Maori of waterways does not imply ownership… Maori could claim coastal waters on that basis…. is that next?
    One ethnic group owning fresh water, a public good, a resource fundamental to human existence, and charging everyone else for it’s use appears offensive. The rest of NZ will not stay silent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Francis_X (147 comments) says:

    “It is non binding and was not considered a proper legal document for most of its existence. It certainly has no “international currency”.”

    Rubbish.

    As it was signed by Lt Governor Hobson, representing Her Majesty the Queen, it was a Treaty that had no less currency than another other signed by representatives of our Sovereign. Get that through your head, and the rest will fall in place.

    As for water ownership. Personally, I find this whole subject a matter of great hilarity.

    Up until the arrival of European colonists, Maori had no notions of private ownrship. That concept was a gift from Europe, from whence capitalism originated.

    Until we arrived, Maori held all land, forsts, waters, etc, in collective ownership. Iwi domination over ceratain areas was as close as they got to definining territoriality.

    It seems that Maori not only “got capitalism” – but they got it pretty darn good. In fact, they got to fully understand our systems of jurisprudence as well as concepts of private ownership.

    We always wanted Maori to be westernised and assimilate. Well, it looks like they’re doing precisely that – but on THEIR terms, not ours.

    Rather than now whining about how hard done-by we pakeha are, maybe it’s out turn to get with the programme and play the game WE introduced to this country.

    What I think about Maori and water rights is irrelevant. But what Maori have achieved in turning our system to their advantage is simply brilliant.

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