Iwi occupies Crafar farm, claims ‘ancestral’ right

24/02/2012 1:54:25 a.m.

Gosh wrote:

Lol Mike, how about, if it was yours…, there would be no discussion. I personally don’t like the idea of international conglomerate ownership of land in NZ, in any way shape or form. I understand the floating of shares and invested intresestests, apart from that, I would hate to see NZ go the way of Fiji.

You know, @ the end of the day Winnie is right when he billets on NZ for NZlanders. We have a precious and unique place on the planet and I also believe we should protect it with complete bias.

Yes our Army is all important, yes our Navy is all important. Without complete and utter protection of our waters and coastlines we are lost as a country.

Same goes for our inner land, farm and horticultle, exercises. If we loose our Kiwi advantage over the international markets we loose our business all together.

22/02/2012 8:37:09 p.m.

CROWN wrote:

kia kaha whanau!!

21/02/2012 11:08:47 p.m.

TDog wrote:

If 3news were to do a survey about which redneck slogan is overused and meaningless I wonder which would win??

1. I'm not racist but...
2. We're all going to be overrun by immigrants/minortiy rule
3. There are no full-blooded Maori's left
4. I know a lot of Maori who agree with me
5. Why don't they get off the benefit and get a job
6. We saved you from yourselves

21/02/2012 10:31:43 a.m.

james wrote:

@ Mike,

So what about the Ngai Tahu settlement where Maori were not paid for the land they had agreed to sell was never paid for and further land was subsequently confiscated. The value of the land at the time of settlement was approximately 20Bn and they were given 170m plus first option for some land purchases. They actually got paid ONCE and it was at less than 1% of the current value of the land - and yes of course they get paid the current va;lue of the land otherwise it would have to be given back. People who claim that its been so long and that Maori should get over it, well do you realise that Maori didn't just get up yesterday and start complaining about it. Ever since the confiscations, land wars etc started to happen Maori have made noise about it. The simple fact is, as per all the research and the Crown's own opinion that Maori were treated unfairly and there is abn obligation to remedy the issue. People who think otherwise and try to force the issue to go awayperhaps don't relise that in this situation it would mean that an ignorant 'one rule for all' approach would therefore continue that oppression, amount to approval of the acts that were committed (by not addressing with remediation) and is fundamentally racist. Maori wanting redress is not racist it is their right.

21/02/2012 8:17:33 a.m.

Mike wrote:

@Dan I dont hate Maori, or really want to see them lose the right to vote, right to healthcare, right to welfare.

But back to the treaty, it gave Maori the rights of british citizens including the right to own land. Yet the interpretation today is that it did none of those things and gives Maori the rights to be given stuff again and again and again on a basis of being Maori - it shouldn't do both! If one holds the treaty is the most important, it will be more important than the later social security act 1964 (amended) or the NZ public health and disability act 2000 (amended). Neither healthcare or welfare, nor voting covered in the treaty, and contract law if its not in, it not enforcable so we stick to the 1840 treaty without Maori voting/welfare/healthcare or we take it as a historical document and treat all NZ'rs (including Maori) equally under law.

The way the treaty is being interpreted today is 100% racist and worse than Apartied in South Africa - yet even South Africa threw out its racist legislation!

I have a Grandfather who had land siezed after WWII by a vote catching Labour government giving land to returned servicemen. It was paid for at below market value. That land today now sits inside a city and would be worth over $250,000,000 - should I have the right to have ancestral claims to all that land and occupy it to the expense of current and future owners forever till I get $250,000,000 now, and when its worth $250,000,000,000 in the future want more again? That is the whole basis of Maori claims.

It still doesn't address all the land in NZ that was sold pre-treaty which amounted to land area more than 2x the size of NZ.

Some Maori had red hair and european features (sharper shaped nose included). Did the vikings get really lost and a boat of red haired vikings turn up here very early in history? Could everyone of viking descent have a historical claim on NZ from that?

21/02/2012 8:13:41 a.m.

kiwi wrote:

I am a shamed to hold my head high and say i am a maori these last few years our people want everything handed to them on a platter its not how it works. we will all be tared with the same brush soon and its happening very quickly because off protesters and our people acting like this there is a way off doing stuff like this and it not by acting like animals wake up people

21/02/2012 1:18:42 a.m.

Clarke wrote:

Ahh Mike, the young Nat? or in the very least paid political mouthpiece. Yes we know how much you hate Maori, but just what compensation do you think war crimes committed against the Maori should cost the country... put a figure on it for us. Hundreds of Maori women raped, children beaten, a entire culture almost destroyed by european colonialism. Whats that worth to you? $20.00 and a bottle of jack?. You should just not comment sometimes really. Yes you have a business degree... but intelligence just elludes you completely I'm afraid.

21/02/2012 12:05:44 a.m.

Dan wrote:

@ Mike: Land seizures continued all the way through the 1800s so to argue that all land was seized as part of the Land Wars is just factually incorrect. One of methods used to disenfranchise Maori land owners was the requirement of registration under the Native Land Court whereby no more than 10 people could own a block of land irrespective of size. The New Zealand Settlements Act was passed as a punitive response to the Land Wars and allowed confiscation by proclamation. This land was generally confiscated in bad faith. Finally in terms of your claim that it would remove the right to vote, healthcare and welfare that's just patently absurd. The right to vote is one of the inalienable rights of British citizens. As for healthcare and welfare these are not "rights" at all. If you look at the Social Security Act 1964 or the NZ Public Health and Disability Act 2000 you will find absolutely no reference to a right to welfare or health. They are simply voluntarily conferred assistance.

20/02/2012 11:08:14 p.m.

Mike wrote:

What happened here was shameful.

We had a treaty, then settlers got slaughtered and the crown responded. The response included siezing land.

What is forgotten is the value of land as in the 1860 land was cheap. In 1867 Alaska was sold for under $0.02 per acre - that was the price of land back then!

It was never about the land as even now much of NZ is crown owned and uninhabited. Crown of the day even managed to get it wrong, blaming some Maori when other Maori were responsible. The Maori way was might is right (have a war to sort things out) - its how all disputes were handled pre-treaty so one can view any land siezed as following Maori priniciples.

If want to enforce the treaty with modern interpretation, it doesn't give Maori the right to vote, the right to healthcare, or the right to welfare - therfore we should stop all those if we want to enforce the treaty.

The treaty was a document that made NZ part of the british empire and gave Maori the rights of british citizens - including the right to own land. Pre Treaty Maori didn't own land and used this loophole to sell NZ more than 2x over. When settlers had trouble with this sell, and then claim it back it started adding friction. The treaty took this pressure off by making the crown responsible for all land sales. It also stopped settlers selling guns to Maori, and stopped some settlers cheating Maori.

Plenty of evidence of Maori hospitality - like Hone when he visited the Chatams and slaughtered everyone he caught up with! Such hospitality is what drove the crown land siezures.

If NZ is to pay for things that happened in the past today, should we make the Tribe of Hone's pay too? Maybe we should sieze every scrap of assets that his tribe has and take it to help the crown pay for what has been given to other Maori?

This idea of paying wrongs today just leads to a cycle of endless payments. There has been Maori payments/settlements about every 20 years since the treaty.

20/02/2012 10:58:22 p.m.

Matty wrote:

@ Rusty. If they had sold the farms individually the sum total would be nowhere near the 210mil the Chinese offered. Lets remember that the decision of who buys the farms legally belongs to the Aussie banks, unless we pass new law to state otherwise. The Chinese price is far and away much more than the farms are worth, and private owners could never pay those prices and stay afloat. As for Maori occupation, well they have my sympathy as a race (maybe not the occupiers). They did get a raw deal, but in a global historical context they didn't do too badly. The Maori were very lucky that Britain had other priorities at the time, choosing to indoctrinate with religion rather than slaughter. It's a very unfortunate situation with no real solution, other than apologies and gestures.