Green co-leader Marama Davidson ignored current full-and-final settlements worth more than $4-billion, the earlier full-and-final settlements of the 1940s, as well as compensation paid before that.
Neither Labour nor National supported Davidson’s stolen land fund, ACT’s David Seymour said it would “crash” land value, and a change of government means it won’t happen anyway.
Aside from the repeated settlements, and irrespective of the fact there was more than 100 years of peace from the end of the 1860s conflicts until Maori sovereignty protest started around 1970, how much “stolen land” is up for grabs?
New Zealand has a total land area of around 26-million hectares.
About 1.3-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s as a consequence of tribal rebellion.
There were complaints at that time, confiscations were investigated, a total of 646,774 hectares were returned, which left 651,793 hectares that remained confiscated.
To be clear, the confiscations were a consequence of rebellion and had been carried out under two pieces of legislation passed in 1863 -- the Suppression of Rebellion Act and the New Zealand Settlements Act.
By referring to the an alleged “scale of illegal Maori land confiscation”, Davidson appeared unaware that the confiscations were legal.
Flash forward to today. Approximately 1.47 million hectares are currently classified as Maori land, and this included customary land.
So, since Maori owned most of New Zealand’s 26 million hectares in 1840, when the treaty of Waitangi was signed, since 1.47 million hectares remain as Maori land, and since around 0.6 million hectares remained confiscated, what happened to the remaining 24 million hectares?
It was sold.
Maori vendors sold a whopping 92 percent of the land area of New Zealand for all sorts of reasons, but mainly, that it was more in their interest to sell than to hold on to it, which is much the same choice made by any ownership group of any asset.
Surplus land is one more aspect to this discussion.
Surplus land was land retained by the Crown after pre-1840 land sales were investigated, and when numerous sales were either overturned or the permitted area sold was greatly reduced.
The surplus land, being the difference between the land originally sold, and the area permitted to remain sold, was in many cases retained by the Crown.
The total area of such surplus land is difficult to find, although figures in the Waitangi Tribunal’s National Overview of 82,555 hectares retained by the Crown of original sales totalling 1.2 million hectares, show a ratio of surplus land retained in that manner.
A point to note that the surplus land taken by the Crown had originally been sold.
But the fact that it had been taken by the Crown would also qualify it for Davidson’s description of land that had been stolen.
A myth has grown over the years since 1973, when Nga Tamatoa protesters disrupted Waitangi Day by wearing black armbands mourned the loss of the entire land area of New Zealand.
That myth is that since the 1800s, Maori “lost” most of their land.
But as we have seen, apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated, and apart from surplus land retained by the Crown, Maori vendors sold land at mutually agreed prices over a long period of time.
For instance, a handful of Ngai Tahu chiefs sold most of the 15-million-hectare South Island in 10 deals over 20 years from 1844 and this was after they had sold much of the same area before 1840.
Selling land was good business.
There is a world of difference between losing something and selling it.
Sources
Greens propose $350 million fund to return stolen Maori land, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132556777/greens-propose-350-million-landback-fund-to-return-stolen-mori-land
Professor Alan Ward, National Overview, https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/NatO-1.pdf
11 comments:
Davidson is a protester who chants slogans for any woke cause going, no matter how uninformed she is. She does not care, it gets a sound bite.
'Davidson appeared unaware' - there was not need to limit this statement to one thing.
The only thing that has ALLOWED to be stolen is the TRUTH.
For that, I blame our Governments.
When the Europeans arrived 200 odd years ago Maori were a primitive Stone Age people. They were poorly clothed, poorly housed, and their food was limited. They had no technology, no metal tools…not even a clay pot! They were desperate for blankets, metal fish hooks, pots and pans, muskets, farm animals, food stuffs etc and were keen to trade for those goods. The only thing they had of value to the Europeans was land, and there was plenty of it so it had limited value. Maori willingly traded at keenly negotiated prices.
The vast bulk of Maori land was sold on a willing seller/willing buyer basis…it was not stolen!
"There is a world of difference between losing something and selling it", but also having something "taken" from you if you weren't playing by the agreed rules. Having something "stolen" is an entirely different matter, and is something a certain cohort have obtained mastery of in claiming and practising right up to this present day. But not unlike like selling, grievances can be good money spinners and have the added benefit of being one-way transactions long after those involved have departed.
What has the Options Development Group being doing for the last 3 years ?
This a committee with 8 out of 11 members who are clearly Maori determining which iwi will be allocated Crown land ?
Surely they must be dis-banded immediately and all their proposals aired to public view ?
The English system that was implanted here is so deeply embedded that this article and corresponding comments cannot envision any world view outside it. The prevailing idea that there is only one way that New Zealand can exist (the English template) is like a brick wall around the psyche, any suggestion of change or flexibilty to it sends the defenders running for the ramparts, ready to defend the castle. It's remarkeable to see the insecurity, like sharing the country will bring about full scale destruction of their way of life. There is no win/win, no "rising tide lifts all boats", instead there is fear, that by elevating a different world view, I lose my own. Sad
The English system prevails because that is what everyone signed up to in 1840.
Sad? Too bad. Better than what was ceded.
Marty,
Of course we admire and protect the English system. As Anonymous notes, we, with the Maoris, signed up to it in 1840, and it has kept us and our families educated, prosperous, healthy and proud for 180 years. Surely we all value the remarkable integrity of our legal system, giving those who do business here the certainty of fair treatment under the protection of the law? Fear of your customers stealing from you without consequences plays a very small part in New Zealand. However, things will change if the Maori Party has its way and they succeed in destroying democracy. When representation is along racial lines who knows what will happen to the rule of law? Who knows if we'll still be protected?
Somebody said “ The English system prevails because that is what everyone signed up to in 1840.”. I don’t believe that was the intention of the treaty. Yes the Māori were given the privileges of British citizens, but there was nothing in the treaty about abandoning their language, culture, customs or beliefs. Their way of life was to continue where it didn’t conflict with British sovereignty.
As for land that was allegedly “sold” or confiscated, why would the Crown pay compensation for land when iwi took their grievances to the Waitangi Tribunal for investigation? Why would the Crown apologise for taking land?
As a lifetime registered valuer it is clear that The land that was sold had very little value mainly because it had no supporting infrastructure.IE;-No roads , no ports, no schools, no hospitals, no power stations etc. As these things were progressively added by the European settlers the land became more valuable- and continues to do so. These dissident Maori should learn to be more grateful."The west is the best".
Post a Comment