sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Settlement reached over Ihumātao: Crown to buy land from Fletchers for $29.9 million, Kīngitanga to provide guidance over its future

Settlement reached over Ihumātao: Crown to buy land from Fletchers for $29.9 million, Kīngitanga to provide guidance over its future
Image sourced from Wikimedia Commons

The Crown has agreed to buy the land at Ihumātao in Mangere from Fletcher Building for $29.9 million.

The transaction is taking place outside of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process.

The 33 hectares of land may be used for housing, heritage and conservation purposes.

The roles of the Crown, Kīngitanga and Auckland Council in deciding exactly what happens to the land has been outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all three parties.

A “steering committee” made up of three Ahi Kaa representatives supported by the Kīngitanga, one representative for the Kīngitanga and two representatives for the Crown will guide decision-making around the land. An Auckland Council representative will be allowed to attend meetings as an observer.

Fletchers bought the land in 2014 for $19 million. Its plans to build 480 homes on the land were met with opposition by those who sought to protect its heritage. Fletchers said selling the land for $29.9 million would "broadly" see it break-even.

Kīngitanga spokesman Rahui Papa said: “After more than 160 years of alienation from Ihumātao, the descendants of the original owners will be reconnected with their whenua.”

Papa said the Kīngitanga’s intervention brought a “tikanga-based approach” to the discussions and gave the parties the time to develop a “by Māori for Māori” solution.

He characterised the deal as meaning: "The Crown will now hold the land on trust while a Kīngitanga-led process is undertaken to decide the Ahi Kaa status of parties who claim a connection to the whenua.

"Those parties will consult with whaanau and tribal members on the future of the whenua, which may be used for housing, heritage, and conservation purposes.

"Meanwhile, Auckland Council will play a role in the care and maintenance of the land."

Housing Minister Megan Woods said the form of housing to be built on the land will be agreed by the signatories of the Memorandum of Understanding, and could include Papakainga housing, housing for mana whenua and some public housing.

“It will be a sensitive development that recognises the special characteristics of the land,” Woods said, without indicating roughly how many houses may be built on the land.

“There is a need for housing to support kaumatua and kuia of this place and this agreement recognises that.”

Finance Minister Grant Robertson said: “We acknowledge the decision, by Heritage New Zealand to extend the classification in regard to this land, will have some impact on what happens. 

“Alongside housing, the parties want to use some of the land to provide better recognition of the cultural and heritage values associated with Ihumātao.”

Fletcher Building CEO Ross Taylor said: “We thank the Government for the pragmatic way they have approached this process. It hasn’t been easy, and we acknowledge their role.

“We also acknowledge the iwi who we engaged with throughout the consenting and proposed master planning of the land. Any plans for the land are now a matter for the Crown and Kīngitanga."

National: Govt 'meddling in private property rights'

National's Finance Spokesperson Michael Woodhouse said: “The Prime Minister should never have involved herself in the Ihumātao dispute and taxpayers shouldn’t bailing her out now.

“[The deal] will call all full and final treaty settlements into question and set a dangerous precedent for other land occupations, like the one at Wellington’s Shelly Bay.

“More than 20,000 Kiwi families are on the waiting list for a home this Christmas. The Government should not be spending $30 million on stopping 480 much-needed houses from being built right now."

Greens: Crown had a 'moral obligation' to buy the land

Green Party Co-leader Marama Davidson said: “I am hopeful that this process can go some way to healing the pain caused by the wrongful confiscation of this land from mana whenua in 1863. 

“The Crown has a moral obligation to fund the purchase of this land today, given it dispossessed the mana whenua of this land in the first place.

“We cannot have true justice today, or purport to care about property rights, unless we acknowledge our history and the injustice of past land confiscations.”

ACT: Ardern's 'worst decision as PM'

ACT leader David Seymour said: “Buying Fletcher Building out of Ihumatao has formalised Jacinda Ardern’s worst decision as Prime Minister.

“It is the equivalent of the US President siding with Antifa over the businesses they vandalise.

“It’s now clear, if you own land and someone squats on it, the Prime Minister won’t defend your property rights, she’ll use taxpayers’ money to buy the land off you.

“In the case of Ihumatao, it’s apparently okay because future housing on the site will be ‘a sensitive development that recognises the special characteristics of the land.’

“Perversely, that precisely describes what Fletcher Building went through years of consultation and design with mandated iwi to try and deliver.

“It will be a miracle if this hotchpotch of an arrangement ever builds any houses, given this Government’s track record."

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

133 Comments

16
up

Wait for the other shoe to drop. More to come.
Who is going to pay for the subdivision infrastructure, roading, 3 waters, power

13
up

Find a mirror.....

Same same person who actually purchased and paid for the land. eg The taxpayer

Kianga Ora//// the good taxpayers.

I think this is, so far, a reasonable result. i struggle to understand why someone, somewhen considered that it was acceptable to privatise the ownership of the land considering what is on it.

The thing I've never been clear on was whether this was the sensitive land or next to it. Granted the whole area is probably very sensitive, but there was a lot of confusion around whether it was the reserve or land adjacent to it that was being developed.

The land is adjacent to the Stonefields Reserve. The Manukau CC was in the process of incorporating it as part of the reserve given Heritage NZ had recognised it as sensitive. But then the Super City happened, and that intent was forgotten or dropped, not sure. Subsequently, via a (suspect/questionable) fast-tracked Special Housing Area designation process, the land suddenly had tremendous commercial value and Fletchers bought it from the intergenerational caretaker family.

Muz, think the recipient(s) of the $19 mill Fletchers paid out in 2014 should answer that question!

13
up

This country is screwed.

18
up

No, it is the taxpayers that got screwed. Unless they are also a Fletcher shareholder or one of the many snouts that will be feeding off this.

It's not a complete screwjob - Housing Minister Megan Woods said all sides had committed there would be some housing on the land, alongside some kind of conservation.

Taxpayers get some and some in return for paying a large sum!

They already started the roll out to put housing on it, did you not see the tents, all for the bargin entry level price of $550k, now that's affordable in AKL.

17
up

Considering how well Maori didn't do during the great NZ land grab, I do not get worked up when a few decimal points of wealth is recovered on their behalf.

It pales into insignificance compared to the present day land grab by foreign buying - championed by the hypocritical Nat supporters.

How can you talk blame "present day land grabs" on National when Labour have been in power for nearly 4 years? How do you know which way land owners vote, I don't recall being asked my political affiliation last time I applied for a mortgage.. And please, how are foreigners buying up land given that there is some form of foreign buyers ban (which randomly excludes Australia and Singapore). Please enlighten us.

Real estate agents and lawyers will tell you that many homes are still being bought foreign investors using proxy buyers.

21
up

Shelly Bay will be next. So when is a Sales Agreement not a Sales Agreement? My g-g-grandfather had some amazing land, but sadly he sold it off, for what in those times was a fair deal. I'd like it back.

Treaty, bottle, genie.

I think you'll find that if you were to, hypothetically say, steal a car and then and then on-sell it, the purchaser doesn't have clear title.

11
up

But Fletchers paid for this land, it was not stolen. So your statement doesn’t fit. It suggests that no matter what compensation Maori receive some members of the tribe want to renegotiate. And this Government says why not, as they have no backbone to say no. More renegotiations are coming.

The. land. was. stolen.
Please scroll down to Kate's comment, click on the link and read the article

Not by the Wallace family they were given it by the Crown. From nzgeo.
“ More than 400 hectares of land at Ihumātao was confiscated by the Crown, as punishment for the community’s allegiance to the King movement, and given to a handful of settler families. One of those was the Wallaces.”
So was the Crown’s action illegal is the issue.

Let's face it, the Crown's actions would be spurious at the very least, and as for the Wallace family, they knew how they gained from this, no excuses

Absolutely - compensation was made so a deal should have been a deal

20
up

Heading back to Auckland frequently and thinking I need a bach (crib) there.
Spotted a great piece of grass around Bastion point. Great sea views. Could whack up a shack, some flags and stuff. Move in.
As for the land ownership thing it's clear the Labour government will buy it for me. Best if all Ardern won't even visit. Magic.

Already been claimed, you will have to move along to a new chunk of dirt.

Spaceboy. It's a reclaim. Apparently thats how it's done these days.

Had a second thought for my Auckland bach site. That big lawn at Government House Mountain Road. Close to town and also green and leafy.
Build the shack there. Few banners etc. PM will transfer the land.
Patsy might drop in quite likely, but the bonus is the PM certainly won't.. Magic.

Sounds like a pretty racist comment to me.

Is it racist or just honest ?

Am I the only person who has commented that one family pocketed about $19mill when the land was sold (against all good advice and recommendations in 2014 that either or both of the govt and council ignored) after they had use of it after being GIVEN it, back when it was stolen.
Yes, there are lots of wrongs that we have to face up to, and it may well be costly to do so.
This is a case where the law was an ass.

Wow, that's doing pretty well from selling stolen goods...?

Yes, the entire focus seems to be on iwi wanting their land back and nothing on the family that scored from the whole rotten process. If that isn't racism I don't know what is.

You give me hope PA.

12
up

Pocket. Ownership was sorted years ago. Disputes were settled. Then somebody who disagreed just turned up and demanded.
Just says to me there was no point in trying to settle.

Yes, that's how i saw it. Agreement signed off, payment made and then another group didn't like the deal. This opens up a big can of worms.

It's not a matter of 'how you saw it' - rather it is how it actually happened that matters.

Kate, how about refuting other's arguments? Please explain the errors in what they said.

See the link I posted below.

This is a Koha payment. They will be back for more.
Thru history many people have been cheated by the system, how about Pakaha getting some retribution. NO WAY HOSA

It wasn't really. It was only 2014 when Fletchers sought to buy the land, and it was recommended that should not happen.
The people who have fought for this did not "just turn up and demand", just because you had no knowledge of what was going on for years, does not mean it wasn't/.
This had to happen and I am glad it has, and yes, there are STILL wrongs to be righted, that's what happens eventually

Yes Pocket. We know you don't like the settlement made - but it was made. You should not disrespect that.
Even Mr Trump seems likely to respect a recent decision. Can you?

Not if it was the wrong decision, and clearly it was not made with full consensus. That IS significant land and we should have ALL wanted it to have been treated as such.
Again, I ask, how come the family that scored $19mill from stolen land, please don't try and tell me they had no idea how it came to be theirs, that they had no conscience about it.

So Pocket, one step down from Trumpy then.

Whatever blows your hair back, about the very last thing I could see Trump doing would be righting historical rights for Native Americans, so this is only your perception

I would be more interested in Trumpie actually righting their historical wrongs. Sleepy Joe would do it, but Hunter has to give him his usual 10% cut.

The land was confiscated by Govenor Grey who then gifted it free to the Wallace Settlers who then enjoyed the use of it for 150 years

Any background as to why Grey confiscated the land? The narrative seems to be it was confiscated due to the original owners allegiance to the Kingitanga separatist movement - a movement the colonials were at war with.

That's probably one of the options you'd take up when you began to see treaty breaches before the ink on it was barely dry

It may well have been an option but history would tend to indicate it wasn't a very good one

And can I ask that you take one lens out and replace it with one that show a more Maori perspective, in order that you try to understand.

Pocket. Are you saying Maori can't ever settle? What a terrible thing to say.

No, you said that, without so much as a nod to the Maori perspective. Spin it all you like.

Tell you what Pocket - how about all the questionable sales done over 150 years ago were reversed and the original owners hand back all the muskets, ammo and powder and in some cases gold. Then we can reset the clock back to 1860 and start again. would that make you happier??

In a heartbeat.

10
up

Set the clock back to 1830 when a different tribe possessed Ihumatao. or 1800 when another one possessed it. Or 1770 when yet another possessed it. And so on.

You're ignorance is breath-taking, gold-standard.

Then you'ld have to allow compensation to the descendants of the victims of said musket sales which would be vested against the perpetrators. Be careful of which can of worms you open Te Kooti, open one - open all.

There was no sale of this land till 2014, and that was advised against

It would have been sold anyway. The Wallace family were exiting farming and the land had been designated a SHA (an admittedly dubious decision given it's historical significance). Maybe the SHA decision should have more scrutiny, had that designation not been passed this squabble may not have happened

Lots of wrongdoing, but only those who had the wrongs perpetrated against them being criticized (to put it mildly)

Actually Pocket, I'll think you'll find most of the angst is directed at the Govt. Unfortunately the argument is being lost in the noise coming from ill informed or biased camps.
Imv, an adult discussion would start with why the land was confiscated in the first place and what were the grounds and evidence to support it or refute it. If the land was wrongfully confiscated - it should go back to the original owners. If it was legitimately confiscated - all bets are off and the land stays with Fletchers

Quite right - as always, wonderful reporting by NZ Geographic for those interested;

https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/when-worlds-collide-2/

Kate that reporting is NOT by NZ Geographic Society - it's by NZGeo - completely different. I'd thought someone who purports to be an analytical thinker would have noticed that.
"New to NZGeo? We're a family-owned media company focusing on New Zealand's society and environment."
Another partisan organisation with a biased or slanted agenda - thought you were better than that

I didn't say NZ Geographic Society - I said NZ Geographic and I know its a commercial magazine.

Sheesh - read slower, calm down.

Very insightful. What a tragedy.

10
up

Major can of worms. Give an inch...

Yeah, just take your inches.

I agree, horrible precedent IMHO.

Crown will cover other 2 parties reasonable costs, so over 5 years add another $10 million.
But, will occupation and squatting still be allowed?

Two wrongs make a right? What if the government's deal stands, but also the squatters pay rent / pay the price of illegal activity. Fewer people would cry foul then

That's 57% hard earned profit by Fletcher. There won't be any houses being built there unless the taxpayers are willing to pay another few millions to appease the mana. The whole settlement thing in the country is a joke. You can settle today and tomorrow they come back asking for more and the cycle runs for eternity. Hardworking tax payers trying to do the right thing are really the ones being robbed and have their lives stolen by the robbers playing the victims.

hArD wORkINg TAxpAYers.

The cry of the racist boomer.

Good. The right decision and it should mean some housing for those desperately in need.

So like the original Fletchers plan then? The one agreed with the actual inhabitants and Kaumatua of Ihumatao?

The purchase under the housing act was only to try and avoid challenges in a government described housing crisis.
My bet is few houses ever turn up - although more chance if Labour aren't responsible - but Cindy will be long gone before the depth of this lie is fully exposed. I note that government only have 1/3 of the participants in the steering group.
The fact that Labour released this at the Christmas Break, and at the same time as a possible vaccine purchase and distribution to break the news cycle shows just how cynical their communications are.v(just like the AU bubble announcement to break Mallards totally unacceptable BS)
This government is disappearing up their own PR backside. Sadly NZ voters lap it up......

Poor old Megan Woods being big sister in fronting this, this to fix the PMs mess.

The issues lost on the Socialist PM is the Rule of Law and Property Rights.

If there were an injustice, the Courts should have been the place to decide fact.

The other tell for the Socialists is cronyism and crony capitalism.

No one needs or deserves Christmas gifts like these.

Cronyism 101, confiscate land from the indigenous peoples, hand it over to your cronies, gratis

But it was ALL stolen in one way or another. We can't hand it all back, it just can't be done. So why is this bit different to any other?

Some was sold legitimately. The early deals were legitimate by the settler government, albeit at criminally low prices. It was when the appearance of buying the land was abandoned or when Māori were made to create individual titles for their communally owned land when the real trouble began.

PA, as if Fletcher were willing sellers.....

Change the record PA - it's worn

I could say exactly the same to all of you

Pocket. My family were involved in those areas in those days. The horror is remembered. eg. There was the story of the dead Maori at Patamahoe.
Long story short Pocket your ideas of 'stolen' is one sided self serving fantasy.

Patumahoe

They were so involved, you can't even spell it.

Ah. Te Kooti. The criminal you name yourself after (Te Kooti 1) led the murder of 50 plus people at Matawhero. And you have said they deserved it.
Babies were clubbed in their cots.
Shall we respect your views?

They imprisoned him to die on the Chathams and stole his land, he considered them the enemy and that was that - utu. Would I say it was his finest hour, probably not. However he is deeply entrenched in the mythology of the East Cape - including the Ringatu faith.

You can respect my views or not, I really couldn't care less.

Te Kooti - I think you just offered a justification for clubbing babies in their cot.

Be kind. Hugs and kisses.

A great result!

- Maori will get more influence on the outcomes, not a perfect result, but better.
- At that rate, Government should break even on this (could be hugely profitable, but it's government)

And this is really created by Fletchers coming to the table, selling for a near break-even rate, when it's potentially worth 3-10 times that much as a commercial interest.

So who lost here aside from Fletcher shareholders? And if noone lost, why are people moaning?

Why are people moaning - because they are ill informed.

"Why are people moaning" - another possible explanation is that they are ordinary people who have done nothing wrong yet are footing the cost to pay out to others who had the misfortune of wrongdoing done to their ancestors 150 years ago. The fairness of this can be debated either way.

In my lifetime or at least not long before it began, Maori land was still being TAKEN for public works.
Have you ever wondered when driving on plain land where there is not so much as a pile of dirt as far as the eye can see, why the road is not straight, makes all sorts of odd twists and turns. Much of that is because the road lurches from ex Maori land to ex Maori land, which not too long ago, was still able to be acquired for public works without compensation.
Did you ever know a Maori returned serviceman who owned a farm gained through ballots after the war? Or how that land came to be available for such ballots in the first place?
Treaty breaches were many, probably to the point it should have been ripped up, and everything returned to Maori. That is the most moral of positions, we all know that is never going to happen now, but that is the point at which we need to begin our discussions, not the other end.

Kate. As a taxpayer why should I pay for this? As full irish, I have 0% to do with the people who confiscated the land initially. To me this is the equivalent of me trying to claim reparations for the potato famine. It is a rort, you people live in a dream world.

Maori could make that same argument themselves, they are taxpayers as well.

Had you done your research and due diligence you would have known of the ongoing grievances and the Treaty of Waitangi and the ToW Commission and the settlements entered into over the past 30 years - When did you arrive ? - ignorance as they say is no excuse

Puketepapa. Thats been my point in this discussion. There was a settlement in this issue, but some choose to disregard that.
Settlements usually involve somebody being unhappy. Often it's all parties.
I have seen settlements. eg the price paid for a house where both parties have felt robbed. But the settlement sets the stake in the ground.
There was a settlement here - signed on the actual land. Should have been respected.

Exactly the Waitangi process isn't perfect. But all things considered it's probably the best solution to a shitty situation. I just believe that this should be the one stop shop for settlement of historical wrongs committed on the maori people. Once all IWI have settled then we should move forwards as one people. Long term Kate sort of settlements outside of the Waitangi process will create division & bitterness in this country.

That was Winston Peters' point, that this could set a precedent to re-open past settlements. What we all need to understand is that so far, the total cost of all settlements since 1985 (the year that allowed for past grievances to be considered) under the Treaty, equate to 2.2 billion - only slightly more than NZ First were given for regional development via the Provincial Growth Fund during the last term of government.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/104205997/the-amount-allocated-to-treat....

One of the legal rules/framework regarding settlements for past grievances (and which is still law today) is that private land cannot be considered as part of settlements. When local iwi/hapu settled their claim, the Wallace block would have been off the table - i.e., unable to be considered as part of their compensation under the Treaty. And just because it was off the table does not make it any less significant for tangata whenua or for our collective history.

Our very first National Park was Tongariro - gifted to the Crown by iwi in order to preserve it forever for all NZers;

The mountain summits are of great significance to the local Māori. In 1886 in order to prevent the selling of the mountains to European settlers, the local Ngati Tuwharetoa iwi had the mountains surveyed in the Native Land Court and then set aside (whakatapua) as a reserve in the names of certain chiefs one of whom was Te Heuheu Tukino IV (Horonuku), the most significant chief of the Māori Ngati Tuwharetoa iwi. Later the peaks of Mount Tongariro, Mount Ngauruhoe, and parts of Mount Ruapehu, were conveyed to The Crown on 23 September 1887, on condition that a protected area was established there.

I view the Stonefields/Ihumāto area as equally as precious as our other National Parks to our collective history and heritage. Māori agriculturalists grew crops that fed much of the Auckland area in the early years of colonisation. It is an area that should rightfully be preserved. That the right thing happened outside of the Waitangi process is understandable - as the law would not have allowed it to happen under the Waitangi process.

Seems like we have a way to go in settling past harms. Hope it happens smoothly without dividing the country or the populace. This may be a good start. Nothing is going to be perfect and satisfy all parties, but they will come around.

Your comments are a distraction, regardless of the actual cost of settlements so far, they have had settlements made.

This land was off the table at settlement time, and yet a settlement was made to encompass a variety of hurts. The land never actually left private ownership..........until now, when Labour used some fanciful description to get Cindy off the hook because she intervened without being competent enough to realise the potential implications of that intervention.

Every single treaty claim can now be revisited outside the process, because the government can buy the land if somebody protests or occupies land. That is the precedent now created by Ardern. This situation will be revisited many times - we should name it then - The Ardernification of our country

Kate. Summary of your view is nothing can be settled.

Think of 'settled' in the framework of a partnership. Is everything you do throughout your journey together as a partnership ever settled? Certainly most partnerships grow, mature and flourish in their understanding of one another's wants, needs and aspirations over time. At least that is my view of most elderly couples with a lasting relationship - they are never happier than they are in their final years together.

Māori have most certainly come to understand and live with European culture; the notion of private property rights; rule of law, etc. and now it's the turn of tauiwi to come to understand Māori culture equally as intimately and impactfully.

Think grow not settle.

*Bump*

The most eye opening comparison to the amount paid out to Maori in compensation was only about equal (maybe even less) to the amount shelled out to South Canterbury Finance investors when that went "you know whats" up. Sobering

Yes.

.

To settle this dispute the Government paid $29,000,000
Ihumatao land size is 32 hectares or 320,000 square metres
That's $90 per square metre - un-developed
Looks to be a reasonable deal

Was there more land than just 32 hectares something like 400 hectares. What happened to the other 370 approx hectares does fletcher building still own some of it or maybe not.

Comments section is akin to Stuff.co.nz the minute there are any disputes involving Māori: a culture/demographic that have suffered by almost any metric since the mid 19th century.

Does this fix anything, really? In 100 years time will Maori be any better off?

This decision looks like a knee jerk reaction and only a short term fix for a small group. I think that is what irritates people.

Where is the long term vision, and from that vision where is the plan?

From Kate NZGeo.com article "In 1863, the land was illegally confiscated from Māori....." Now was it it illegal? From Maoris perspective it was. From the Crown and the legislation at the time? I don't know. This appears to me me to be something that was for a Waitangi Trubunal hearing brought by the relevant tribe/s. Why wasn't it? The Maori tribes are pretty sharp on this.
No one has elaborated on this aspect but concentrated on Fletchers, the Wallaces and the current govt.

It was most certainly illegally acquired, stolen, confiscated. The Treaty provided for a willing buyer/willing seller relationship between the Crown and Māori. Essentially the Crown was given first-right-of-refusal when Māori chose to sell land. Problems arose after a short period of time (once Māori came to comprehend the European concept of land ownership), because Māori stopped being willing sellers. And hence illegal settlements began and the settler government started using force to police/protect the illegally acquired settler land settlements. Eventually this lead to the Kingitanga movement and the Māori Wars.

All the history is documented in the WT claim of the local iwi/hapu (the claim where the said land was off-the-table due to that being the law; no land in private title - no matter how that title was acquired - can be considered as part of settlements).

Smacks of what happened in Israel. Did they learn from us ?

You haven't answered the question Kate. Was the land legally confiscated due to Ihumatao's original owners allegiance to the Kingitanga movement or was the reason for the confiscation a fabrication. Without digging through the WT decision, what was the background occurrences which led to Grey's confiscation?

Kate those links have little or nothing (actually nothing) to do with the specificity regarding Ihumatao. They are more Orakei centric. My question was about the historic decisions regarding the initial confiscation at Ihumatao. The link I posted below alleges the Kingitanga movement was founded at Ihumatao in a meeting there around 1857 - right in the middle of the NZ Land Wars (1845-1872). If that's true then perhaps there was justification surrounding the confiscation.
The question I'm asking is why did Grey confiscate the land, was it justified (given the historical context) and did he have evidence to support the justification.

In 1927, the Sim Royal Commission reported on the raupatu confiscations of Waikato lands under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, including south Auckland blocks designated as covering “Mangare, Pukaki, Ihumata and Kerikeri”.

It found the confiscations to have been “excessive” and recommended the payment of an annuity to a tribal trust board. That wasn’t implemented until the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946 provided for £5,000 per year to the Tainui Maori Trust Board for future education, health and suchlike purposes.

It’s obvious enough now that that settlement did not address the fundamental injustices of confiscating land from those who did not wish to sell it and some of whom fought in self-defence to try to retain it.

From my link - yours below is good as well. I really don't 'get' your question.

When you say you don't "get" my question - what part are you having difficulty with?

If the government is retaining ownership of the land it has purchased why all the angst? It's not the first time private land has been purchased for public ownership, and given the history of the site it seems appropriate.

Exactly.

Because they didn’t have to buy the land!
Ahhh... I guess it’s just another example of throwing paper money around for pet projects and acquiescing minorities then they turn around and say to general public good.... there’s not enough in the kitty for that this year!

Get used to it, there will be more. NZ is changing and I don't think you're going to enjoy it.

Sold a house recently. Actually disappointed with the price we got. But whatever - move on. I am also hearing the buyer is complaining about the price "they made me pay".
Go figure.
Maybe I should just reoccupy it. Seems to be a legitimate action since just yesterday.

You really are going all out to display a certain level of ignorance, aren't you? Was the said sold to the government, and was it a forced sale? You seem to be deliberately missing a whole bunch of points.

Pocket. No. The point was made about how settlements need to be respected. And settlements often include some parties or all being unhappy to some extent. And in the example we have been debating about the settlement has not been respected.

We are never going to agree on this and if you want to argue the toss about settlements, lets start with all the treaty violations after it was thought THAT was settled.

A good article here worth a read, from an informed source.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/sandra-coney-on-ihumtao

Yes, excellent.

having lived here for only 17 years, I am still reluctant to voice an opinion on the history of the country. However, I came from Scotland and i do know quite a lot about its history. I have written about the history of the Clans and the Kilt and the Clearances. I also know something of Irish history. It never entirely finishes, but at some point, lines must be drawn so that countries can move on.
Perhaps it it just too recent for NZ, but at some point that line must be drawn here too.

I am pretty sure when you speak of a line drawn that the country then move on in a western fashion, leaving Maori tikanga as some sort of museum piece or something you bring out every now and then to entertain the crowds with. I don't think many are envisioning a country where the native culture plays much part in the day to day running of it, and that troubles me.

Read bit history of colonial dealings... often they’d negotiate with party they thought had authority for said transaction only for multiple tickle of others coming out of woods to say they too have ties to the land!
Their concept of title is not the same....unless it suits them.
One things for sure, they understood warfare and if it wasn’t within their faculty, land conquest would have been their aim as it was when they first emigrated here.
I find it funny...there occupation of NZ has only been 500 odd years, far less than the Norman conquest of Britton, yet you don’t see the welsh demanding their England isle back do you...
Truth be had, if the crown had known of great resources say gold, diamonds, population to exploit etc, they would have put far more resources into full control. We only have to look at other colonised nations to see that.

Double, Triple dips and so on; Nat govt sold it out, .. then milking out by Iwi rep, Lab bought back using tax payers $ (not from previous Iwi rep).. change govt, repeat the cycle - NZ is super smart, they claimed.