By Alex Tarrant
Sixty-five Iwi yet to complete Treaty settlements will be allowed to claim shares in the state-owned companies set to be floated by the government 'on account' as part of their forecast settlements, the government has announced.
Treasury estimated that if those Iwi took up their full available allocations, it would amount to NZ$145 million coming off the settlement totals.
The government expects NZ$5-7 billion in proceeds from the up to 49% sales of Mighty River Power, Genesis, Meridian and Solid Energy, as well as a sell down of its three-quarter stake in Air New Zealand to no less than 51%.
The details:
Iwi who take up the offer would not be eligible for loyalty bonuses, as these would apply only to individual New Zealanders.
Around 65 Iwi may be eligible to participate in on-account share purchases. They would, like all other investors, be encouraged to first seek independent financial advice, the government said.
Iwi would have to wait for two years or until they have reached an Agreement in Principle with the Crown (whichever occurred later) before they could sell their shares.
Each Iwi would be limited to 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 12.5 per cent of their likely total settlement, depending on their situation.
- A 5 per cent maximum of their likely settlement would be available for Iwi not “local” to any of the power companies’ assets – for example, if there was no dam or other operating asset within the Iwi’s area.
- A 10 per cent limit would apply to Iwi who are “local” to any of the companies.
- A 12.5 per cent limit would apply to Iwi who are “local” to any of the companies, had reached an Agreement in Principle with the Crown, and had already agreed a quantum amount for settlement.
Settlements
Finance Minister Bill English and Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson said the decision was a result of consultation with Iwi in February.
Since that consultation, the Government had been talking to iwi that had expressed an interest in participating in the proposed Initial Public Offerings but whose Treaty settlements may not have been completed in time for them to buy shares at the time of the offer.
"As a result of today’s announcement, Iwi yet to settle their claims can choose to receive a percentage of their forecast settlement package “on account” in the form of shares in the Government share offer companies," English and Finlayson said.
Finlayson said 'on-account' arrangements were not new for Iwi in negotiations with the Crown. The facility had been used by many Iwi in the past.
"They must pay the full issue price and any amount drawn down will be deducted from the final settlement," Finlayson said.
“One of the stated goals of the share offer programme is to give as many New Zealanders as possible the opportunity to invest in these companies, as individuals or through institutions,” English said.
“This process will allow more local investors to do that," he said.
The Government confirmed on Monday that the sale of up to 49 per cent in Mighty River Power would take place in the first half of next year, subject to market conditions. This would be followed by sales of up to 49 per cent of Genesis Energy and Meridian Energy in the subsequent 12 months, again subject to market conditions.
“The Government has already announced that individual New Zealanders seeking up to NZ$2,000 worth of shares will be guaranteed that amount, and that they will get a loyalty bonus if they hold on to those shares for a period likely to be about three years,” English said.
If yet-to-settle Iwi met criteria for eligibility, they would be able to buy ordinary shares at the IPO price, on the understanding that the purchase formed part of their overall settlement package.
“It does not change the total amount of Treaty settlements. It simply allows Iwi more flexibility about how their settlement money is invested, and we believe it will enhance the share offer programme,” Finlayson said.
English said the actual amount to be advanced as on-account payments for shares would depend on the level of take-up by Iwi.
"The Treasury estimates that if all Iwi take up their full entitlement, this will amount to NZ$145 million over the entire Government share offer programme," English said.
“Even if all Iwi take up their full entitlement and allocate all of it to the Mighty River Power share offer alone, it would still represent less than 5 per cent of the shares of Mighty River Power,” he said.
“However, we anticipate the take-up being less than the possible maximum and it is also unlikely that all Iwi will choose to invest their total allocation in a single company.”
Questions and Answers
How does this arrangement relate to the “shares plus” concept proposed by the Waitangi Tribunal?
It is quite different. The “on-account” arrangement simply allows Iwi who have not yet had settlements completed to access funds (in advance of their future settlement) to purchase shares – those shares are ordinary shares and will be acquired by Iwi at the same price and terms as other investors in the IPO. Any amount drawn down will be deducted from the final settlement. The “shares plus” concept looked to create additional rights for Maori.
Who is likely to take up the offer?
We can’t speculate on who will accept the offer. There are around 65 Iwi yet to reach settlements. Individual Iwi would obviously need to take financial advice and make their own decisions about whether to participate. If Iwi have not yet begun negotiations with the Crown, they will need to obtain a Crown-recognised Deed of Mandate to participate in this opportunity.
Will Iwi need to wait until they have fully settled with the Crown before selling their shares?
Iwi will have to wait for two years or until they have reached an Agreement in Principle with the Crown (whichever occurs later) before they can sell their shares.
If Iwi don’t know the value of their quantum settlement, how do they find out?
The Office of Treaty Settlements will advise Iwi of this.
How long will this funding be available?
This on-account transfer allocation will be available to purchase shares in any initial public offering as part of the Government share offers programme that takes place within the next three years. The funding allocation is not limited to the Mighty River Power share offer.
Do Iwi have to spend the allocation on shares?
Yes. Iwi groups can only use their on-account transfer allocation under this proposal to purchase shares in the Government share offers programme and do not have the option of taking the allocation or any unused portion of the allocation in cash.
What happens next?
Iwi will work with the Office of Treaty Settlements, depending on what is required for them to reach the point of eligibility. For some, this will be in the form of seeking authority from their claimant community, for others (those in the latter stages of negotiations), it might be simply confirmation of their desire to take up the offer.
106 Comments
Just another reason to cross the ditch. Not much investment in new job creating infrastructure going on here. Just more new national debt to pay Iwi in advance to purchase already existing assets - when will there be a time to restrict new debt to fund new income, if not export resources?
Buy Sell, Buy Sell.
Isn't it exciting when deal maker John 'Rain Man" Key and Bill 'Master of the Universe' English do deals. Wow, it must be really exciting in the Beehive, just like working at a large 'soon to be bankrupt, are we bankrupt yet, not sure?' International Bank. Those guys are so cool. They should be on TV every single night- no wait a minute- they are.
I laughed when I saw that an iwi was selling a massive chunk of land to build a golf course. So much for Maori affinity with their lands! No doubt those particular Maori will go to the courts again in 150 years time and bleat about how they were hard done by. And if you speak out about it, you're a racist. Its entertaining to say the least.
The bigotry and ignorance of the plight of Maori from these forums is astounding. I am only assume that posts on other topics are similarly shallow and ill considered.
If the courts had dispensed justice over the last 150 years or so instead of abrogating their responsibility then we wouldn't be in this position. So instead of addressing this issue most here seem to want to string it out in perpetuity. Just don't complain when you go to the courts for justice but it isn't delivered.
The aussies have a classic case of mine one is bigger than yours. Tallest ever trees were apparently Eucalyptus Regnans.
Tallest isn't the bigotry ...... but scientists have reckoned 426 feet to be around the maximum possible for a tree to draw up an unbroken column of water to it's leaves at the crown ...
.... the early settlers in Australia weren't expelled in chains from England due to their righteous behaviour , sobriety , and honesty , were they !
The coast redwoods of California are the verifiably tallest trees . A 379 footer was discovered in 2006 , and named " Hyperion " ..... had it not been for woodpecker damage , the tree wood have been 380 feet tall . This is officially the tallest tree currently alive on the planet .
I think you need to do a bit more research Scarfie. The treaty industry has substantially re- written NZ history since the 1970's. The treaty has been "re-interpreted and "principles" added which bear no resemblance to the version of the treaty (the Maori one) that the vast majority of the chiefs signed. The Maori version of the treaty makes no mentions of forests or fisheries let alone water or airwaves. This treaty talks about all the people of NZ not just Maori as being treated as British subjects. Maori in 1840 welcomed this treaty after 30 years of intertribal warefare (the musket wars) as a way to bring peace.
Just like the Northland Iwi Maori were keen to sell land to the settlers and the British enabled this through the introduction of titles and the establishment of the Maori land court.
There were only around 50,000 Moari left in 1840 there is no way they were in control of and using the whole of NZ at that point.
I am sure that in the intervening years there were some injustices, most of these were settled in the 1940's, what is happening now is a few benefiting at the expense of the many. The whole system of claims is a disgrace (especially wind and water). As a country we need to move past this and create a NZ where we look after those in need regardless of their race.
The disgrace Curious is the justice system abrogating their responsibility that Maori signed up to get. So the issue is about the right to justice guaranteed under the treaty. Even the Privy Council agreed in 1903 but the courts here disregarded them. Every time that Maori went to court in the 19thC to get redress, the courts stated that they had no authority to act in the matter. This was plain nonsense as subsequent rulings have determined. The foreshore and seabed act was a direct response to the 1997 court of appeal ruling. This time the courts did deliver justice but the crown went and undermined this.
The inescapable conclusion you have to draw is that the courts are generally not independent, and this is of concern to all New Zealanders. The second is that the Crown has never had any intention to honour the principles in the Treaty. I believe it was actually a mistake that enabled the Waitangi Tribunal, I don't think the crown thought it would pan out the way it has but they can't undo it now.
However the point I make earlier is that IF the courts had delivered justice in the 19thC as they should have done and Maori expected them to do, then we would not be seeing all these contemporary claims on assets as the matter would have been finalised. I suggest you read "A Simply Nullity"as it outlines the legal cases and relates these to overseas statute and even to common law.
The reality is that race isn't so much the issue, but culture. If we don't like Maori culture then why do we allow immigration of Asian cultures that are closer to Maori than European? What I think you are going to find going forward is that Maori will gain sustantial more leverage in the governance of this country. The reason being is that tribal land is difficult to mortgage and as such most of it is unencumbered by debt. This will be very important going forward as debt saturation causes many to lose their land to the banks.
Doesn't actually address any of the points made above. However here's a question for you. Do you think that the "average Maori" is any better off for all these settlements? If the funds paid out in settlements had been used targeting the poor, say for example by introducing meals in schools in lower socio-economic areas or targeted assistance to low achievers would this have been more effective for Maori?
If their leaders stopped telling them that they were victims and encouraged them to go out and achieve maybe this would help.
I live in the Tomarata area and we've been fighting development at Te Arai for the last ten years, pretty well since the iwi got their hands on it. Custodians of the land my arse - my perception of NZ Maori is that that care less for the land than we white invaders do.
The last thing the Te Arai environment needs is a golf course! But apparently the iwi offered it to the government first, but they declined to buy it back. So, it's all just about the money then, like that can somehow replay a greivance from 200 years ago.
Perhaps some of the money from the sale could go to the descendents of the Moriori. Oh wait, there aren't any. I'll probably sell my property and move offshore permanently so I no longer have to hear the endless whinging from Maori about being hard done by *yawn*
Oh, and I hope Te Uri o Hau are going to rename the area Kayneland, since they seem intent on destroying what was Te Arai.
SGV: "Oh wait, there aren't any descendents of the Moriori"
Fallacious. Do some research. There are people with Moriori-bloodlines still around. Tommy Soloman was the last of the full-bloods. Surprising you got 4 thumbs-up for that statement. Obviously you pressed a few prejudicial-hot-buttons of those who needed their prejudices re-inforced.
Not the ones from the Chatham Islands. I was reading about this recently, but here let wikipedia enlighten you...
A Moriori survivor recalled : "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately." A Maori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....." [12]
After the invasion, Moriori were forbidden to marry Moriori, or to have children with each other. All became slaves of the Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga invaders. Many Moriori women had children by their Maori masters. A small number of Moriori women eventually married either Maori or European men. Some were taken from the Chathams and never returned. Only 101 Moriori out of a population of about 2,000 were left alive by 1862 (Kopel et al., 2003). Although the last Moriori of unmixed ancestry, Tommy Solomon,[13] died in 1933 there are several thousand mixed ancestry Moriori alive today.
My point is that the world is populated by conquerors - why I'm a descendent of some marauding Saxons who all but wiped out the indiginous population of the British Isles - perhaps we could go back and recompense the survivors of that particular bit of colonisation. Maori took NZ and the Chathams from the peace-loving Moriori - lucky for Maori they didn't get the same deal from the Pakeha invaders that they dished out themselves to the original occupiers.
SGV: Thanks. You prove my point for me.
[quote] Although the last Moriori of unmixed ancestry, Tommy Solomon,[13] died in 1933 there are several thousand mixed ancestry Moriori (still) alive today
so... my point was that the Maori genocided the original Moriori except for a few women slaves who had children to their conquering masters and you take that there are some of those mixe-race descendents still alive as an argument to my point?
Flimsy at best. By that logic it would of been fair for Pakeha to have slaughtered the Maori and kept some Maori women as slaves to have sex with and if there still happened to be a handful of mixed race people around from the babies that sex produced - it would fine.
Here we go - you used the word "descendents" which the dictionary defines as
1. a person that is descended from a specific ancestor; an offspring.
2. a person, when described as descended from an individual, race, species, etc
There is no qualification as to male or female dominance.
I didn't answer you comments because they are irrelevant to the "rule of law", which is the basis of my posts. How you read any other books on the treaty other than the one you mention below Curious? Do you have any tertiary training on the subject? Mind you reading does you no good if you can't make a critical analysis of it, I mean I can see flaws in Robinson's thinking just from the blurb I found for the book. Do you understand what exactly the difference is between Maori and Pakeha culture or how Maslows' hierarchy needs are very different. Get a hold of Iain Parker at Public Credit of Bust and let him fill you in a bit more on some of the facts.
I have posted below under Christov in relation to the fatal flaw in your thinking.
The English system of common law also embodies the concept of equity. Even if something is technically correct by the letter of the law it can still be reversed (or materially changed) if the court finds the outcome to be inequitable.
The point being, the idea of the rule of law is not only being technically correct as per the contract (in this instance being perhaps a treaty).
You can't really say it is either or.
Equity is usually a second or last resort and the burden of inequity must be proven so it's not by any means the easiest thing to do. I think I would be right is suggesting most cases attempting a recourse to equity would have attempted the letter of the law approach first (and presummably failed).
I am cautious about the line of thinking that says the treaty exists and so current tax payers have to suck it up even if it is unjust. The sword has two sides.
Well technically the taxpayer shouldn't be sucking it up, it should be simply a matter of returning the land that was stolen. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, if you are in possession of stolen property then too bad you lose. The money is only in lieu of the land.
Scarfie,
Reading an interesting book at the moment - Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition - Charles Eisenstein. It's available free online http://www.realitysandwich.com/homepage_sacred_economics
Chapter 4, "The Trouble with Property" is an enlightening read regarding the ownership of land/property.
I came across a reference to the term "Indian Giver" with this interpretation rather than the definition we all know:
"Related to the topic of money is the concept of ownership. The pejurative term "Indian Giver" was given to native american indians because they tried to take back what they gave to the early settlers.
These indians did not have the concept of ownership the way we do. All gifts from God were intended to be shared and enjoyed by all. So objects were passed among the people with the understanding that they would enjoy the object for a period of time and then pass it on for someone else to enjoy.
When the settlers failed to pass on the objects, the indians came back to retrieve the objects so they could continue to be circulated among the people. So a tradition of upmost generosity was seen as "selfish" by settlers who lacked greater understanding."
I wonder if this is any way similar to traditional maori custom as the "Guardians of Nature/Land" and the laws we rely on have assisted in distorting the original intent?
There is no doubt there is quite a cultural gap over what constitutes ownership however my comments are not directed at that. I certainly havea good grasp of that issue though.
The interesting angle from "A Simple Nullity" is the different churches involvment in the land grab. Wi Parata tried to get the land back, which had been gifted to the church in order for them to build a school. The school was intended to teach Maori and other Pacific peoples to speak English amongst other subjects. See Maori definitely bought into the Treaty and British Citizenship. However the school was never built, so they tried to get the land back. This sort of case actually has precedent in common law, but it seems there is no place for common law in the New Zealand courts. Do you get the picture now? Nothing Indian about that. Other swaves of the tribes land were signed over to the crown by minor chiefs that had no authority to do so. The Crown had imprisoned the two paramount chief's in Auckland. Dirty dirty dirty wherever you look.
But this land ownership business is interesting. I have read studies that show private land ownership is a key factor in the economic performance of nations. However the question begs answered, "what is economic performance and does this actually result in a better standard of living". I think the fact that GDP is a pretty micky mouse measure is a common theme on these forums. Now I have recently finished "The Ascent of Money" and Nial Ferguson describes private ownership of land as providing security for the lender not the borrower.
I know of at least one instance of a church that will remain unnamed where the land was taken and the school never built. Maori took it to court and it was thrown out on the basis that a savage could not take a civilised man to court.
However.
Quite recently, after careful research that same church paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the orginal owners of that land in settlement of the injustice that did take place. It was kept out of the papers but it happened none the less.
So I am somewhat circumspect about claims of what happened in the past without the full truth of what has happened. Without truth there is no justice.
In the instance I refer to the land was not stolen in a legal sense.
The parties entered into a contract where one party would supply land and the other party would build a school (and perhaps a church as well if I recall but I might be out there).
In the end the settlement was for the breach of contract and not for theft.
Although I can understand frustration can fuel spuriousness *justice* should not serve spurious.
Ralph your comment from 8:56 slipped under my radar but it clicked while I was drifting off to sleep. The comment you make abour savages not being able to take civil people to court is right at the heart of my reasoning in this thread. The actual scenario was slightly different but the prinicple is the same. Maori would attempt to get their land back but the courts deemed that savages could not hold land title and as such the court had no authority to rule in the matter. But the treaty guaranteed Maori this right as British citizens, and this is where the courts let Maori down very badly.
It is also my assertion that because of these errors by the court we are all paying a bigger price today. Maori of course have been terribly disadvantaged and paid an even bigger price but Count Chritov sums that up very nicely below.
Yes, Ivan the sad thing is the government could choose to treat everybody equally, it could choose to retain these water consuming assets, the iwi groups had no problem when these water consuming assets were public owned, what the iwi groups have a problem with is the privatisation of water rights, or it could stoke race antipathy by buying off the iwi groups.
Are you saying that these iwi groups should take nothing from the sale of their treaty rights? I don't see why that would give them the high ground, it seems like they would not be representing the best interests of their members in this case.
I mean you do realise you just implied iwi groups are, greedy and venal, based on a government decision. Shame on you!
Who do you mean Ivan, I don't support any iwi groups. I just don't support you characterising them over a government decision.
Opinion polls indicated that a majority of NZers do not support the sale of these SOE's. Maori only brought suite in an attempt to block the sale. If you look at the terms its an attempt to buy Maori off with the proceeds of settlement payments they are anticipated to be given anyway.
Totally right, why should I, or anyone else in this thread have to pay for our great great grandfather's mistakes? Its an absolute load of trash, we shouldn't have to pay! Maybe the going rate for a massive farm back in the day was a keg of gunpowder, so what! That was the going rate at the time. But "Maori did not have a concept of ownership rights". What so the old Maori's thought that our forefathers were just giving them gunpowder for nothing? Dream on. Middle class Pakeha are treated like foreigners in the country of their birth, its disgusting.
Why exactly do you think that payouts have been made to Maori? The thefts have been proven. Keep in mind that the payouts are in lieu of land that has been carved up, titled and occupied. Anyone in possession of such land is in receipt of stolen property, a criminal offence.
I don't dispute injustices were done, land in particular was in some instances stolen. I accept this as a fact.
I also believe strongly in the rule of law and justice.
But in matters of justice truth is of utmost importance. In some instances Maori sold land they did not in fact own and took the payment for it. Which is fraud under the law. And, of course, there were misunderstandings in both parties when each party took a different understanding from the negotiation from the word *own* (or ownership).
But I find it hard to link specific injustice with broad generalities that claim ownership of sea, sky, land, water or sun. Generalities like this have little grounding in truth as far as I can ascertain and the whole idea of settling injustice seems to have become a political band wagon driven by greed and not justice.
Ivan , if I felt Maori as a people in their entirety were going to truly benfit from various settlements that have occured along the way , I don't think I'd have too much problem with it , nor feel threatened or cheated by it.
But that is just it , isn't it, so far improvements to the overall wellbeing of Maori in terms of education, health, social intergration have been abysmal if ,statistics in those areas are a true reflection of the Maori demographic.
You have the same problems of eliteism wanting to control those settlements without any obvious repatration of funds to their wider community.
In essence it is more in the interest of Maori elite to keep their people as victims, and continued poor showings in the statistics I've mentioned., just as if you sought to increase your budget you need show just cause.
Further to that , it is in the interest of Maori Elite to perpetuate the seperatist thinking among their people, as it makes their real enemy / subjugator that much harder to see....Greed has no colour.
That said, I don't class Hone as ruling elite, I think he is well intended , genuinely concerned about the development of Maori, and works hard to improve his peoples lot, that is not to say he is not just as influenced by the ruling Maori elite into seperatist thinking............the enemy within.
So Ivan I'm careful not to tar all with one brush here, because your average Maori will recieve squat in the way of benifit from these things.
I might ask you the same Ivan.....of course nobody likes the word, save skinheads, but lets be a bit realistic here, your happy to put a gun in their hand and send those so called bludgers off to Afghanistan, but you know... and I know first hand of people ...of all walks of life that would not give them that job on civi street for fear the'd steal something.
V.C. winner ...that n a dime'll buy him a cup of coffee.
So if Hone being pro his peoples development is racist, then I guess racism has a positive side.
I doubt you read what I had to say , because your mindset is one size fits all, that doesn't work for us ...or Chinese...or Africans.....it doesn't work for them.
Muppet Kings statement in his own words used Grandfathers mistakes...mistakes ...that is half way to an admission of theft.
The ..Mistake....was made by the Crown in Colonising a Country by means of a Treaty they had no intention of honoring, attempting to assimilate a people in order to dilute the intention of the very Treaty they signed in good faith...unemotional .....fact.
The mistake is that they did not choose to Conqueror the peoples through conventional warfare, because the peoples had other options if that had occured.....fact.
Even then the peoples were not without their treachery from the ruling elite...Patu one , go do some reading .
P.S. I'm not judging you here, just puting predjudice aside in the interests of reason.
y
Christov maybe you should go and do some good reading. Like most in this country you have been brainwashed by the revisionist history since the seventies. Read my comments above to Scarfie. Try "When two cultures meet the NZ story" by John Robinson for a more balanced overview of our history than is presented by the grievance industry.
Happy to follow up and read John Robinson's account Curious, I don't feel brainwashed, as I'm not from here originally, my observations are based on both my experience here in 40 odd years and the assimilation of the people I grew up around, following most of the same patterns of Colonisation seen here.. Australia...thoughout the Pacific..the U.S.....Africa..etc.
That said I shall do some reading as you say...
Brainwashed..?....no I don't think so, less of a knee jerk perhaps.
cheers.
The Sale of Mighty River Power might not give us the money we are expecting. How do we value a company share price with the Maori claim to water hanging over it? If you are an investor would you buy with this risk issue not settled ? Or even if you are a big institution investor from overseas or locally if the sale goes ahead you would want a significantly lower price because of the Maori claims not settled ? Currently the government would not get the full potential of the sale price as it currently stands.Can we not sell the Air New Zealand lot first and then come back to this one later? New Zealand needs cash so we can avoid being downgraded and end up paying higher funding costs and higher interest rates.
Should anyone wish to "complain" about this they should first disclose their origins. Anyone who is a blow-in or recent arrival, they should be reminded that the Treaty existed long before they arrived, and in choosing to come to new zealand they had the right, (should they so choose), to do due diligence before they came. They would then be fully informed. Having done that they then lose the right to complain.
Does that include British Subjects or are we all such under the constitution of New Zealand - or is that up for revision as well?
The trouble is Count is that these statistics would be similar if you took out reference to ethnic origin. The problem is not maori committing crime or being misrepresented in employment stats, it is poor people that tend to be less employable and have higher rates of offending. Go to Australia and you are just as likely to have your house burgled or car stolen, but it will be a white person doing it over there.
The problem is Maori are poor, not that Maori are bad.
I have no doubt scarfie, that low income demographics are a truer overall reflection of criminal statistics, that was never my point.
Look step away from the Maori perspective and realise that the high end investment in Casinos doesnt appear to have helped Native Americans in terms of overall education Stats or social intergration improvements.
You should have pride and dignity in your race, and that comes from within before it can be realised from without.
My concern raised there was only to do with those in need in the wider Maori community recieving direct benifit from settlements made to Iwi trustees.
You know it's funny you say that about Aus...I was in Brissee a few weeks back and saw a car at the Mall in Capalaba that had a bumper type sticker saying ....
I miss Otara
So I smashed the widow , took the CD unit, emptied the glove box, and left a note saying
..Hope this helps..
I wish that could be funny for all of us....but, it's prolly not because assumptions are made by association.
Yes I did laugh. Should have saved that for tomorrow:-)
Yes it is a fair question of how Maori are dispursing the settlements as they come in, but that is primarily a question for Maori of Maori. Certainly all New Zealanders have a vested interest, but I can't see how this can be any sort of argument to deny Maori the right to justice. It seems a number here think it would be acceptable and I was looking for somewhere to put the comment but it isn't directed at you personally. Heck it would be like having your car stereo stolen but the Police refusing to give it back to you unless you demonstrated you were worthy.
Not the point I was making but true. It extends to those not poor or Maori as well when me make choices regarding those less fortunate. Are we disparaging towards the poor in general? Or is it just ignorance to dismiss Maori because they are Maori when in fact we should be simply treating the as poor?
I suspect however you are making the judgement of choice from a different perspective of the choices that the poor have available to you. I am not condoning crime, however the choice as to whether to use a drug, say marijuana, is quite a different scenario for an Auckland Grammar student than it is for one from Hillary College. I would perhaps become a recreational drug for the Grammar student, whereas it become of focus of life for the poor student who doesn't see a lot of options in life. One gets consumed where the other carries on to university. Of course once the addiction is formed then the crime follows to suppor the habit. Fact: Most robberies are commited by drug addicts.
icon,
Am broadly with you; I hate the idea of a country where the indigenous people were second class citizens, with inbuilt racial expectations working against them. While I would strongly prefer not selling the power companies at all; looking after Maori is not a concern. I do hope the benefits to them are well used over time; but pleased for them that the Treaty gives them some greater status than they otherwise would have.
Iconoclast - I think you are full of BS based on your most recent comment here !
The fact is that the vast majority of kiwis have simply had a gutsfull of the continuous pandering to noisy and vociferous minorities- democracy is supposed to be based on the concept of majority rule and, regardless of any PC twaddle about the rights of minorites being trampled, [ the Law provides more than adequate protection for those groups] the basic tenents of democracy MUST be paramount!
IMHO - the maori grevience machine has been and will doubtless continue to be the single biggest problem to be faced by the nation as a whole.Unfortunately it seems very few if any of our current earstwhile "leadership" seem to realize that they are simply perpetrating an endlessly ongoing and incredibly devisive policy of appeasment at all costs.
Scarfie - If as it seems from your comments here ,you feel so strongly about the poor & downtrodden maoris perhaps you could donate a significant portion of your worldly wealth in perpetuity to assist in their struggle for equality -- ooops I mean superiority !
Democracy, Whodunnit...subscribes to majority rule as a notion, but more often than not is a better reflection of bribery of the majority to gain installment.
The Constitution of this Country is entwined in the Treaty....no pandering... just fact...it seemsan oddity to condem a people for exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution....after all if you are playing by the rules of engagement ...is it a moral question you have a problem with...?
Because I can guarantee...if English could flick the finger and say ..."that's your lot.." he would have done so already.
Democracy had a share in making and revising the rulesof engagement...so not all their fault yeah..?
Pandering? Ha. Who's doing the pandering. JohnBoy comes up with a snazzy idea, but, having not thought it through sufficiently, discovers it's not that easy, and so, to overcome the obstacle, decides to shut them up and buy them off. Well bugger me. Who elected JohnBoy?
I don't think Whodunnit (and a lot of others)quite understands how democracy is supposed to be underpinned by the rule of law. Either he hasn't read or doesn't undertand my posts above relating to Maori being denied the rule of law, despite being guaranteed this right under the treaty.
If the judiciary and legislature are not called to account then they will most certainly expand in their ability to deny rights to other New Zealanders. Plan B pretty much has it in his post further down.
No Christov, the "Treaty" is not "entwined" in the Constitution of this Country, I have written on this here afore. There is though a very quiet review going on in Wellington betwixt vested interest groups, to make it so. The taxpaying majority of New Zealanders are being double kneecapped by having both reserved maori seats in the parliament and proportional maori representation (MMP), something the 1986 Electoral Commission warned against. Grasping politicians of all creeds will (and sadly this current crop of National Tory Pretenders are the worst to date in this regard after Bolger) always sell us out like this unless we return to democracy (FFP) - one man one vote, greatest good for the greatest number. We can then expunge them every 3 years if we choose to.
Ergophobia
With respect, Ergophobia ( and I mean that) my comment stands as I see it.
There is a saying that I live by...Walk a mile in my shoes..and I give that my best shot when considering outcomes that involve people and individuals.
I have occassion to do a lot of charity work, so I'm not blind to circumstance, intelligence, choices made by individuals who add up to groups and on to demographics.
In my experience if the Maori who are supposedly cheating us out of tax funds, asking more than is fair of society by way of grievance and benifiting to an extent that causes such vitriol, such frustration and anger because the spoils seem so divided in their favour....
Show me....!
Show me the Maori your willing to trade places with for his prestige, for his status and comfort.
Show me...! not specifically you Ergophobia, I do understand what you said , but that does not make it so.
Stanley..Ivan ...Muppet King ( good people in your own right )....and others,...... Show me this person who fuels your envy and sense of injustice for his selfishness, for he must be living in the lap of luxury , ...or, is it as it seems a generalisation to direct your anger and frustration at, .....or posited thought from your childhood , a learned behaviour.
We could go round and round and achieve nothing but the loss of this internet comradery..... for me , a loss I could do without.
Very nice Count, I wish I had your eloquence rather than your shoes.
Comment of the week, I hope Bernard picks up on that. It would actually be nice if Bernard would do an article to two from some Maori commentators or academics, I mean they have an interest in this economic performance of this country surely. And given the leanings towards property I figure they have a bit of an interest in land issues as well.
You demonstrate my point perfectly Ivan..... all the best , and I'll try to understand your position as well.....
Look at it this way...I coulda said nothing, but , that would have been even more wrong than you already think I am.
No grudge here Ivan...your opinion, is your opinion..I'm not married to it.
Cheers.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=42421
Voting: A Fool’s Game!
Recently by Gary D. Barnett: The Constitution Does Not Grant Rights!
The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting.
~ Charles Bukowski
For all those National party voters who are fedup with the current Govts pandering to the maori gravey train, there is an alternative.
Give Colin Craig and his Conservative party a try.
The Key government has failed its voters miserably.
Many voted National in the hope a center right party would get rid of all this seperatist nonsense.
National are using a divide and rule strategy. So stop playing into it with anti maori comments. THe plan is to take the focus away from the fact that they are destroying the commonwealth of all New Zealanders, privatising the commons (in this case our dams and water) Maori to my mind realise that if we don't care about this isue as New zealanders , then they will care as Maori.
Sorry also nonsense. Treating everyone equally means that there should be no handouts or special treatment for anyone based on their ethnicity. Government largesse should be based on need not skin colour. A poor Pacific Island family (as long as they are here legally) need help more than the Maori elite need new BMW's in my humble opinion.
So you contradict yourself.
As you say - a poor islander immigrant family are not on the same playing field as a family of whites in remmers who have been handing down wealth for generations.
Therefore as you say - they have greater need.
Get your head straight palagi.
There is no contradiction in what I said. People should be treated based on need not colour. Is that difficult to understand? I would no more expect the wealthy remmers family to be a recipient of welfare than the Maori elite mentioned above. The playing field as you describe it will never be levelled to any degree by hand outs based solely on race. It is not me that needs to get my head straight.
Please define Palagi.
No SK.
This says it all. From todays news.
The Waitangi Tribunal report released this morning found the Government breached the Treaty by not supporting the Maori-language immersion early childhood centres.
The Tribunal says the movement, established in the 1980s to help save Te Reo, suffered because of government policy and funding decisions.
It recommended the Government apologise to the trust, promote attendance, and create a policy and funding regime specifically for kohanga reo. It also wants an interim independent adviser appointed to oversee its recommendations.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/7830595/Crown-failed-kohanga-…
The whole thing is a sham.
This article by Brian Turner was published in the NZ Listener in 2003 . Food for thought for all I suggest.
A response to the recent open letter from Ranginui Walker.
No one would doubt or challenge Ranginui Walker when he asserts that his sense of attachment and belonging to the place where he was born and brought up runs deep. But when he says, “I have been here a thousand years. You arrived only yesterday”, he very clearly denies a similar depth of feeling to almost everyone else. Walker’s empathy with his surroundings, he implies, is more authentic and valuable than that of, say, farming families of the Maniototo, or the people of the Waitaki Valley, or the townsfolk of Dunedin or Timaru. In New Zealand today, there is a relentless presumptuousness about the way in which non-Maori feelings for land and water are dismissed as less heartfelt, less sensitive, less spiritual. In this regard, Walker, and those like him, leads the way.
Living here, one often hears tiresome, incessant talk from Maori, and non-Maori urban-liberals especially, saying that if you are of European extraction, you can’t possibly truly belong here, in the way that those with even the most attenuated Maori ancestry do. I vehemently disagree. Try telling that to the people I live among, and others, who go back generations here.
I am indigenous. I say, stop the bigotry whereby one culture or another claims greater moral virtue and/or spiritual sensitivity. Recognise the worth and strength – and the reality – of hybridisation. Isn’t this what just about all of us are, hybrids?
This will continue to the point whereby, in less than 50 years’ time, it’s likely that more than half of the population will be able to claim some Maori connection. Then what? Who is a “minority”?
Recently, a friend drew my attention to a marvellous address by Susan Sontag, when she received the Friedenspreis (Peace Prize) from the German Book Trade Association. At one point, she said, “A good deal of my life has been spent trying to demystify ways of thinking that polarise or oppose. Translated into politics, this means supporting whatever is pluralistic and secular.” I hope that Ranginui Walker and anyone like him might reflect on that, in this country where a sanctimonious culture of reprimand is rife.
I have found that, for many years now, to disagree or take issue with almost anything that Maori assert guarantees that you will be attacked and deemed anti-Maori, Eurocentric and racist, among other pejoratives. Some of those attackers, oddly, include a number of strange birds, predominantly of European ancestry, who insist that, in order to live here, we have to atone for the sins of some of our fathers and be prepared to keep on atoning until Maori say “enough”.
All nations, all societies, all families, all individuals know and accept that their pasts are murky, that, at one time or another, they have transgressed, often badly. So, contrary to the remorseless line that we are fed by various, mainly government agencies, it is not ignorance of the past that makes most people unwilling to forever make amends, it is a belief that little of benefit is to be gained from it.
We all know that many people here live in, by New Zealand standards, impoverished circumstances. Would it not be best to provide assistance on the basis of need, and remove the racial component? For years now, I have heard people express resentment that goes something like this: if Maori are down and out, the cry is, “It’s Pakehas’ fault”; if non-Maori are in strife, “It’s their fault.”
It might be better if, instead of alleging that New Zealand’s social problems are racially based, we accepted that they are, principally and more accurately, related to ideology and the changes wrought as a consequence since the early 1980s. I hasten to add, before the ranting begins, that I am not saying there isn’t racism in New Zealand. Human beings are often racist, and to varying degrees, wherever one goes. In this country, there are racist Maori and racist non-Maori. There is also a high degree of preciousness and a scary, sometimes farcical eagerness to take umbrage.
With respect to the issue as to who owns the foreshores and seabed around New Zealand, Walker in effect says that although he and his tribesfolk are happy, in the main, to share the seas and beaches with other recreational users, he reserves the right to exercise control. He expects the rest of us to defer, which is patronising and unacceptable. He often seems to advocate a kind of latter-day tribalism, a society based upon a wish to replicate conditions and a world that no longer exists.
And what Walker is really saying is, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, too.” It’s cake-and-eat-it country. He reminds me, again, of how proselytisers, when referring to rights conferred by article three of the Treaty, seldom acknowledge their corresponding responsibilities. Whether anyone likes it or not, they signed up 163 years ago to being British (read New Zealand) citizens. As such, that means a responsibility to work to improve and safeguard this society for the social, cultural and economic benefit of all. I can’t see any point in us reverting to a system that boils down to pitting tribe against tribe.
To me, the seas and rivers and coastlines and lakes are part of our common heritage. It is time for us to confirm that recreational activities involving access to those parts of the outdoors are the customary right of all. That is what the overwhelming majority of people who appreciate them want, and expect their democratically elected government to protect. A great many people would be happy to define a customary right as a practice that citizens who live here are accustomed to engaging in.
Walker insists on ownership, but it would be good to reconsider what it is that we have a right to own. Our own property and personal possessions, but little else, in my view. Ownership of things we have created or, possibly, had a hand in making: but who among us made birds, fish, native forests, land and water? Give permits to use, in some cases, but more than that, no. And when it comes to recreational use, make the same regulations apply to all. The date of arrival of one’s ancestors (or, often, a selected few of them) should be no excuse for the awarding of preferential rights.
Walker writes repeatedly “my coastline”, “my shores”. This country will remain divided until he, and others like him, acquires the vision to say “our”, until he will say that not only “some … Pakeha intermarried” with him, but “some Maori intermarried” with Pakeha.
Man you really don't get it do you. That is just a load of emotional clap trap. There may be some elements I agree with over a claimed right to guardianship of the land (manawhenua), but the land issues before the Waitangi Tribunal are issues that are simply about western views of land title and justice.
This afternoon when I was out exercising I met a very Pakeha couple that were doing the rounds of the beaches inspecting and documenting the status of the endangered coastal birds. I take ownership of this beach by respecting the wildlife and keeping it free of rubbish, no simple task given the plastic the washes up.
Tell me what do you do to take ownership of the land Curious? Do you put your actions where you mouth is?
I could accuse you of the same but I would rather stick with the facts. You may dismiss dismiss Brian Turners article as emotional claptrap but as a fifth generation New Zealander of mixed European descent I can assure you that it is what many similar to myself are thinking, even if they are afraid of being called racist if they verbalise it . I fear for the future of our country if Maori leaders keep on this separatist track.
The problem is with people like you is that you are not thinking and therein lies the real danger. I am well aware of how many people share your bigoted thinking. I have challenged you with a number of questions in the course of this thread and I suspect the reason you don't answer most of them is because you don't have an answer. You think you can accuse me of being emotional rather than backing up my post with facts, then go on provide some examples.
I wondered how long it would take for you to accuse me of being racist or bigoted. It seems to be the standard response. For your information I grew up in Rotorua and went to school with plenty of Maori descent, many of whom I called friends. I also know a number of Maori people who are just as tired of this whole grievance industry as I am. Have a look in the mirror before you call other people bigoted. This will be my last post on the issue you are part of the problem in this country and nothing I say seems likely to help you become part of the solution. Have a good day.
A recent anecdote demonstrated to me how there is ingrained racial expectation in New Zealand. My boys are going to or have been to Auckland Grammar, where they stream from top to bottom academically; and they have many classes in each year, ranging from A down to at least P. Another parent explained to me an apparently widely known rule of thumb that A is for Asian; M is for Maori, and P is for Polynesian. European/Pakehas can be in anything from A to P. It's important here to say the school itself of course does not promote this rule of thumb, and I have only heard it once.
It was meant as a semi joke I'm sure, but does reflect an expectation among presumably all races, including I believe the Maori and Polynesian boys themselves, about where everyone sits. So even a very capable Maori or Pacific boy (or girl) has to fight extra hard to beat that stereotyping, in a way that white boys do not. For their sake; and for a healthy non divisive society, I think we need to keep fighting that racial expectation. The Treaty process may not be perfect; but if it gives the Maori a leg up including some extra self belief, then I actually think that levels the playing field just a bit.
That highlights a cultural difference, but the bigots would see it as an intelligence issue. The spread of the pakeha is the clincher. So the issue you raise isn't about making Maori like Pakeha, or Pakeha like Asian, it is about accepting and progressing WITH the differences.
I recall a story of pioneering day in forestry where Maori and Pakeha worked alongside each other felling the trees. It was axes in those days and the cultural distinction was what would happen in the instance of a broken axe handle. The Maori would be dispirited and head back to camp and mope for the rest of the day. The pakeha would head back to camp, find a new handle and mount it before heading back into to work the trees. Just a different approach and it takes good leadership to work with these differences. But we all know about the vacuum of leadership in this country.
Hey Moa Man - totally agree with you re the NZ Conservative Party - the only party who is totally committed to the restoration of Democracy in NZ - by way of BINDING referenda - For anyone else - including The Duke - try reading their manifesto - see their website - and I am certain that you will see that they are not a bunch of religious weirdos - in fact they are a very significant force for the future with over 86,000 people voting for them at the last election and every likelyhood of gaining at least 5 seats next time around .....how can anyone dismiss them out of hand ???
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.