Friday, 14 July 2023

An Extraordinary Promise.

An Offer Maori Could Not Refuse: It is hard to imagine a better way of demonstrating the injustice that lies at the heart of our nation’s story. The first time the Māori refused to sell their land to the Pakeha, the Pakeha imported 12,000 imperial troops from Great Britain and confiscated vast tracts of it. Then, having overcome all serious indigenous opposition, successive settler governments passed laws encouraging the Pakeha to take what little productive Māori land was left. Image by Dave Tipper.

THE GREENS MANIFESTO, released on Sunday (9/7/23) contains an extraordinary promise. If it finds itself in a position to do so, the Green Party will “explore” the return of land “wrongfully alienated from the tangata whenua”. To be clear, the Greens are not referring to Crown land. The process envisaged involves giving Māori “a right of first refusal”, enabling “the return of private land to iwi, hapū and whānau at point of sale”.

To describe this policy as “challenging” does it a disservice. On its face, the Greens’ policy is nothing short of revolutionary. Slowly, but surely, Māori could reclaim the lands that were, by war or legal chicanery, taken from them. The processes of colonisation, to which the extinguishing of native title has always been fundamental, would be thrown into reverse.

“But, they can’t do that! All Hell would break loose!” Certainly, that would be the cry. But how loud would it be, really?

After all, the process described has for many years constituted an important aspect of the Treaty Settlement Process. The right of first refusal to land which the Crown no longer wished to own was granted to Ngai Tahu in 1998.

“But, granting first refusal to iwi, hapū and whānau in relation to Crown land is quite different from encouraging them to exercise the same right in relation to private land”, the critics would object. “To give Māori such a right would fundamentally derange our entire system. Individuals and companies must be free to sell their property to whomsoever they please – otherwise the free market economy falls apart.”

Putting to one side the legal nicety that the Crown is deemed to own every hectare of New Zealand already, and that those who purchase real estate generally hold it “in fee simple” from the King. (And you thought feudalism was dead!) What the Greens are proposing is simply that Māori be given the first opportunity to meet the vendor’s price – not that they be given the power to set it! The market will continue to work – at least in the short term. Over time, however, more and more land would, indeed, revert to Māori ownership.

Apart from it being an affront to their colonial amor propre, what respectable reason could Pakeha have for caring who ends up buying what they have chosen to sell? When Kiwis flick on their homes, the identity of the purchaser doesn’t usually signify. What matters is that the transaction goes smoothly, and that the agreed purchase-price ends up in the vendor’s bank account. If iwi corporations were to become major players in the buying and selling of New Zealand real estate who, apart from inveterate racists, would really care?

Certainly not the generations of New Zealanders born after 1965. For more and more of the generations at the end of the alphabet, buying and selling property has become a pipe dream. Some of them might even welcome the steady transfer of real estate from Pakeha to Māori: arguing (with some justification) that large iwi corporations could hardly be worse landlords than the grasping rack-renters who lord it over them now.

No, if the Green’s policy is going to cause trouble, then it will be in the long, not the short, term. Think about it. Once iwi, hapū and whānau have finally reclaimed their lost whenua, how likely is it that they will allow it slip through their fingers a second time? Which can only mean that a time will come when most of New Zealand is in the hands of iwi, hapū and whānau ill-disposed to selling their whenua, their taonga, to any but their own.

Which is why this Green policy comes under the rubric of “Te Tiriti”. It is hard to imagine a better way of demonstrating the injustice that lies at the heart of our nation’s story. The first time the Māori refused to sell their land to the Pakeha, the Pakeha imported 12,000 imperial troops from Great Britain and confiscated vast tracts of it. Then, having overcome all serious indigenous opposition, successive settler governments passed laws encouraging the Pakeha to take what little productive Māori land was left.

By re-creating the disposition of New Zealand real estate at the time of the Treaty’s signing, the Greens’ policy would right these wrongs.

Aotearoa was Māori land – it could be again.


This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 14 July 2023.

33 comments:

Odysseus said...

What gross distortion, served with a side of bombast. Most land transfers were a case of willing seller and willing buyer. Large tracts were unoccupied. Confiscations were minimal, and the result of rebellion against the Crown. 150 years on, just who are the rightful owners in your view - somebody with a one thirty second trace of Maori DNA? Absurd.

Anonymous said...

Now I understand the introduction of a compulsory Maori training segment for real estate agents. It’s yet more indoctrination. Chris, have you got election fever or something? You’ve suddenly stopped making sense. The lunatics really are running this asylum. Let’s all have puha and pakeha for breakfast, lunch and dinner…
WW

Guerilla Surgeon said...

So Chris, are you for it or agin it?

Gary Peters said...

A few years ago a small house with a little shop attached to the front came up for sale just up the road but a few doors down from one of the local marae.

As the auction was about to start a maori guy stood up and loudly stated that although it was a private sale local maori would be lodging a claim against the property and would be fighting in court to take back ownership.

That killed the auction and despite the property have a value around the $150,000 mark it was sold to maori interests for approx $50,000.

When a few local settlements were made under the ToW a local maori group approached a successful business in town and offered to buy the business for an insultingly low price. Despite the business requiring access to maori land and permits they refused and so had their supply cut off. Luckily he was about to negotiate with a far North tribe who had no love for the local bunch here but had to travel 300 miles each way twice a week to remain in business.

A client of ours had a business that contracted to local Government and Iwi. A maori group offered to buy at a 10th of the value and when he rejected the offer they pressured the Council and Iwi to cut funding the programme so our client lost his business which they rejigged but managed to completely destroy within 5 years.

Do not doubt for one minute that a crack in the current land process will not be wedged open with dire consequences.

Anonymous said...

"Simply that Māori be given the first opportunity to meet the vendor’s price." How would that work in an auction situation? Upon bringing the hammer down on a successful bid, does the auctioneer have to consult with Maori first (and which ones - that could be a hornets nest) so that they can meet the auction price before the auction is finally closed? What about tender sales. On opening the highest and successful tender, does that then have to go back to Maori to meet the same (again, which Maori)? And again, overall, which Maori. So someone in the South Island is selling a home in Whakatane? Which Maori get the right of first refusal? Is it the iwi in the South Island, or the iwi in Whakatane? Could lead to a bun fight. I think the Green's policy is a bit simple and hasn't been fully thought through and I'm surprised Chris, that you haven't touched upon this part of the conundrum in your article.

Gary Peters said...

As Odysseus says, a big country.

Pre-european population MAY have reached 100,000. NZ has 268,000 square kilometers so that's about 2.7 square kilometers each. Maori communities were primarily centred on the coast and river fed valleys so by far the bulk of NZ was uninhabited so all the land waffle and spiritual connection is just that, waffle. Money is the driver here, watch and see.

Kiwi Dave said...

1) What stops iwi corporations from buying private freehold land now?
2) If they buy private freehold land does it stay private freehold land, or does it become rates-free Māori land?
3) What happens if the practices described by Gary Peters @ 11.27 are repeated, and with physical intimidation added?
4) Why stop at 1840, when tribes were also forcibly dispossessed earlier? Aotearoa’ was never just Maori land, it was also Ngati X, Y an Z land.
5) How does returning to the 1840 disposition of land accord with our twenty-first century demographics?

CXH said...

'arguing (with some justification) that large iwi corporations could hardly be worse landlords than the grasping rack-renters who lord it over them now.'

Hard to take anything you say seriously with this sort unsubstantiated bombast.

DS said...

My thought is that Corporate Iwi being scummy landlords as much as Rich Pakeha will help neither ordinary Maori nor ordinary Pakeha.

The fundamental flaw of Identity Politics is that it revolves around the notion that if only we have more non-white or non-straight or non-male people in economic power, that will solve everything. Rather than the problem being the system of economic power (landlords or CEOs) to start with.

Anonymous said...

Trotter referring to Europeans as Pakeha says it all about the left wing wally he is.
The Greens intentions are madness and either ignorant of history or treacherous.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"What gross distortion, served with a side of bombast. Most land transfers were a case of willing seller and willing buyer. Large tracts were unoccupied. Confiscations were minimal, and the result of rebellion against the Crown. 150 years on, just who are the rightful owners in your view - somebody with a one thirty second trace of Maori DNA? Absurd."

Never seen so much inaccuracy in so few words. I don't know where you got your information from, but there is pretty much not a single word of truth in it.

David Stone said...

What are they going to use for money?
D J S

John Hurley said...

Where does justice begin and end. Maori land was Maori territory. Given the size of the population they rattled around in it (especially Ngai tahu). It was agriculture that captured it for farming.
Then you get into the issue of who is Maori. In a serious discussion over blood quantum, it was suggested that if someone was (say) adopted by Italians, were they not Italians?
That is a fair point but lends itself to Isaiah Berlin's positive and negative liberty. When you are pushing group rights it is a violation of negative liberty.
The other thing I don't get is how they rationalise Maori nationalism and anti-racism. Saying that white nationalism is different to other nationalisms is a denial of human nature

I don't know about anyone else but when Rangi Matamua wrinkles his brow and says we are starting to move away from "imported" festivals like Easter, Christmas and Guy Fawkes, it makes me realise that I have an identity and a sense of place and that other peoples and culture in other places are distinctive. I have no doubt that "home" for them is the same.
Watch this South Island town, see it's churches and listen to the Choir of Trinity College Cambridge singing God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwYuOVJ6PqY

Thomas More said...

Here's my guess. As an old Marxist, Chris can't resist the appeal of a revolution. But deep down he knows that this one won't end well, since it's not giving power to the proletariat, but transferring our country's resources to a small group of powerful corporations.

David George said...

"The Green Party will whakamana te Tiriti o Waitangi and uphold tino rangatiratanga, for the wellbeing of tangata whenua and tangata moana."

Really? How about no.

The idea of the Government overturning private contracts is bad enough, tyrannical in effect. Base it on racial ancestry and the Greens happy clappy fantasy turns into dystopia. So what is a Maori?

You would imagine that, if you're going to appropriate and allocate public (and now private) assets and rights on the basis of ethnicity, you would require some sort of robust definition. As I mentioned previously there is no definition, it's as lose as it's possible to be. When I filled out a form from the (now shut down) Northland DHB it asked for a tick next to ethnicities (plural) , that has been arbitrarily corrupted into a hierarchy of race. One drop of Maori and you're Maori, Pacific Islands ethnicity is treated the same - it takes precedence over predominant European or Asian Heritage. Maori trumps the lot though.

Now they ask you to nominate a single ethnicity that you "identify as" and the electoral roll is not much different. My brother was on the Maori roll - he's no more Maori than I am. Thus an entirely subjective/imaginary criteria is being used to allocate resources, assets, privileges and rights. Perhaps we should all just "identify" as Maori or, better yet, put the whole idea in the bin.

I had to laugh when it came out that senior US politician Elizabeth Warren (AKA Fauxcahontas) had faked herself up as Cherokee for her State Bar application in 1986 - and continued with the BS right up until she was caught out more recently. I've no doubt we're seeing the same sort of thing here. Does anyone seriously think Elizabeth Marvelly is a Maori? That she should get priority in the hospital waiting list because of a minute bit of Maori blood?
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/16/17983250/elizabeth-warren-bar-application-american-indian-dna

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"The fundamental flaw of Identity Politics is that it revolves around the notion that if only we have more non-white or non-straight or non-male people in economic power, that will solve everything. "

No, the fundamental flaw is not with identity politics but with the situation that brings about identity politics – i.e. particular groups not getting the same opportunities/satisfaction/treatment from the political process. If you fix that problem then identity politics will probably but not certainly, wither away.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Warren’s DNA test, which was analyzed under the supervision of a respected geneticist at Stanford University, demonstrates she very likely has a Native American ancestor."

Caught out? She has at least one Native American ancestor. As do many Americans, probably fewer than actually claim it given that it seems to be fashionable. But again – blood quantum is not a particularly useful concept when deciding who or who isn't a member of a particular ethnic group.

John Hurley said...

In the course of your writing career, you wrote Ranginui Walker’s biography. He was a man of strong principles and strong opinions on issues like these, wasn’t he?

That biography was one of the most delightful and satisfying things that I’ve done. At times, Ranginui was very direct about what he thought ought to be written and said. He was a wonderful man. But he took no prisoners.

I recall once when we were doing a Treaty of Waitangi lecture at Te Papa in Wellington and the issue of migration came up. I said: “I’m the son of a migrant. Why wouldn’t I be in favour of migration? I can’t come here and then deny others. What I think we need to do is have a national conversation about what that means. Ranginui will hold a different view.”

Rangi leaned into the microphone and said: “Pull up the drawbridge.” He was not in favour of migration at all. And he wasn’t in favour of Asian migration. He argued that, in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Māori never signed up for people coming from Asia to New Zealand — although I think what he was really saying was: “If you’re going to do that, then let’s have a conversation first.” And, of course, there was no conversation.

https://e-tangata.co.nz/korero/paul-spoonley-we-can-be-better-at-welcoming-migrants/#:~:text=In%20the%20course,was%20no%20conversation.

He said: immigration has *made* this country and Maori should be given a role in *welcoming* migrants.

What Ranginui was *really* saying was what Winston has been saying. No way could Spoonley (his biographer) mistake this for "have a conversation". "A conversation" to Spoonley-bro is controlled demolition.
https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_316.shtml

Odd that now Tina Ngata is saying what Paul Spoonley is saying (Maori culture is cosmoploitan urban liberal more than working class traditional). Both appearing on He Whenua Taurikura (courtesy DMPC). Interesting that Valerie Morse and Bronwyn Haywood lead a walkout in response to Juliet Moses speech. Tame Iti also is a Maori nationalist/cosmopolitan - perhaps the cosmopolitan is subject and business partner (much like John Key and the Choys)

Patricia said...

Well, if we become a republic the land can revert to the Maori and we can buy and sell the fee simple just as everybody does now. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

David George said...

Thanks GS, you can't see the problem?

If, as you claim, people are systemically disadvantaged, and therefore deserving of special assistance, on the basis of race; what to do about those that are only marginally racially "afflicted"? Perhaps it would be a whole lot better to direct resources on the basis of actual need rather than on an arbitrary statistical correlation. No?

BTW, Fauxcahontas didn't just claim to have a tiny (essentially meaningless?) fraction of native American ancestry, she claimed to BE Native American.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

David you certainly can't see the problem. Systematic disadvantages are present even when resources are allocated on a alleged basis of actual need. Because that's what systematic racism does.
I can only recommend you read "Racism without Racists" by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, which explains it reasonably simply.

"she claimed to BE Native American." She claimed Native American ancestry, as so many Americans do. I don't think she ever claimed to be a full-blooded Native American – whatever that is. As it is though the epithet Pocahontas or whatever you want to call her is not only insulting to her, it's insulting to Native Americans. Not that I'm surprised about that, being coined by Trump.

"Bustamante, a prominent expert in DNA analysis, determined a pure Native American ancestor appears “in the range of six to 10 generations ago”. That meshes with Warren’s narrative that her great-great-great-grandmother, OC Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American."


"Some have charged that Warren advanced her academic career as a law professor by claiming to be a descendant of Cherokee and Delaware tribes. In September, a Globe investigation concluded that she did not."

I think it's a little bit more complicated than you would claim David.

rave dout said...

Yes, It will be iwi charitable trusts to provide Maōri social housing or/and collective farming and therefore tax-free profit to buy more, just like Glorivale

David George said...

Marama "Mugabe" Davidson & Co have certainly upped the ante with this one but the entire He Puapua agenda is a disaster in the making.

I don't think people are aware of the implications, or perhaps they choose not to see. Perhaps they're so naïve, so infatuated with Maori wonderfulness delusions that they think Iwi elites are immune to envy, greed and incompetence, that they will be wise and benevolent dispersers of the extraordinary power they will hold?

A couple of brothers brought a small dairy farm at Pakaraka with plans to plant a red kiwi fruit orchard. They went through all the hoops, including Iwi approval, irrigation consents etc. and completed all the infrastructure and planting. At that stage there was an injunction brought by a neighbouring iwi group and the consents were suspended. Nearly all the young plants died from lack of water. They were forced into protracted and costly re-application, legal wrangling and extortion from the "aggrieved" outfit down the road with no recourse for their huge losses.

Make no mistake, let the Greens, the Maori Party and their useful idiots, NZ Labour, into power and our country will turn into a dystopian shit hole.

David George said...

The dreaded Racial Profiling had a bit of a workout yesterday. Apparently this Maori chap had to pay before filling up at the petrol station, the European lady didn't. He had a major rant, made front page in the Herald.

Strangely no one saw fit to point out that racial profiling is legit now, government approved in fact.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"profit to buy more, just like Glorivale"
And yet – whenever the Glorivale is reported on, nobody gives you any idea of the racial background of those in charge do they? But every minor shoplifter – if they happen to be Maori – it's proclaimed from the rooftops.

David George said...

GS:"I don't think she ever claimed to be a full-blooded Native American"

You did read the Vox link?
The one with a copy of her State Bar application?
The yellow signed application document where "Race?" is filled out as "American Indian"?
Make your point but enough of the BS.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

I was wrong David. Now that's something you don't see from conservative commenters very often – actually never. But she did apologise, which is something you don't see right-wing politicians doing either.
But you never mentioned this did you?
"Senator Elizabeth Warren does not claim to be a citizen of any tribal nation, and she is not a citizen of the Eastern Band,” said Eastern Band Principal Chief Richard Sneed .... “Like many other Americans, she has a family story of Cherokee and Delaware ancestry and evidence of Native ancestry.”

Sneed said he believes Warren has shown respect for Cherokee tribal sovereignty, and “has not used her family story or evidence of Native ancestry to gain employment or other advantage.”

Guerilla Surgeon said...

You know what, I just can't resist a bit of tu quoque 😇 :

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/guide-george-santos-lies.html#:~:text=Santos%20has%20been%20accused%20of,work%20due%20to%20the%20pandemic.

sumsuch said...

When you need you need and everything else goes out the window. And power comes into play. Nazi Germany was so inspired by older empires.

Idealism is just the off-by-product of successful empire. Anna Sewell's 'Black Beauty' says it all -- once a thing is not needed, you get sentimental about it. Jimmie Boswell about 'Bonnie Prince Charlie', and Walter Scott's romanticization of Highlanders. It got beneficent givings to them during the potato famine, unlike the Irish. No longer a threat, just frolicking in their imagination.

sumsuch said...

I jump from GS comment to GS comment. I can't think of anyone on TDB comments like that ... Old social democrats in NZ are as thin on the ground as the UK and America. A see-through fabric despite us being right.

David George said...

Thanks GS, apparently false claims of indigenous heritage are quite an issue elsewhere. Pretendians they call them in Canada. I suspect it's going to get even bigger here now access to health care, education, social support, housing etc. are being directed on the basis of ethnicity.

NZ Herald: "She shared one anecdote of a former student of her Māori studies classes who “really hated the fact she was Pākehā”, but then turned up at other courses and other areas claiming to be Māori, which she heard second-hand from other people.

“[Someone] came to me and asked me whether I knew of her, and he told me that her mother and father were both English immigrants. So they dealt with it as part of their Treaty claim settlement process.

“Eventually, because she had been outed here in this country, she went to Canada and portrayed herself as indigenous up there, as Māori, and ended up using that to get herself promoted through the university process to a very high level until others here in New Zealand saw what she was doing, let the First Nations people in Canada know, and they got rid of her.”
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-maori-in-me-the-concerning-rise-of-pretendians-in-indigenous-communities/4PCHPHYK5BAWTGF3F32LHA5P6Q/

David George said...

Have we got a Kiwi equivalent to "Pretendians?

Any ideas? Shamaoris? Mockaris?

Anonymous said...

That sounds like what happened to Māori 💥