A modest proposal on Waitangi day

Written By: - Date published: 1:58 pm, February 5th, 2024 - 32 comments
Categories: Politics, treaty settlements - Tags:

While we are mourning the election result and wondering why the masses rejected the offer of GST off fruit and vegetables, I thought I would map out some suggestions that could make the New Zealand Labour Party, the party of our future.

We might see these Proposals as the ‘Great Leap Forwards’ or perhaps, like the Kennedy ‘Moonshots’, intended to inspire future generations to see our country in a new light.

First up. Proposal 1. Reimburse Maori fully for the stolen taongas.

While the Treaty of Waitangi continues to be battered back and forth, the cold, clear reality is that Maori, after signing the infuriating Treaty, were systematically dispossessed of their land. Any reading of the history of colonial treaties, from any country you can name that had the privilege of being colonised, shows that treaties were the primary method of dispossession and were designed to be broken.

And in New Zealand, it didn’t take long for the Crown to begin the organised and deliberate expropriation of Maori land and its subsequent disbursement to colonists. The removal of around 70% of New Zealand’s forest cover to create the pastureland called farms, did not benefit Maori at all.

The Waitangi Tribunal has reviewed case after case of Maori being attacked, having their land and other taonga being confiscated or swindled out of their possession, leading directly to their current status as third class citizens – in the country their ancestors discovered.

A brief reading of the Nelson 10ths Land Case, is the most recent in a depressing litany of outright theft that characterised my ancestors approach to the tangata whenua. The New Zealand Company (a version of the East India Company) signed a deal (later endorsed by the Crown when subsequently signing the Treaty of Waitangi) to buy 152,000 acres of land in Nelson and to set aside around 15,000 acres for use by local Maori. They ended up with around 1600 acres.

Nobody disputes that the Maori owners were not given the 15,000. but the Crown, in attempting to avoid having to pay anything like what is owed, noted that “the claim placed a lot of demand on the Government and on the public purse, and while the Crown wanted to refresh the relationship with top of the south Māori in a way that was affordable for the country, it rejected it had an ongoing duty.”

The Crown ‘wanted to refresh the relationship’ by rejecting it has a duty to pay a debt it is liable for – because it will cost a lot of money and put a ‘lot of demand on the public purse’. So, we steal the land and some time later, after admitting the theft, we offer 10 cents in the dollar as restitution.

This is the nub of the problem – the cost. My reading of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process is that the appellants are offered a deal by the Crown that bears no relation to the current value of what was stolen, on the basis that the settlement will give them a reasonable amount to establish themselves as a going concern and an apology, in good faith, for the previous treatment received.

The Crown is effectively claiming it can’t afford to pay the full cost of reparations and that Maori need to do a deal. Yet another deal, with all the cards in the Crown’s hand.

I reject this approach. Maori need to be repaid in full, at the current value of the stolen taonga.

A recent review of the value of current settlements shows that $2.6 billion has been allocated. Using the 10 cents in the dollar calculator provided by my friend Arthur M, who believes his iwi were short changed by this amount in their Settlement, a rough calculation shows that Maori should have been paid $26 billion and that around $18.6 billion is still owing.

Not something the Crown is going to be able pay off quickly!

And that’s a good thing. Maori have all the time in the world. They aren’t going anywhere soon and I believe they would happily sit down and do a deal, that over time, perhaps a long time, would see the debt repaid at a fair rate.

How good would that be for our economy? Millions of dollars going to our poorest communities to help them thrive and succeed – as they have demonstrated via examples of previous Treaty of Waitangi Settlements.

How good would it be for our economy to have businesses owned by New Zealanders and not international companies who currently treat New Zealand like a milk cow – banks and duopolies milking interest rates and artificially high prices?

I knew you’d ask; how will we pay for this extra commitment? Try taxing those who have made the most from the ‘deal’ the Crown delivered when it stole the land for them. We can start with the nearly $1 billion this current government is going to gift landlords.

Paul Chalmers

32 comments on “A modest proposal on Waitangi day ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tom.smith 1
    5 February 2024 at 2:51 pm

    There are only a few treaty settlements left and they are in the final stages of being signed off I understand. The settlements that have been made are full and final. Full and final is exactly what it means.

    • Alan Armstrong 1.1
      5 February 2024 at 4:41 pm

      No Government can bind its successors, so "full and final" are empty words.

    • SPC 1.2
      5 February 2024 at 6:03 pm

      Originally it was $1B allocated to make the settlements. It sounded a lot.

      There was also a clause that some iwi negotiated, that if the total was over $1B their amount would be adjusted.

      In the period of time since the early 1990's land values have changed a lot and the value of an early settlement has therefore been significant (despite the fact that this would go up further if the $1B cap was breached)

      And if the cap was not breached, later iwi would not get a comparable compensation for loss of land as earlier iwi.

  2. feijoa 2
    5 February 2024 at 3:05 pm

    Well, David's Bill wants the exact opposite of all that.

    To strip away any reference to Maori. To somehow include pakeha in te Tiriti under the nice-sounding guise of equality, even though the pakeha colonists already had property rights and were subject to the Crown's laws anyway.

    Surely David's motive in all this is so he and his billionaire friends can get their hands on Maori resources. He knows he wont change Maori minds. It's pakeha minds he is after, the 83%, if he can swing pakeha over, he's won.

  3. feijoa 3
    5 February 2024 at 3:10 pm

    Oh

    Hikoi in Wellington tomorrow.

    Pukeahu at 10.30, march to Waitangi Park by 12.00

  4. SPC 4
    5 February 2024 at 6:10 pm

    The thing is this three headed confabulation of betrayal intends to change the rules for foreign investment in New Zealand – retaining only one block, national security.

    So anything can be flogged off, farmland. river and coastal land off farms, beach front property, fisheries and islands.

    All so those who own stuff can sell it without any CGT to foreigners who want such scarce commodity assets.

    Our best land in the hands of foreign capitalists as holiday homes or B and B guest houses, while the next generation of locals and migrant workers get tenant complexes to rent at over 50% of their income.

    • SPC 4.1
      6 February 2024 at 2:40 pm

      What must be noted is that having only a national security test on sale of land to foreign investors – reduces the standing of the Waitangi Tribunal (it via the Treaty is mentioned in some of our trade deals).

      Diminishing the Treaty and the Tribunal are vital to the subordination of our nation state and democracy to the dominance of foreign capital.

      TPM might want to look at the decisIon to move on from public domain for F and S. While their deal with National allowed customary right claims via courts, it also allowed private ownership- – and now potentially sale to foreigners of coastal land, river land, fisheries etc.

      Is Shane Jones preparing the way for fast tracking new inshore fisheries that can be sold offshore etc?

  5. Ad 5
    6 February 2024 at 8:54 am

    So far Luxon is pitch-perfect.

    He's not falling into the rhetoric of either side.

    And this is s very tame Waitangi event, well organized and dignified with the right noise volume.

    However Luxon smoothes the whe, he won't be reinventing it as this OP wants.

    • Patricia Bremner 5.1
      6 February 2024 at 11:56 am

      Ad do you think this is all about how PM Luxon reacts? That it is just noise he can ignore? Do you think he has control of Seymore and Peters?

    • Powerman 5.2
      6 February 2024 at 5:08 pm

      Ad, Luxon is sitting on the fence and will eventually come down on both sides.

  6. Michael who failed Civics 6
    6 February 2024 at 12:57 pm

    I can't see the Labour Party having the intestinal fortitude to do anything of the sort recommended by Paul Chalmers.

    • SPC 6.1
      6 February 2024 at 1:20 pm

      Would you vote for the party that did?

      One means of funding is not allowing landlords to claim their mortgage payment as a cost against rent income (for existing property).

      This not only makes money available for iwi settlements, it also incentivises investment in new builds and places downward pressure on our property values.

      • Michael P 6.1.1
        6 February 2024 at 5:03 pm

        "…to claim their mortgage payment…"

        Am guessing you meant to say their mortgage interest payment. (Else they'd be claiming huge tax returns!)

        In my opinion all these kind of things, whilst not insignificant amounts of potential revenue are involved, just distract from what is really needed, a move away from taxing work and towards taxing wealth.

        (am still FUMING at the Labor Party and by default leaders Ardern and Hipkins for their stance on a wealth tax. This after the 2 year report they commissioned showed undeniable evidence of it's requirement or something similar)

        • Michael Scott 6.1.1.1
          6 February 2024 at 5:35 pm

          I don't think that a wealth tax is the answer as it has been tried and largely failed.

          I was living in Sweden in 2007 when they got rid of their wealth tax because it raised so little money.

          In France Macron abandoned it after approx 40,000 wealthy taxpayers left France.

          If NZ introduced it and Australia had no wealth tax the wealthy would move there.

          A land tax would work better as land is not as portable as investment capital.

          • Michael P 6.1.1.1.1
            6 February 2024 at 6:00 pm

            To me a land tax is a form of wealth tax.

            But IMO the whole tax system needs to be radically changed to make it fair.

            For example a low wage worker works damn hard for at least 40 hrs a week and gets paid $50,000 for a years hard work. The government takes close to $10,000 of this in income tax. It is unlikely this person will ever be able to buy a house in Auckland.

            By contrast someone who is fortunate enough to have enough money to buy a house in Auckland (and I'm not begrudging them that) can do literally nothing at all and get (on paper) $100,000 plus in unearned income on which no tax at all is paid. They can even sell the house after a couple of years and realize the full cash amount of unearned income with no tax applied. This unearned income is obviously still income, but isn't subject to income tax. This doesn't benefit those on low incomes without property.

            Doesn't seem fair to me. At the very least we should get rid of the old "This income isn't classed as income for income tax purposes" rort which just enables the wealthy to dodge their fair share of tax. (not always deliberately, it's just the way the system works.)

            Income tax should apply to all income because income is income and income should be subject to income tax. Of course we're given all the usual excuses "It's too hard", "it'll scare off investors", "the wealthy will leave NZ"

            What a load of BS.

          • SPC 6.1.1.1.2
            6 February 2024 at 6:00 pm

            Once the wealthy transfer their wealth to Oz they are liable to stamp duty (on any property they buy) and then CGT.

            DPF says he prefers a CGT that includes all homes (he is wrong as it deters labour mobility), of course one New Zealanders would not support until home ownership fell below 50%.

            Land tax is an option that those who pay rent might support – it might be viable when home ownership fell below 50%.

            A land tax would work better as land is not as portable as investment capital.

            A lot of the wealthy here hold near all of it in real estate.

            • Michael P 6.1.1.1.2.1
              6 February 2024 at 6:08 pm

              "…one New Zealanders would not support until home ownership fell below 50%."

              Yeah can't see house prices becoming truly 'affordable' let alone dropping by the huge amount they need to until it becomes politically viable.

              I remember reading a report somewhere that home ownership will dip below 50% in possibly 2046 from memory. That's when renters will suddenly find they have a huge amount of political power to force change. (Gen X misses out again !)

              Of course a PM or party with the political will and the balls to do so could force house prices down quite easily but that would require a genuine politician / party that don't just follow the prescribed agenda and maintain the status quo.

            • Michael Scott 6.1.1.1.2.2
              6 February 2024 at 7:06 pm

              If there is a silver bullet to increase equality it is housing

              Ownership of property changes everything

              Inequality will not be changed by the middle class condemning it as a moral wrong.

              It will be overcome by getting our young into homes that they can own and not rent.

      • Michael who failed Civics 6.1.2
        7 February 2024 at 10:38 am

        "Would you vote for the party that did?"

        Yes.

  7. Thinker 7
    6 February 2024 at 5:59 pm

    I'm kind of wondering whether this year's Waitangi Day commemorations will be significant in the history books, when future generations look back. As far as I can recall, while not every generation (or year's commemorations) has moved things forward much, I seem to think that this is the first where the government wants to deprive Maori of some of the gains made in recent years.

    On another note, I am currently 10 minutes away from watching the tv news rundown of events, but already the online news hints at Luxon being caught short and possibly reaching for his brown trousers.

    He's been incredibly naive (if Prime Ministers can be naive) to think that anyone (Maori and heaps of other people) would be satisfied with his supposed-excuse that, for the sake of the coalition negotiations, he went along with supporting the bill's first reading, even though he didn't believe in it.

    That's like me being in a group of other white guys, culturally dissing my Maori friend and then expecting him to be happy with me saying I had to do it because I wanted to stay friends with the group of rednecks. Just doesn't wash with lots of people, IMHO. Can't believe Luxon thinks it's reasonable.

    • Michael P 7.1
      6 February 2024 at 6:34 pm

      Of course it's reasonable it's part of the coalition agreement that National would allow the bill to progress to select committee stage. It's perfectly legitimate for a political party which is in government to put forward proposed bills in line with their policy platform. Just because some people don't like it or agree with it doesn't make it somehow underhand or illegal or anything else.

      It's put forward by a party with the 4th highest percentage of votes in the election so they are just fulfilling their promise to those NZ'ers who voted for them.

      It's been ACT policy for a while and obviously it won't progress passed select committee so why is everyone so hysterical about it?

      • Thinker 7.1.1
        6 February 2024 at 7:55 pm

        There are probably lots of reasons, but the main reason is that Luxon/National put their own desire for power ahead of the entire country's progress in race relations.

        Associated with this, but possibly qualifying as another main reason in its own right, is the snubbing of the United Nations (of which NZ is a member nation) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which includes, in part:

        “Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests,

        Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources,

        Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States,

        Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur,

        Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs,

        Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment”

        https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

        • Michael Scott 7.1.1.1
          6 February 2024 at 9:11 pm

          Why don't we simply bite the bullet and transfer the 40% of crown owned land and the conservation estate to Maori.

          It would be managed better than now by Kaitiakitanga principles and would demonstrate a genuine commitment to right what is possible without taking back privately owned land.

  8. Gosman 8
    7 February 2024 at 10:43 am

    There has been in the past a lot of detailed work done around the confiscation of Maori land and compensation paid for it and what may need to still be paid. The 1928 Sims Commission did a lot of work around this subject. You can read the full report here (https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1928-I.2.2.6.13/1).

    What is clear is that compensation efforts have been made in the past and it is not as if we are starting from a position of zero. Certainly the formula that is referred to whereby Maori have only received 10% of the true value of the land taken unjustly is not set out in terms of how that number is arranged. Using the value of the land today is invalid as it fails to take into account improvements made on the land through capital investment.

    [Here you go again! Seeding doubt and misinformation and wasting good time of commenters, authors, and moderators.

    Certainly the formula that is referred to whereby Maori have only received 10% of the true value of the land taken unjustly is not set out in terms of how that number is arranged.

    How was the ‘Tenths’ instrument derived in 1940? Give us the facts and not just the factoids that suit you.

    Using the value of the land today is invalid as it fails to take into account improvements made on the land through capital investment.

    Capital investment was one of the reasons then, which you should know since you harp on about it so much. Present land value is a starting point for the claims and discussions and for the highly complex longest-running court case in this context.

    Capital investment (what? By who?) is a red herring unless you specify it and argue that the claimants have no or only partial right to compensation for that. Instead of simplistic binary reckons you’ll have to substantiate it.

    You’re in Pre-Mod again until I’m satisfied that you’ve complied with the above – Incognito]

    • Incognito 8.1
      8 February 2024 at 8:53 am

      Mod note

    • Gosman 8.2
      8 February 2024 at 9:12 am

      I have no idea what you a referring to when you mention the "‘Tenths’ instrument derived in 1940?" or why it is relevant. Perhapos you should explain the reason you think it is something I should investigate then I can answer your question on it.

      The capital investment is oviously by the property owners who have owned the property since it passed from local Maori hands. It is a well established principle when discussing the subject of compensation for land that is in dispute due to historical land alienation. Even the Zimbabwean government acknowledges that capital improvements need to be taken out of any equation when dealing with expropriated land.

      "The compensation agreement signed in July agreed a total amount of US$3.5 billion to pay for ‘improvements’ to the land that was expropriated."

      https://www.future-agricultures.org/blog/land-and-compensation-in-zimbabwe-frequently-asked-questions/

      [So, you’re again back to your MO and wasting our good time with your ignorant trolling here on this site. (NB I don’t believe you’re really this ignorant)

      You criticise something you know nothing about, or at least claim to know nothing about. And then you pretend not to understand the question that goes to the heart of it and of this Post. Then you put the onus back on the other person who challenged you to investigate and explain, so that they do the lifting for you.

      Further, you resort to diversion trolling – what’s new?

      Take two weeks off to educate yourself about the ‘Nelson tenth case’ and its historical basis. When you come back I expect better performance from you and future moderation will be sharp, swift & strong (aka long) – Incognito]

      • Incognito 8.2.1
        8 February 2024 at 9:34 am

        Mod note

      • Incognito 8.2.2
        8 February 2024 at 11:20 am

        Here’s a starting point for your education journey, straight from the OP:

        A brief reading of the Nelson 10ths Land Case, is the most recent in a depressing litany of outright theft that characterised my ancestors approach to the tangata whenua. The New Zealand Company (a version of the East India Company) signed a deal (later endorsed by the Crown when subsequently signing the Treaty of Waitangi) to buy 152,000 acres of land in Nelson and to set aside around 15,000 acres for use by local Maori. They ended up with around 1600 acres.

        I used Google as well to educate myself on the same topic and so can you. Let’s see whether you’re an intentional troll or a genuine good faith commenter here. So far, the evidence (i.e. recent comments by you on this site) is leaning very heavily towards the former.