Hoki Whenua Mai/Landback

Written By: - Date published: 6:05 am, July 18th, 2023 - 56 comments
Categories: election 2023, greens, Maori Issues - Tags:

The Green Party released its Hoki Whenua Mai/Landback policy yesterday, aimed at redressing historic Māori land loss. It falls into five key areas,

  • A Commission of Inquiry that would examine the full extent of land dispossession and redress, and make recommendations on future pathways for returning land to iwi, hapū, and whanāu.
  • Remove the 2008 deadline for new claims to the Waitangi Tribunal
  • Reinstate the ability of the Waitangi tribunal to make recommendations about private land
  • Change the Public Works Act to protect Māori land
  • End perpetual leases of Māori owned land

In the policy introduction there are some shocking facts. By 1860 there was almost no land left in Māori ownership in the South Island. We can see from this graphic that land in the North Island was continuously removed including during the 20th century.

For those thinking that Treaty Claims were sufficient and are full and final, the Greens also point out that the total expenditure on Treaty Claims so far has been $2.6 billion. For perspective, the amount the government spent on the covid wage subsidy was $19.43 billion. $2.6 billion is a tiny amount of the value of what was taken from Māori.

‘Full and final settlement’ by 2008, was a National Party policy originating in 2002. It was obvious then that it would never work because it just wasn’t fair. Again from the GP policy document, a quote from Moana Jackson,


As well, treaties are not made to be ‘settled’, they are made to be honoured, and that honouring will only occur when there is a new political/constitutional order in place based on Te Tiriti.

Going by social media reactions to the policy, the most controversial bit is “Reinstate the ability of the Waitangi tribunal to make recommendations about private land”. Some took this to mean that land could be taken from non-Māori and given to Māori. The policy doesn’t say anything like that. What it says is,

Reinstating the ability for the Waitangi Tribunal to make recommendations relating to private land

The Waitangi Tribunal was initially able to make non-binding recommendations in relation to privately owned land, but this was removed in 1993 following the Te Roroa Report, which recommended returning significant wahi tapu on private land. Reinstating this ability would allow for the purchase and return of whenua as part of redress by the Crown.

This would be done together with removing the bar on new historical claims. The combined effect of this would enable claims for specific landholdings, with recommendations based around the return of this land. Tribunal recommendations would not be binding. However, these would provide clear direction to inform redress actions.

How to give effect to recommendations about privately owned land would depend on the characteristics and uses of the land, and the future uses envisaged by the claimants. Next steps following a recommendation could include negotiating with current landowners for purchase, or keeping a record of land for future purchase when it comes up sale.

An example of how this might work,

There is a block of land that was wrongly removed from the original Māori landowners and sold at a discounted price to Pākehā settlers. The land is still owned by the descendants of the Pākehā family and operated as a farm – but they are planning to sell up. The descendants of the original Māori landowners become aware that the current owners are planning to sell, and lodge an urgent claim at the Waitangi Tribunal. The Tribunal releases a finding that the land was wrongfully acquired, and recommends that the Crown negotiate with the current owners to purchase it and return it to the whānau as redress for their claim.

Two things are clear here. One is that there is no suggestion of confiscation of private land by the Crown to give to Māori. I’m bolding that because a number of people on social media seemed to be reacting to the policy as if the Greens were coming for ‘your home, your farm, your bach’, as some idiot put it. I knew without even reading the policy that the Greens would never countenance such a thing, because the Green Party kaupapa is based in concepts of social justice and fairness.

But some seem to not have read the policy and just made assumptions, presumably based on their erroneous ideas about the Greens. Others seem intent on using the opportunity to push the reactionary right wing talking point that treaty settlement that is fair for Māori is somehow inherently divisive for New Zealand.

The second thing that is clear from the above quote is that the Waitangi Tribunal would be empowered to make non-binding recommendations. Why bother if the recommendations are non-binding? My take is that the Greens want to set up a process that allows best practice to unfold as conditions and culture shift. The recommendations “would provide clear direction to inform redress”. In other words, the Greens are not seeking to dictate what should happen, but instead the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry would provide a structure for the relevant experts and people affected to determine how the problem of land loss can best be resolved.

The term landback appears to induce anxiety in some people, but whether one agrees with the details or not, there’s nothing in this policy to be afraid of.

56 comments on “Hoki Whenua Mai/Landback ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bwaghorn 1
    18 July 2023 at 7:11 am

    ":and lodge an urgent claim at the Waitangi Tribunal

    So will they be able to block the farm from being sold till the tribunal has gone through the process.?

  2. Ad 2
    18 July 2023 at 7:57 am

    Hard to complain about ending the perpetual leases. Waitara in particular.

    Also these nasty moments are everywhere. I'd just finished the Hump Ridge Track the lower part of which is through SILNA land, and in the interpretive signage it stated that Maori were promised major fees for the cutting rights, the European entrepeneur came in with their cutting gangs, took the logs out, the scheme collapsed, Maori got nothing.

    That was on SILNA land Maori got as a result of being done over.

    It was the kind of story that changed the whole landscape I'd just been through.

    Now sure, the Greens can never be accused of reading the room, but good on them for a principled stand.

  3. Cricklewood 3
    18 July 2023 at 8:01 am

    As always the devil will be in the detail. In this case its who will decide the value of the land if the govt was to buy it for redress.

    • weka 3.1
      18 July 2023 at 8:08 am

      How is sale price determined for Public Works Act purchases?

      • Ad 3.1.1
        18 July 2023 at 8:30 am

        Usually you do it off-market directly. You get a valuer, they get a valuer, meet in the middle.

        Sometimes it goes to the Land Valuation Tribunal and they will make a decision for the parties.

        Rarely the acquisition is contested in the Environment Court, and the big case recently is the Mt Messenger land acquisition. The land acquisition between the Crown and Maori was long settled, but another key landowner held out for years.

      • bwaghorn 3.1.2
        18 July 2023 at 12:03 pm

        The fairest way is tender, then maybe the crown gas a right to gazump the highest tender, doing legal owners out of top dollar to make historic wrong right us not fair

        • weka 3.1.2.1
          18 July 2023 at 12:25 pm

          at this point I can't see any rationale for letting people make excess profit on land sales. This is how we ended up with both the housing crisis and the terribly high prices on rural land.

          • Shanreagh 3.1.2.1.1
            18 July 2023 at 12:30 pm

            Ok so the last person in the line is the fall guy and takes the punishment for daring to own land in times of inflation.

            • Craig H 3.1.2.1.1.1
              18 July 2023 at 1:31 pm

              That's what happens now if it turns out someone bought stolen property. It gets returned to the rightful owner and the last purchaser is out of luck.

              • Shanreagh …
                18 July 2023 at 1:52 pm

                Oh I thought you were going to make serious suggestion. My bad.

                Nuanceis lost if you cannot see the difference between stealing and land purchased under legislation that has not stood the fullness of time test.

            • weka 3.1.2.1.1.2
              18 July 2023 at 1:47 pm

              Ok so the last person in the line is the fall guy and takes the punishment for daring to own land in times of inflation.

              I guess you want to protect your capital gains, but that's nothing to do with what I said.
              I said *excess profit*, which is what happens on the open market when people with more cash outbid others. This is a feature of rural land sales in places where overseas people with the advantage of the exchange rate and different economy can outbid locals.

              It's nothing to do with inflation, that's a different factor. If you stop and think about it, the market value takes inflation into account. Ad already explained how it works with sales under the PWA.

              I expect this has negatively affected Māori disproportionately because we run an economy that keeps people in poverty and Māori are part of that because of our colonial history and their land being stolen. Which is what the post and the policy is about. But hey, argue for your property rights at the expense of others, just don't complain about people pointing at the neoliberal elephant in the living room of your arguments.

              • Shanreagh …
                18 July 2023 at 2:24 pm

                You have missed my point Weka in your haste always to see wrong in my views and to say I am some neo-lib band of one sitting sewing while concocting neo-lib answers . Please stop this

                Why don't you address the point I was making please. CMV is what Ad was talking about ie a fair price in today's market that assumes a willing buyer and a willing seller. Nothing about inflation, nothing about capital gains……the CMV is usually carried out by looking at recent sales in the area, discounting those that are outliers ie mortgagee sales.

                Why should anyone who is selling for a public work, even if assuming we get the authority to buy for treaty redress, expect to be paid less? If land is selling at a premium because of whatever effect (eg zoning) why should someone who is having to cope with land being taken (& doesn't that have a ring) also miss out on a premium if it could have been a expected.

                Thankfully the Crown's valuers are not as hard-nosed as you. They don't get off on a meaningless phrase 'excess profits' as this has no way of being able to define what this is. Valuers work to specific legislation for specific types of sales.

                Also you may like to reflect on the idea tossed around that land is 'stolen'…..sure back in the days there were scoundrelly people on both sides who paid less than they should and on the other side held out/purported they had an authority to act on a sale (which given communal nature of the land they were selling) was debatable.

                Many of those blatant examples were turned around in early colonial times.

                Pre-emption" is a term that appears in Article 2 of the official English text of the Treaty of Waitangi and refers to the treaty arrangement in which chiefs granted to the Queen the exclusive rights of purchasing any land the Maori owners wished to sell.

                https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/pre-emption-waivers

                https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/wt-theme-d-crowns-right-of-preemption.pdf

                We will get much further forward if we do not use the emotive and incorrect word 'stolen'.

                What has happened is that legislation itself or the operation of it in times past has not now, after mature reflection of NZ as a nation, met the high standards that the other treaty partner (NZ Govt ) would like. This has been the basis for the many land claims enquiries dating back to the 1850/60s on.

                Are you sure that you know the difference between Maori land and land owned by Maori? Don't you think that much of the dispossesion is also due to the migration to the cities for jobs, access to a better life style.

                I have been at some pains to explain how the PW works and how for at least since the 1970s special pains were taken to query land being taken and how & who land was to be handed back to? Legislators going right back had a special care with legislation & Commissions to ensure fairness.

                I think you are wrapping a whole of of disparate threads/threats up into this slick little bundle. Please read and reflect on Molly's posts.

                • bwaghorn …
                  18 July 2023 at 3:11 pm

                  If one was selling a property and there was even a hint of a chance that it's going to get caught up in this law ,buyers will stay away in droves, because even if it doesn't get caught up this time is there any gaurentee that it won't when the new purchaser comes to sell down the track??

                  • Shanreagh …
                    18 July 2023 at 3:59 pm

                    If one was selling a property and there was even a hint of a chance that it's going to get caught up in this law ,

                    I am a bit confused bwaghorn. What is the law you are referrring to? Is it the ability for the Crown to purchase private land possibly for Treaty redress?

                    • bwaghorn …
                      18 July 2023 at 6:19 pm

                      The new law proposed by the greens, sorry I tend to go off on my own tangent , !!

              • Cricklewood …
                18 July 2023 at 4:45 pm

                Thats not excess profit, its market value.

                In that you start to see the trouble with a govt agency setting the price.

                Someone would also have to figure out which tribe, iwi or hapu the land should go to and that could be contencious as well.

                • Shanreagh …
                  18 July 2023 at 5:17 pm

                  Thats not excess profit, its market value.

                  Yes that is true. Imagine the multiple trips to Valuers Registration Boards with complaints if valuers started taking out something subjective called but not defined called 'excess profits'?

                  Someone would also have to figure out which tribe, iwi or hapu the land should go to and that could be contencious as well.

                  This can be done. The problems sometimes come when the land is taken from a few nominated owners whose relationship to the rest of the owners is not specified. Then when the land is to be handed back you have to be careful to ease out if it was from individuals per se or indivudals with an unspecified duty for the rest of the hapu etc.

                  Land being purchased/taken now is much clearer on who it is to be offered once the land is no longer required.

  4. Dennis Frank 4
    18 July 2023 at 8:33 am

    Like Weka, my take on this policy is that it seems reasonable. It looks designed to implement consensus decision-making as due process in each situation. Public opinion would be formed on a case-law basis, stage by stage, via media publicity. Any cultural divide would get a lot of attention in that process.

  5. Tiger Mountain 5
    18 July 2023 at 8:54 am

    The shadow of post Colonial fallout has to diminish at some stage. Thousands of NZers are sitting in denial on openly stolen, or dubiously acquired land handed to them by the Māori Land Court and various others Acts of Parliament.

    The funny thing is some land handovers will actually suit Pākehā developers and land bankers–because–various coastal land is damn near uninsurable now, Ngati Kahu up my way in Tai Tokerau recently were enabled to buy “Taipa Point”. Not just white folks get a sea view these days!

    In the Far North land loaned by Māori for WWII efforts like Kaitaia Airport, and land for Churches and schools–that were never taken up or ended, somehow never quite seem to be returned, but vested with the local Council and then sold off!

    As racist boomers gradually reduce in numbers, new Gens need to be given hope and leadership by some political party/s–which at the moment is Greens and Te Pāti Māori.

  6. Patricia Bremner 6
    18 July 2023 at 9:32 am

    Our own western law states the principle that stolen goods still belong to the owner, no matter the hands they have been through.

    So to be lawful and fair we need a process which helps current parties with an interest in the outcome to agree to use the process using blind valuations at current rates. imo.

    • Belladonna 6.1
      18 July 2023 at 10:03 am

      Try challenging the English courts for lands seized during the Civil War!

      I think you'll find that 'western law' has no such principle over lands forfeited or confiscated by the government, and then on-sold.

      • Patricia Bremner 6.1.1
        18 July 2023 at 11:29 am

        They do not reside here, and we have a Treaty. We do recognise claims. This would be a process to work through.

        • Belladonna 6.1.1.1
          18 July 2023 at 12:52 pm

          If that is your meaning, your reference should be to NZ law – rather than 'western' law.

          I think that you would struggle to find a legal principle equating lands forfeited or confiscated by the government, and then on-sold (often to multiple different subsequent owners); and stolen private property (e.g. a car which is stolen and then illegally re-sold).

          I think you'll find that the Waitangi Tribunal legally (in terms of the original Act) has no jurisdiction over private property (except in a few, very limited, cases)

          Proposing this change is a major and legally significant policy from the GP.

  7. Molly 7
    18 July 2023 at 9:53 am

    How are affected Māori identified? By lodging a claim?

    What is the practical mechanism proposed to ensure redress is equitably distributed to ALL Māori descendants, not just those who make claims?

    Is it possible this is a ridiculous posturing – rather than a reasonable policy?

    • Dennis Frank 7.1
      18 July 2023 at 9:57 am

      Is it possible this is a ridiculous posturing – rather than a reasonable policy?

      Yes. The Greens are well-known for doing both. It works well to keep folks guessing.

      • weka 7.1.1
        18 July 2023 at 10:12 am

        You think the Hokia Whenua Mai policy is ridiculous posturing rather than what you said upthread?

        Like Weka, my take on this policy is that it seems reasonable. It looks designed to implement consensus decision-making as due process in each situation. Public opinion would be formed on a case-law basis, stage by stage, via media publicity. Any cultural divide would get a lot of attention in that process.

        • Dennis Frank 7.1.1.1
          18 July 2023 at 12:13 pm

          No. The fact that the Greens have displayed their propensity for using both options is what I was acknowledging. One must give them credit for it, I feel.

    • weka 7.2
      18 July 2023 at 10:11 am

      How are affected Māori identified? By lodging a claim?

      We've had the Waitangi Tribunal since 1975, which has developed processes for redress.

      What is the practical mechanism proposed to ensure redress is equitably distributed to ALL Māori descendants, not just those who make claims?

      Did you read the bit about the Commission of Inquiry and understand its purpose?

      Is it possible this is a ridiculous posturing – rather than a reasonable policy?

      No. The Greens have a long history of developing policy within green politics and the values and priorities of the membership and I can't see anything about this policy that is different. If you want to argue that the policy is ridiculous posturing, please present an actual argument.

      • Molly 7.2.1
        18 July 2023 at 10:42 am

        "We've had the Waitangi Tribunal since 1975, which has developed processes for redress."

        Yes. The distribution issue has been around for that long, and still remains unresolved.

        "No. The Greens have a long history of developing policy within green politics and the values and priorities of the membership and I can't see anything about this policy that is different. If you want to argue that the policy is ridiculous posturing, please present an actual argument."

        This accusation is made quite frequently, despite Green's policy often being based on assumptions and not clear evidence. That's a starting point.

        Essentially, how did the Greens determine that this policy would improve outcomes for Māori, as opposed to improving the access to and quality of state education, health, housing, infrastructure for all NZers?

        I'm tired of policies that consider Māori as a certain worldview, demographic and hivemind. This tendency strikes me as one of the most common racist tropes existing at the moment.

        I'm disdainful of those who fail to recognise the racial divisions they themselves are currently creating with such policies.

        • Molly 7.2.1.1
          18 July 2023 at 10:58 am

          A recent advice column in the Guardian has a paragraph which seems relevant to the hivemind perspective:

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/07/my-white-friends-trivialise-racism-by-labelling-everything-racist-how-do-i-tell-them-to-stop

          "My wariness about racially preoccupied white people was provoked a few years ago when I moved into a new neighbourhood. I was looking for a local network as I settled my kids into a new school, and at drop-offs and pick-ups I often found myself talking to a well-dressed, quick-witted woman who had friendship potential. We agreed to meet for coffee.

          As soon as we sat down, she began talking about her Black friends and listing incidents in which she had assisted them in relation to racism. Her preoccupation with race made me uncomfortable. I felt like an extra who had wandered on to a stage and given the lead actor material for their monologue.

          She wasn’t seeing me at all – she was only seeing my race.

          While no one wants their friends to ignore their race or to ignore racism, it is equally uncomfortable when your friend can’t talk to you about anything but race; as though that is the sum-total of your existence. That woman (who will never be my friend) would probably argue that she was offering me allyship and racial support. Maybe she was, but that wasn’t what I was after. Instead, what she offered me was a sense that I was an object; not a person, but an accessory. Needless to say, I got away from that coffee date as quickly as I could and I’ve never regretted it."

          • weka 7.2.1.1.1
            18 July 2023 at 1:57 pm

            "My wariness about racially preoccupied white people…

            I can't read past that. You think the GP policy was developed by Pākehā?

            • Molly 7.2.1.1.1.1
              18 July 2023 at 2:26 pm

              "You think the GP policy was developed by Pākehā?"

              No. I think Green Party policy is influenced by Māori that meet certain criteria and perspectives, which is a common method of policy building. Doesn't make it good policy though, nor reflective of the diversity of views Māori hold. Pākehā are assumed to hold a variety of political views and perspectives. Apparently, Māori are not.

              So, I think GP policy is developed by both Māori and Pākehā, who are simplistic in identifying issues, and who have no apparent form of self-restraint when it comes to the scope and implementation of their stance in policy design.

              "I can't read past that."

              I really think you should read the remainder of the quote to get some idea of how racist the Green Party is coming across to some, but if you can't be bothered, it's your choice.

              • Shanreagh …
                18 July 2023 at 2:50 pm

                So, I think GP policy is developed by both Māori and Pākehā, who are simplistic in identifying issues, and who have no apparent form of self-restraint when it comes to the scope and implementation of their stance in policy design.

                I think we saw this in action with the Self ID & gender schemozzle. To a certain extent too in the 'Wealth' tax policy. I think you can see how far away they are when you consider that the PM has felt the need to rebut elements of this and the rents policy.

                To get around/away from this it is a really good idea to develop the wording of the problem that is being solved with this part of a manifesto. Some of the policy work in the manifesto would have been immeasurably improved had this been done. .

        • Shanreagh 7.2.1.2
          18 July 2023 at 12:26 pm

          This is fundamental stuff Molly and thank you for raising it.

          I was a bit preoccupied with seeing area I worked in up there.

          Whenua is meaningful to Maori but so are good health and education.

          Basically I like to see a policy or manifesto framed around undoing a wrong or progressing a way of life. That is problem definition.

          This then enables us to see if the remedies will actually fix the problem.

          If they had done this it is easy to 'tick off' the policy elements from the problems they are going to fix.

          For instance in the wealth tax:

          What was the problem that needed fixing with the tax take at the moment. (I know the Greens tied to fudge this by saying it was to alleviate poverty and doing this with a tied tax. So we never got to know if the current tax take was going to be insufficient.)

        • weka 7.2.1.3
          18 July 2023 at 1:56 pm

          Yes. The distribution issue has been around for that long, and still remains unresolved.

          Arguing that attempts to resolve that are ridiculous, is ridiculous /shrug

          Essentially, how did the Greens determine that this policy would improve outcomes for Māori, as opposed to improving the access to and quality of state education, health, housing, infrastructure for all NZers?

          why are those two things in opposition? The Greens are working on both. There is such an obviousness to the idea that if you strip a group of people of their assets that they become poor and this in turn affects their wellbeing and group economy. Why is land loss not significant when education, health, etc is?

          I'm tired of policies that consider Māori as a certain worldview, demographic and hivemind. This tendency strikes me as one of the most common racist tropes existing at the moment.

          yes, I know that's what you believe, but it's not like the GP made this shit up. There are many analyses from Māori about this. Do you want those to not be taken into account in NZ pol on the basis that you misinterpret the politics as treating Māori as a hive mind. The policy isn't compulsory. Māori won't be forced into landback.

          I'm disdainful of those who fail to recognise the racial divisions they themselves are currently creating with such policies.

          Again, this is you belief, but no actual argument.

          • Molly 7.2.1.3.1
            18 July 2023 at 2:36 pm

            Yes. The distribution issue has been around for that long, and still remains unresolved.

            "Arguing that attempts to resolve that are ridiculous, is ridiculous /shrug".

            Not really – weka. I'm a shareholder in a couple of large iwi, and benefits are limited to voting for directors I don't know every couple of years. There will be many who have the same ancestral claims that I do that aren't even registered, and I know there are registrations for other iwi that I belong to that have not been made.

            As the costs for the implementation of this policy will have to be met somewhere it will fall to all of us to fund. Select Māori, and all the associated industries – will be direct beneficiaries of this policy. Most Māori will not, and just be contributing the to funding of it.

            "yes, I know that's what you believe, but it's not like the GP made this shit up. There are many analyses from Māori about this. Do you want those to not be taken into account in NZ pol on the basis that you misinterpret the politics as treating Māori as a hive mind. The policy isn't compulsory. Māori won't be forced into landback."

            The GP is responsible for the drafted policy regardless of the authorship. In the end, it is their name on it. Analyses will always be produced by those with a certain perspective on race relations. I don't find them particularly convincing.

            Your assertion that is not compulsory or across the board is not the supportive argument you believe it to be. It then appears to be a rort system for the knowing few, not a comprehensive reparation one.

    • Shanreagh 7.3
      18 July 2023 at 11:35 am

      How are affected Māori identified? By lodging a claim?

      Good question. The focus should be on the status of the land. It should not be on the ethnic makeup of the owners. There is a questionaire in the Policy that goes some (little) way to identifying that this is land owned by Maori in several types of land ownership mechanisms. It talks about the name of the Block etc. This is usually a clue as to the type of land that is being covered.

      https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/110.0/DLM289882.html

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Te_Ture_Whenua_M%C4%81ori_Act_1993

      https://customer.service.maorilandcourt.govt.nz/prweb/PRAuth/app/MLCPM_/xtAZLYtWz7QIvNlXtGqS8MQiiEm8mler*/!STANDARD

      Land owned by Maori in your local residential street bought through the regular real estate channels is not covered and neither should it. These sorts of purchases, if required, would be under the Public Works Act if the land is needed for a public purpose. As Ad said the way the land is purchased is set out, is clear to operate and has 'appeal' rights to the LVT.

      To my mind the Greens policy is fuzzy and has generated concern because of this.

      From experience the PW and those who use this legislation day to day do their level best to avoid having to take Te Ture Whenua Maori land in its acquistion procedures for roading, schools, etc. This has been the case since the 1990s, probably back into the days of the Ministry of Works and the Department of Lands & Survey. Those responsible for approving the acquisition are well aware of the need to avoid setting up a new Treaty grievance in their operations.

      From my experience in the actual operation of this and other Maori land matters we need

      1 no expiry dates on the ability to lodge a claim, no dates on when a breach may have happened.

      2 if the Treaty process is to work quickly then additional land researchers etc should be employed in the the depts looking at claims or researching claims. Subject matter experts and land status experts are rapidly 'dying' out.

      3 the long term alienation of land such as in the Taranaki leases should be revisited to find a way through. There are competing legal rights. Competing legal rights does not mean the Crown cannot intervene. Some how to resolve this there needs to be a mechanism and $$$$ to buy back the unexpired portions of the leases from the long term lessees. This then gives the Maori owners the ability to use the land directly themselves or to lease the land to the farmers (not all the lessees are 'terrible' Pakeha or even Pakeha.)

      4 In this work we need to give NO credence to the RW and other people's ideas of 'Maori elite.'

      5 Because of the operation of the neo-lib rubbish in the 1980s/1990s some of the parties to whom concepts of further Public works provisions are organisations or groups that we may be surprised at having 'ownership' of public land. For example when NZ Electricity was divided up some land was vested in it successors who may now be what we would think of as private companies. They are able to hold the land as they are still using it to for an activity that has elements of public good.

      These companies don't have a right to operate the PW Act themselves but can operate through Crown agents if they need extra land. So the holding of land by these neo-lib type companies continues albeit with safeguards.

      6 my big concern is that when land is felt to be no longer reguired for the public purpose it was acquired part of the process involves seeing if other public purposes exist. (this makes sense). Local authorities can be involved.

      My idea is that when land is needed for another public work by one of these neolib creations, it should be vested in a Crown agency (preferably a first line Govt dept or if necessary a holding govt dept) and NOT any entity set up under the neo- lib regime.

      7 In my view some of the activities that have taken place after the initial, and mostly justified need for a public work has past, and in the part of the policy that searches for other needs to hold the land for PW purposes have been odd. May be all above board but the involvement of private entities or semi public/private entities gives me pause.

      So land taken for Defence purposes as an aerodrome is felt to be still required as an aerodrome albeit the airport operations are by private entities. Odd?

      So perhaps as well as the alienation by long term leases eg Taranaki we need to look at areas such as the airport at Paraparaumu where there is land still used as an airport with a public good eg SAR/medic flight/weather over flow from Wellington airport has also had land sold for housing.

      I have not worked out if the land used for private subdivision and private sale was handed back to Maori and they sold it, or Maori had an agreement with housing subdividers or if the airport owners have on-sold it themselves. I am out of date here.

      But yes, I share the concern at unnecessary 'scaring the horses in the streets'. Hopefully the Greens actually consulted PW and land acquistion subject matter experts. read the various Treaty settlements and the reports from the Tribunal.

      Yes there is work to be done, but it may not be the work that has been identified by the Greens and the slippage with the term 'Maori' is regrettable and confusing and may lead to justified concern. When talking about land, (the tax on wealth capturing the family home is one such instance) surely as The Greens will have worked out by now NZers don't have a high tolerance for unclear words.

      • Shanreagh 7.3.1
        18 July 2023 at 12:15 pm

        Looking at potential impact of this policy in the run-up to the election.

        PM Hipkins has had to rule out/explain/clarify two of The Greens policies so far Renting and wealth. Every time he is in the position of having to explain it is a no-win position politically.

        I am very concerned that electors may be confused what with all the polls saying Labour/Greens and start thinking…..'What are these people so disorganised they don't know what the other is saying' and vote against the left or not at all thuis letting a vote for RW parties come through.

        Have the Greens been mesmerised by the thought that they might win sufficient seats in the election that people may think these are a potentail Govt's policies rather then a valued memeber of a coalition. I appreciate the narrow distinction and that the Greens may want to get themselves out from under.

        I just wonder if Luxon will be having to rule out policies from ACT? I just have the view they work much more closely with their potential coaliton partners than what seems to be the case here with The Greens and Labour.

        • Dennis Frank 7.3.1.1
          18 July 2023 at 3:54 pm

          I agree voters will be confused how you suggest. This is a differentiation phase of the campaign; an initial staking out of positions, framings deployed to operate as divides & barricades. Parties as splitters, driven to avoid consensus. Competition.

          Will it go down to the wire as such? Not necessarily. Perception of common ground can always resonate collectively, since adaption is how evolution works. Folks come together then. Self-organising systems is how nature operates – that was established in science decades back.

          You'd think a left alternative would have to be described at some point during the campaign, as a potential coalition govt, so voters could get a vision of the future offered by both parties in consensus. It's called marketing – not a manifesto nowadays, but a simulation thereof. A political program listable in bullet points is the formula required. A tool a party can use to catalyse credibility as contagion in the mind of the electorate. Patterning is culturally powerful in effect.

          So we wait for the Greens to switch from being alienated from Labour to working with them collaboratively. Takes two to tango, too…

          • Shanreagh 7.3.1.1.1
            18 July 2023 at 5:08 pm

            Yes good points DF.

            I get how there is value in differentiation. I also get how strong it can be to say here are 2/3 parties and we are so strong together with the following

            insert

            big picture aim

            ‘So we wait for the Greens to switch from being alienated from Labour to working with them collaboratively. Takes two to tango, too…’

      • Shanreagh 7.3.2
        18 July 2023 at 12:18 pm

        As well as subject matter experts we can grow these by employing historians & legal historians etc.

        • Shanreagh 7.3.2.1
          18 July 2023 at 1:46 pm

          As far as the idea of land being taken, then used for another Govt purpose, this of course applies to all land not only Maori land that has been taken.

  8. bwaghorn 8
    18 July 2023 at 12:08 pm

    Pamu (Landlord )owns a huge tracts of land why not use that.

  9. Shanreagh 9
    18 July 2023 at 2:44 pm

    I must say the made-up word 'landback' is distubingly close to the word 'landbank'.

    Where has this word come from? It is not a known word to land administrators, and it is horrible like 'snap back'.

    Grumble, grumble we can expect beauty in words and policies surely?
    Surely a less horrible English word could have been chosen to go with the meaningful and mellifluous Maori for the policy Hoki Whenua Mai

  10. Shanreagh 10
    18 July 2023 at 2:59 pm

    Now for some real oil on how the process works when land taken for PW is no longer needed.

    https://www.linz.govt.nz/guidance/crown-property/crown-property-disposals

    The general process for disposing of Crown-owned land follows the 4 steps below. Properties may be disposed of at any stage of the process.

    1. Determine if the land is needed for any other public works.
    2. Determine if the land needs to be offered back to the person the Crown originally purchased it from, or their successors.
    3. Offer the land to Māori under a Treaty settlement. This process is called Right of First Refusal. Alternatively, the Crown may decide to hold the land for a future settlement.
    4. Sell the land on the open market.

    When a Crown agency wants to dispose of property that it owns, it must follow the requirements of the relevant legislation that applies to that land. This can include the Public Works Act (1981), Land Act (1948) or Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation. In addition, there may be government policy that needs to be progressed and we work to ensure significant values on the land are protected.

    And a specialist part, the RFR (right of first refusal)

    https://www.linz.govt.nz/guidance/crown-property/right-first-refusal-rfr

    Crown agencies hold land and property for a range of reasons. Where the Crown has reached a Treaty settlement with an iwi claimant group, this land may become subject to a Right of First Refusal (RFR) in favour of that iwi.

    An RFR is a long-term option for iwi to purchase or lease Crown-owned land, and will generally remain in place for 50 to 170 years (in some cases longer). However, RFR timeframes, processes and their scope can differ from settlement to settlement. In each case, you should consult the terms of the settlement you’re interested in to work out how the RFR will apply.

  11. SPC 11
    18 July 2023 at 3:10 pm

    Some people have a reason why nothing can and should be done about anything.

    It's not going to all Maori … just those who make claims and administer funds – the tall poppies … not the ordinary Maori …

    It's not comprehensive reparations to improve the lot of Maori … and even if it were what about others whose lot needs to be improved … why be racist about it ..

  12. Shanreagh 12
    18 July 2023 at 3:27 pm

    It's not going to all Maori … just those who make claims and administer funds – the tall poppies … not the ordinary Maori …

    I actually think there is alot to be said for the groups of maori who get off their chuffs and do something for their iwi in the way of working with the crown on developing redress.

    As for your comment about not all Maori……so incorrect. All Maori whakapapa back to an eponymous ancestor, this all Maori can have a say and be included in the programmes developed by the Iwi for whom redress has been made.

    The problem to be addressed though is that not all Maori know who or more likely exactly how they whakapapa. There are many groups, often small and often marae based and always cash strapped who work tirelessly to get the documentation together so a Maori can join the iwi roll.

    Surely rather than being disparaging you could recognise this.

    I wonder why The Greens did not turn their manifesto minds to this. Even a paid travelling roadshow that stops at marae and works to upskill in computer use, research techniques, accessing repositories could be looked at. Encouraging people onto the land/iwi rolls is one way to get Maori back involved with these formalities.

    • arkie 12.1
      18 July 2023 at 3:42 pm

      Encouraging people onto the land/iwi rolls is one way to get Maori back involved with these formalities.

      The Greens Māori and Pasifika caucus, Te Mātāwaka:

      Your vote is powerful. Use it to get the strong Māori voice in Parliament that we deserve. Switching rolls has never been easier. Make the switch now.

      https://www.instagram.com/p/Cum8ZweSVtm/?hl=en

      https://twitter.com/Te_Matawaka

      • Shanreagh 12.1.1
        18 July 2023 at 3:54 pm

        Yes agreed going onto the Maori rolls for the local and general elections is good too.

        Joining a political party is good.

        My post was thinking more about onto the rolls for ownership of land and on the Iwi rolls etc. which is a different concept.

    • SPC 12.2
      18 July 2023 at 4:01 pm

      I actually think there is alot to be said for the groups of maori who get off their chuffs and do something for their iwi in the way of working with the crown on developing redress.

      As for your comment about not all Maori……so incorrect. All Maori whakapapa back to an eponymous ancestor, this all Maori can have a say and be included in the programmes developed by the Iwi for whom redress has been made.

      Tell it to Molly.

      • Shanreagh 12.2.1
        18 July 2023 at 5:02 pm

        Molly has already said she has links to one maori landowning group/incorporation

        What is the practical mechanism proposed to ensure redress is equitably distributed to ALL Māori descendants, not just those who make claims?

        My view is that a way of redress being equitably shared is for as many Maori as wnat to enrol in their iwi and on the groups of Maori land owners. There are many blocks where successions are long overdue.

        https://www.xn--morilandcourt-wqb.govt.nz/en/maori-land/becoming-a-landowner/succession/

        if you look at Maorilandonline you can see this. Hence my idea that a way fo building up knowledge and being a little less alienated is to find and join your block whanau or your Iwi or hapu.

        Molly and me are not same thinkers., any more than Maori and Maori and Pakeha and Pakeha are same thinkers.

        Now I don’t know anything about this group but it does work to link people up. As mentioned before there are groups working from marae who do this and some genealogical groups also.

        https://youriwi.com/our-story

  13. SPC 13
    18 July 2023 at 3:45 pm

    There is a block of land that was wrongly removed from the original Māori landowners and sold at a discounted price to Pākehā settlers. The land is still owned by the descendants of the Pākehā family and operated as a farm – but they are planning to sell up. The descendants of the original Māori landowners become aware that the current owners are planning to sell, and lodge an urgent claim at the Waitangi Tribunal. The Tribunal releases a finding that the land was wrongfully acquired, and recommends that the Crown negotiate with the current owners to purchase it and return it to the whānau as redress for their claim.

    This would require

    1. that all such land be identifiable and formally notified.
    2. presumes iwi/hapu/whanau want the land back, rather than the cash from the sale

    (it would be unwise to infer a significant move of farmland towards iwi/hapu would result).

    Māori concepts

    Traditional Māori society did not have a concept of absolute ownership of land. Whānau (extended families) and hapu (sub-tribes) could have different rights to the same piece of land. One group may have the right to catch birds in a clump of trees, another to fish in the water nearby, and yet another to grow crops on the surrounding land. Exclusive boundaries were rare, and rights were constantly being renegotiated.

    Land loss

    As Māori came to realise the absolute nature of land ownership in European eyes, they began to question past sales. In particular, they challenged sales by individual chiefs of land that was traditionally used by groups.

    By 1862 most of the South Island, and about one-quarter of the North Island; including large areas of the Wairarapa, Hawkes Bay and Auckland; had been purchased by the Crown. Another 3.5 million acres (1.4 million hectares) were confiscated in the New Zealand wars of the 1860s.

    Native Lands Acts

    The 1862 and 1865 Native Lands Acts recognised that Māori had rights to uncultivated land, but only if these were specified in a certificate of title. Native land courts were set up to decide which individuals or communities should be recognised as owners and given certificates, bringing Māori landholding into absolute ownership.

    The government, as sole purchaser of Māori land, bought large areas for a small price. McKenzie oversaw the purchase of 2.3 million acres (931,000 hectares) from North Island Māori at an average price of four shillings an acre. Previously, the Liberals had spent 10 times this much for half the area under the Land for Settlements Act (although this land was better developed). These purchases reflect the view of European settlers that Māori were unable to effectively farm their lands collectively, and that leasing from Māori was undesirable.

    Once given title, many Māori then sold their land to Pakeha. By 1939 only about 3.5 million acres (1.4 million hectares) of land remained in Māori title.

    https://teara.govt.nz/en/land-ownership/print

  14. adam 14
    19 July 2023 at 3:24 pm

    This is good for a coalition to thrash out.

    Post election is going to be enjoyable for a change

    Believe in you | Believe in me | Believe in Māori

    Te Pāti Māori