Paora Goldsmith, Māori history and identity politics

73 comments on “Paora Goldsmith, Māori history and identity politics ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Barfly 1

   4 February 2021 at 10:11 am

   word missing in final sentence between – most…………part

   [Oops thanks. Now corrected – MS]
2. Enough is Enough 2

   4 February 2021 at 10:16 am

   To be fair I think you have misrepresented what Goldsmith is saying. He hasn't said the topics in the draft proposal should not be taught. He has not said that the Treaty and its history should not be taught.

   What he has said, is the curriculum should be broader. And I agree with him on that point.

   For example, it is impossible to understand modern New Zealand without studying the destruction that was brought on society by the reforms of the 4th Labour government, and the reasons why those reforms have been retained by all subsequent governments. What those reforms were, and why they were brought in, should be taught.

   Then you rewind from that to what our welfare state was and why it was created by the first Labour government. That is as equally important in understanding modern New Zealand.

   Goldsmith isn't rejecting the current proposals. He is suggesting we should be a bit broader which I think is a good thing.
   • Roy Cartland 2.1

     4 February 2021 at 10:36 am

     Kind of like in a "Blacks Lives Matter" / "All Lives Matter" sense?
   • woodart 2.2

     4 February 2021 at 5:57 pm

     yes, good point enough is etc, recent history should be taught, i.e. the cost of deregulation in the housing sector in the nineties should be constantly thrown in the faces of goldsmith and his ilk. the dismantling of the welfare state and its resulting effect on the growing wealth and health gap, should also be in the curriculum. along with the effect on our water quality after intensive dairying.
   • Rae 2.3

     6 February 2021 at 7:37 am

     Yes, he said the curriculum should be broader, then all he could come up with to broaden it was "economy".
3. Stuart Munro 3

   4 February 2021 at 11:01 am

   My grandfather was seven when he got his first flax cutting contract – there is quite a lot to be learned about how wealth was created, and how NZ was able to prosper – replete with lessons that, given Treasury's manifest inadequacy and the craven clinging to the failed mysticisms of Rogergnomics, NZ could really use. But Goldsmith is hardly an objective scholar in such an enterprise.

   I expect that colonial seizures correlated with as often as they caused relative prosperity – but the colonial governments certainly wrecked havoc on Maori attempts at monied enterprise, a form of oligarchic corruption that continues to this day in the corruption of entities like Southern Response, albeit along less racially defined grounds.
4. Tricledrown 4

   4 February 2021 at 11:36 am

   Maori had successful businesses before the land wars they were very successful until confiscation and illegal sales by European settlers.

   Maori were exporting food to NSW and California as early European settlers were mainly City folk and didn't know how to farm or fish. Had Maori been allowed to continue farming and fishing businesses we would see Maori on the upper income scale as opposed to what has happened as disenfranchised ground down impoverished people who have the worst health,housing and wealth disparities.

   Goldsmith is parroting the white superiority ie Don Maori bash,Banks despicable denigrating Maori .While National want to win votes in the Maori electorates.

   Goldsmith forgets that none of his rich list heros would have made it but for the massive illegal land grab .
   • Gosman 4.1

     4 February 2021 at 2:33 pm

     Some Iwi were very successful at developing their local economy and made lots of money supplying European urban settlements both here and in Australia from the mid 1830's to the 1860's . However they were not at the forefront of developing the pastoral economy that eventually formed the backbone of the NZ economy from the late 19th Century onwards as that required far more capital intensive methods of production. The fundamental problem with the Maori economy remains the same as it today. How to release the capital tied up in the land to fund development while still maintaining collective ownership over the land.
     • sam green 4.1.1

       4 February 2021 at 3:20 pm

       Agree about the capital (then) but there are (now) plenty of hugely successful kiwifruit blocks in collective ownership, among other types of production.
     • left_forward 4.1.2

       4 February 2021 at 4:01 pm

       The fundamental problem for NZ economy remains the same today – the colonialist's mechanistic worldview that land is a thing apart from nature – a tradeable commodity that can be owned and exploited. An unhelpful idea imposed by the newcomers upon tangata whenua and in breach of their Te Tiriti o Waitangi commitment to uphold Tino Rangatiratanga.
       • Gosman 4.1.2.1

         5 February 2021 at 9:26 am

         It is not unhelpful. The concept or property rights over land (and other things) has formed the driver for the modern capitalist economy. You might want to change that but people like me will oppose you as much as we can given the benefits we see that come from that approach.
         • left_forward 4.1.2.1.1

           6 February 2021 at 8:53 am

           NZers including yourself Gosman, through education, might begin to appreciate different historical experiences – developing understanding and appreciation of the experience of tangata whenua for example.

           Describing the land division and the related confiscation of Maori land as not unhelpful, reveals the limited scope of your understanding. I was referring to it being unhelpful to tangata whenua – it was obviously of benefit to those that stole the land!

           This being Waitangi Day, it is an appropriate time for you to contemplate how such a narrow view of history contributes to Maori inequity in Aotearoa today.

           Nga mihi mahana ki a koe.
       • Gosman 4.1.2.2

         5 February 2021 at 9:36 am

         How can private property rights over land be in breach of the Treaty when a specific article was written that essentially codified that as a principle?
         • Macro 4.1.2.2.1

           5 February 2021 at 1:14 pm

           You know as well as anyone (or maybe you refuse to recognise it) that it was the abuse of that specific article by successive governments that is the subject of the grievance. It was blatant theft, and, in essence, a breach of The Treaty.
     • Patricia Bremner 4.1.3

       4 February 2021 at 7:31 pm

       We have to own the different laws which disadvantaged Maori and empowered Settlers. Ownership building laws for instance.
       • Gosman 4.1.3.1

         5 February 2021 at 9:27 am

         How did ownership building laws disadvantage Maori exactly?
     • Molly 4.1.4

       5 February 2021 at 10:27 am

       Local iwi were exporting produce, and assisted settlers before their land was confiscated, and distrbuted amongst those same settler families.

       I would expect that this situation was likely repeated in other rohe throughout NZ.
     • Tricledrown 4.1.5

       5 February 2021 at 10:32 am

       Gosman pastoral farming needed land without that land no business.

       To say multiple ownership and capital investment would have prevented Maori succeeding when they already had proven they could innovate and develop modern farming techniques ie in the Waikato with steel plows horses etc. Gosman your argument doesn't stack up.

       Running sheep on large tracts of land doesn't require massive investment but if Maori had still owned that land they would have benefited.

       Those pastoral lands were owned by a few wealthy aristocrats up until the 1890's when they were broken up by a left wing govt.Why because there wasn't much economic benefit to NZ.Employing a few slave waged workers and having vast stations that were poorly managed .so no economic benefit till refridgeration.

       King Dick saw the future of having smaller well managed farms providing more money to more people would help our economy develop.

       Refridgeration was the key to the expansion and profitability of pastoral farming that didn't happen till after most of Maori had lost theirs land and economic power with it.

       NZs economy was more dependent on gold mining until the mid 1870's.after gold ran out gold NZ's economy stayed largely in recession till King Dick started the welfare state ,Women got the vote ,state houses started to be built free primary education a pension for the elderly.all pushed by trade unions made more people well off expanding New Zealands economic base.

       Gosman so having multiple shareholders in a company you would think given your propaganda on multiple ownership pertaining to Maori would hinder all other multiple ownership models.yet now Maori are benefiting from a return of 1 to 3% of their economic base the other 97% remain uncompensated for if it was returned to Maori they would not be continually trashed by racist rednecks like you Gosman ,if Maori had kept their economic base from the 1840's the 97% not returned land stolen or confiscated Maori would be owning most of the wealthy upmarket suburbs and not a the bottom of every economic ladder.

       White supremacist colonial attitudes by dreary dinosaurs ie Banks Brash and Gosman.

       National will struggle to get any votes in the Maori electorates.
       • RedLogix 4.1.5.1

         5 February 2021 at 10:59 am

         racist rednecks like you Gosman

         It's abusive language like this which shames the left.
       • Gosman 4.1.5.2

         5 February 2021 at 12:22 pm

         The areas of the country where the concentration of Maori land is the greatest today also coincide with some of the areas of the country with greatest amount of poverty. Part of the reasons is the land use is not as productive in these areas as others. There have been investigations on the causes of this and how to resolve it. As this press release from Shane Jones following one of these investigations highlights there is a problem with accessing sufficient capital to develop the land and that is what they are trying to make it easier for Iwi to do.

         "The Whenua Māori allocation assists Māori with access to financial capital which remains a challenge for landowners as the special status of their land means commercial banks are less willing to lend to them…"

         https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/enhancing-productivity-whenua-m%C4%81ori
         • Tricledrown 4.1.5.2.1

           6 February 2021 at 8:11 am

           Maori were left with the least productive land.

           And a system that denies Maori access to Capital because the banks can't sell the land to recover debt.
     • Tricledrown 4.1.6

       6 February 2021 at 10:02 am

       Gosman your full of it considering Maori were left with the least productive land and denied finances by European controlled banks.As well as legal hurdles set by Europeans.

       Also denied proper voting rights as most Maori were landowners the only NZ citizens allowed to vote at that time.Europeans made sure by voter suppression and only allowing 2 seats in parliament representing Maori as Maori couldn't read English European legislatures made sure they always held the upper hand.
5. Gosman 5

   4 February 2021 at 2:28 pm

   "Breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, particularly in relation to land, allowed for the establishment of New Zealand’s farming sector which along with the extraction industries has allowed for our economy to form.

   So the curriculum actually focuses on the central reason that our standard of living was so high, at least for some."

   Not really.. While the confiscation of land in the Waikato and to a lesser extent Taranaki allowed the European farming sector to flourish in those places and gave a boost to Auckland the economic focal point of NZ for much of the 19th Century was much further to the South. Much of the Banking infrastructure was driven by the gold rushes in the Southern parts of NZ for example.

   The idea that British/NZ European and Maori interaction and conflict was the main driver behind the development of NZ is placing too greater weight on that element of NZ History. NZ did not become a wealthy nation because Europeans took all the land from Maori.
   • Tricledrown 5.1

     5 February 2021 at 8:51 am

     Gosman your 1950's white washed Version of NZ history is a cop out.

     Pastoral farming was barely profitable if Not for Maori farming settlers would have starved in NZ and NSW,European settlers took advantage of Maori lack of knowledge of the rights conferred as British citizens as very few Maori could speak English let alone read and write and had no lawyers representing them in the land transactions till the church's intervention in the mid 1880's they demanded when it was to late.

     That's what caused the wars greedy double dealing land agents etc.
     • Gosman 5.1.1

       5 February 2021 at 9:13 am

       Pastoral farming became extremely profitable after the 1850's. That is why it came to dominate the NZ farming sector.
   • Roy Cartland 5.2

     5 February 2021 at 8:52 am

     NZ did not become a wealthy nation because Europeans took all the land from Maori.

     Can you clarify – do you mean:

     "Because Europeans took all the land from Maori, NZ did not become a wealthy nation."

     or

     "NZ became a wealthy nation, but not because Europeans took all the land from Maori."

     or

     "Europeans didn’t take all the land, yet NZ became wealthy."
     • Gosman 5.2.1

       5 February 2021 at 9:31 am

       The last point is probably the most appropriate to the point I was trying to make. My apologies for the confusion.

       There was large scale land confiscation of Maori land (mainly in the 1860's) however the economic development of NZ did not rely on THAT land confiscation. Also confiscated land was not how the majority of Maori land fell in to European hands. This was still achieved via sales. Some of these sales were seriously flawed but many were quite legitimate.
       • Brigid 5.2.1.1

         5 February 2021 at 11:21 am

         "Also confiscated land was not how the majority of Maori land fell in to European hands. This was still achieved via sales. Some of these sales were seriously flawed but many were quite legitimate."

         If you're going to make this claim you really need to provide some evidence. Which of course you wont, because there is none.

         Meanwhile read a few books on the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863

         "Under the New Zealand Settlements Act, Waikato lost almost all their land and Ngāti Hauā about a third of theirs. But kūpapa (pro-government or neutral) Māori also lost land as the yardstick rapidly changed from guilt to convenience. Ngāti Maniapoto territory still under Kīngitanga control was untouched. In the long term, Taranaki Māori suffered most from confiscation in terms of land actually occupied."

         https://nzhistory.govt.nz/the-new-zealand-settlements-act-passed

         Where is the most profitable long established pastoral land? Waikato and Taranaki
         • Gosman 5.2.1.1.1

           5 February 2021 at 12:09 pm

           The land is very profitable from a pastoral point of view now especially in regard to Dairying. However the early development of NZ was less focused on Dairying and more focused on meet and wool production. The areas that were the drivers of this were much more in the South.
           • DS 5.2.1.1.1.1

             5 February 2021 at 9:09 pm

             In Taranaki, fungus exports to China (yes, really) were a major driver behind the development of late nineteenth century dairying… with the bloke responsible being an ingenious Chinese bloke called Chew Chong. New Zealand Economic History is indeed a fascinating thing.
         • Gosman 5.2.1.1.2

           5 February 2021 at 12:12 pm

           Here is the map of the main areas of land that was confiscated. Some of the land that was taken was returned in the years after it was confiscated. what should be clear is that it is only a small proportion of the total land area. Purchases by the Crown was by far the major factor in transferring Maori land in to private non-Maori hands.

           https://teara.govt.nz/en/zoomify/28137/land-confiscation-map
           • Brigid 5.2.1.1.2.1

             5 February 2021 at 4:38 pm

             "Some of the land that was taken was returned in the years after it was confiscated. "

             Which land? Where? When?

             Enough with the effing bullshit
       • Muttonbird 5.2.1.2

         5 February 2021 at 11:23 am

         With every comment you make on this thread you seem to contradict yourself.
         • Gosman 5.2.1.2.1

           5 February 2021 at 11:58 am

           In what way have I contradicted myself?
           • Muttonbird 5.2.1.2.1.1

             5 February 2021 at 2:59 pm

             There was large scale land confiscation of Maori land.

             And,

             …land that was confiscated. What should be clear is that it is only a small proportion of the total land area.

             That is just one example.
   • Tricledrown 5.3

     6 February 2021 at 10:17 am

     Gosman as usual you are misleading in that European took all the land.

     With out the land Europeans would not have gained the wealth they knew would be gained acquiring cheap land by fair means or fowl.

     Today you would be prosecuted for fraud or insider trading..Taking advantage of fellow humans who didn't understand the Anglo Saxon way of doing business .

     Keeping Maori poor and disenfranchised so they don't take land disputes through courts or keeping the Majority (Maori were the majority of voters up until the 1870's) from representing themselves in parliament they would have had the political power to stop Europeans from conning them out of there economic base..

     That's how the colonial powers and double dealing land agents disenfranchised Maori while pretending to confer the rights of British citizenship knowing that Maori couldn't understand what it meant at the time.
6. Ad 6

   4 February 2021 at 3:01 pm

   The consultation document reads like a new teacher wrote it straight out of studying Paolo Frere's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. I think they're over-compensating for historical absences.

   My benchmark however is Belich's Making Peoples. That puts all streams of immigration into the strength of their impact, and of how they made history and made us together. And doesn't write in a way that doesn't get sucked into a binary of either history as written through a series of wars and victors, to history written through the framing of losers.

   As for Goldsmith, I get his point. The government didn't make us – and rarely narrates who we are. Most of our historical identity is formed through companies and their fate upon our families. So economic history is arguably just as important as, say, our history through wars.
   • Tricledrown 6.1

     5 February 2021 at 9:09 am

     Ad Maori farming and trading allowed migrants to establish but once established they destroyed Maori businesses.
     • Ad 6.1.1

       5 February 2021 at 10:06 am

       Again, there's no need to narrate history as perpetual tragedy.

       You could narrate Maori history of the last 50 years through the growth and effect of post-settlement Maori incorporations – that's where history touches actual lives now.
       • Tricledrown 6.1.1.1

         5 February 2021 at 11:11 am

         Ad had Maori been fully conferred the rights of British citizens there would be no tragedy.

         And we wouldn't be having this argument you obviously are not on the the receiving end other than receiving stolen goods.

         Legally Maori could have gone for the other 98% of land not compensated for but just the Wellington settlement would have cost us taxpayers $17 billion yet Maori accepted just 1% $170 million.

         Maori turned around and gifted some of that land received as partial non financial compensation back to all New Zealand as a nature reserve.

         Because the govt couldn't afford full settlement hundreds of billions Maori accepted the meagre 1to3% so long as there was a bigger slice of fisheries and surplus govt land being sold Maori wete given first option on buying that land .
         • Ad 6.1.1.1.1

           5 February 2021 at 12:01 pm

           Your first claim is just an imagination exercise running a counterfactual history.

           The rest of it is just framing history as loss. Sure it's a part of it. Not most of it.
         • Gosman 6.1.1.1.2

           5 February 2021 at 12:30 pm

           On what basis do you claim that the compensation just for Wellington should be $17 Billion?
           • Tricledrown 6.1.1.1.2.1

             6 February 2021 at 10:39 am

             Gosman go to Hansard 1996 Doug Graham minister of treaty settlements this was widely reported at the time.

             Maori agreed on a much lower settlement than the true value of lands illegaly confiscated .

             Maori agreed to a much lower settlement as the cost of settlement for just the confiscated land accross NZ at the time would have exceeded $350 billion .

             The govt of the day National said the level of debt needed to pay all that money would have stifled the NZ economy affecting Maori more than others especially urban Maori who have gained little out of treaty settlements.So Maori and National agreed to a $2 billion cap on cash settlements plus rivers fishing rights,and that Maori get first rights on govt surplus land being sold.

             Gosman you haven't any knowledge of the National govts treaty settlement.

             Maori have been far more generous to NZ ie bastion point legally they could have evicted all the wealthy NZers living in their multi million dollar homes on stolen Maori land but chose not to .

             The land that was eventually given back by the NZ govt was gifted to all NZ by Nga Puhi now is a reserve all New Zealanders can access.

             People like you Gosman that stir just for the kicks.ie kick Maori when they are down while enjoying the fruits of the I'll gotten gain have no understanding don't look for the truth just keep pushing the systematic racism buttons to cover up the real history of NZ.
   • Hunter Thompson II 6.2

     6 February 2021 at 9:26 am

     Brian Easton's "Not in Narrow Seas" is probably worth a look too, if you aren't deterred by the fact he is an economist (I haven't read it yet). He writes well.
7. Red2 7

   4 February 2021 at 4:24 pm

   Not sure why we are spending so much time getting exercised on a history that in the global scheme of things is pretty much irrelevant both in time ( 200 years at best documented ), global relevance, ( none) Magnitude ( ie what we call a war in its true sense over time, ancient and modem history would hardly rate as a skirmish) Similarly human history is dominated by colonisation, integration, one man colonist is another pioneer etc . It’s all a bit strange how as a nation we are just trying degrade into the past where at the end of the day NZ is just a factor of the March of human history not simply an epoch of Maori Pakeha interface over 250 years, to think otherwise displays and arrogance and ignorance

   [Permanent ban.

   You worked hard again today to skirt the ban even though I’d given you clear and strong advice twice only three days ago that you were allowed back on 7 Feb if you behaved or banned permanently if you didn’t: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-23-01-2021/#comment-1777157 and https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-01-02-2021/#comment-1777158.

   You have been wasting Moderators’ [plural] time for years here and copped many bans, even a permanent one. Every time you’re banned, you try really hard to skirt the ban.

   You’re no longer allowed to play your games here – Incognito]
   • weka 7.1

     4 February 2021 at 4:57 pm

     Changed your name as we have a long term commenter called Red already. Feel free to choose a new name for your next comment, and then stick to that one. Cheers.
   • Muttonbird 7.2

     4 February 2021 at 6:17 pm

     Feel free to make sense next time too.
   • Incognito 7.3

     4 February 2021 at 10:55 pm

     See my Moderation note @ 4:24 PM.
8. Descendant Of Smith 8

   4 February 2021 at 6:15 pm

   How, in such a short space of time, did we attain one of the highest living standards in the world?

   Ummm trade unionism, the adoption of socialist policies, the owning of infrastructure be the government, the willingness of Maori to share water for the greater good, the gifting of land by Maori for schools, hospitals, etc, 8 hour working day – 40 hour working week, government jobs for people with disabilities, …..
   • mac1 8.1

     4 February 2021 at 10:54 pm

     Also enfranchisement of women, Old Age Pension (though withheld from Māori at first), the Liberals breaking up of the big estates- all helped with their early introduction in NZ.
     • solkta 8.1.1

       5 February 2021 at 9:16 am

       the Liberals breaking up of the big estates

       Sounds like code for stealing Maori land.
       • Ad 8.1.1.1

         5 February 2021 at 10:36 am

         A comment that well illustrates the need to know the history before commenting.
         • RedLogix 8.1.1.1.1

           5 February 2021 at 10:50 am

           Ah … but which version of history Ad?
       • Enough is Enough 8.1.1.2

         5 February 2021 at 10:57 am

         Try this

         nzhistory.govt.nz/cheviot-estate-taken-over-by-government

         Its time we educated our people
       • mac1 8.1.1.3

         5 February 2021 at 11:15 am

         In looking for a suitable starter online for learning about the Liberal break up of the big estates (and thanks enough is enough for your citation), I found this.

         http://www.nzjh.auckland.ac.nz/docs/1992/NZJH_26_1_06.pdf

         It's an academically written account of this topic, but not one I expected.

         It begins. "The occupation and colonization of the North Island of New Zealand was advanced considerably between 1891 and 1911 by the Liberal government's purchase of some 3.1 million acres of Maori land between 1891 and 1911 and the sale of about a half million acres within the open market over the same period. This land was acquired for an average price of 6s 4d an acre. In direct contrast a mere 1.3 million acres was made available by the break-up of the great estates under the Lands for Settlement scheme at an average price of 84 shillings an acre."

         I need to read the whole document but the opening paragraph shows that my fifty year old understanding, with a little top up reading since NZ History in 1968, is also in need of revision and updating.

         We learned of the Cheviot and Kinloch estate breakups either missed or were not taught about the Liberal purchase of Māori NI land at a huge price difference.

         Another question then arises, as to the ethics of the purchases of the land that became the ‘big estates’.
9. Sacha 9

   4 February 2021 at 10:48 pm

   Goldsmith's choice of book subjects might just be pragmatic – only rich right-wingers have the means and the ego to retain a lackey to lovingly finesse their deeds.
10. mac1 10

    4 February 2021 at 11:10 pm

    As a former history teacher, I value especially the third major idea. To me the curriculum seems sound and as an historian knowing the value of the study of history appreciate the universality of the programme.

    Also, people will appreciate the canards of history, if all are taught it, which impinge on our social cohesion- for example, the so-called Land Wars, the fate of the Moriori.

    And they may well appreciate the injustices of our past which still influence us today. The recent 2020 publication of a report on cancer features the different outcomes between Māori and European in cancer statistics, treatment and morbidity, known about at least twenty years ago and even more historical in origin.
11. KJT 11

    5 February 2021 at 8:59 am

    How about we really upset him and add the history of Trade Unions, and their support for human and especially, workers, rights to a decent wage and working conditions, education and housing. We could teach kids how to avoid being screwed by employers, fiance companies and landlords while we are at it.
    • Tricledrown 11.1

      5 February 2021 at 9:26 am

      If not for Trade unions and the establishment of the Labour Party wealth would have been concentrated in a few hands.

      Meaning not many businesses would have survived as you need customers with money .Those customers need good housing good health care good education to maintain a constant flow of money into businesses for them to succeed.

      The right wing do not understand this basic economic principle and continually undermine it for power and concentrating power in a few hands.

      Hence austerity for the poor and tax cuts for the wealthy ,tax increases for the poor user pays .

      Looking back at NZs economic performance it's so obvious that we have such low eratic economic growth under Tory selfish economic regimes.

      And steady continual growth under sharing left wing regimes.
      • Enough is Enough 11.1.1

        5 February 2021 at 9:57 am

        "wealth would have been concentrated in a few hands"

        Would have been?

        Wealth IS concentrated in a few hands
        • Tricledrown 11.1.1.1

          5 February 2021 at 11:12 am

          Unions have been broken and the Labour Party is now just a softer version of National.
          • Enough is Enough 11.1.1.1.1

            5 February 2021 at 2:06 pm

            You're being to kind to Labour
      • Cricklewood 11.1.2

        5 February 2021 at 7:28 pm

        I do find it ironic that it was a Labour govt that set us on the path we are currently on and have been since the Lange govt, and that Labour govts post the post that govt have steadfastly refused to roll back those reforms and those that built on them instead tinkering around the edges…
    • Gosman 11.2

      5 February 2021 at 9:34 am

      How do people avoid being screwed by employers, fiance companies and landlords then? I would think the current government might be interested in your answer at least in regard to the last group.
      • Tricledrown 11.2.1

        5 February 2021 at 11:27 am

        Have a commerce commission that is fully funded to do its job quickly and properly.

        Landlords are following the market of supply and demand.

        The supply hasn't kept pace with the market from the early 90's till 2020 this year with 45,000 to maybe 60,000 house being built that level of construction would need to be maintained for 10 yrs to meet existing demand and future demands. Unlikely under the present model.

        NZ population increased by 500,000 in the last 10 years housing construction has only ramped up in the last 3yrs meeting the demand only 1 year in 30 other than the Canterbury Earthquakes which were replacement houses.
        • Gosman 11.2.1.1

          5 February 2021 at 12:14 pm

          Oh so you want them to be taught the basics of Economics. I'm cool with that. The more people learn about economics the better I say.
12. lprent 12

    5 February 2021 at 10:24 am

    Goldsmith is entirely interested in local business – the least important and most monopolistic (because of a small internal economy) part of our business community.

    As someone who has been working in businesses for the last 45 years – almost entirely export and tech related, I find his shallow and limited approach to business as being outright stupid and kind of pathetic.

    The internal business environment in NZ is just amateur hour. But I guess that is mostly where the National party lives. Small minded, noncompetitive, and completely lacking in competence and vision.
    • RedLogix 12.1

      5 February 2021 at 10:48 am

      The internal business environment in NZ is just amateur hour.

      When you've had the remarkable opportunity to have an uninterrupted one on one with the CEO of Bechtel for about an hour (we were the only passengers on a ferry ride and no cellphone coverage), you get a sense of what it takes to do professional business at a global scale.

      I asked him to tell me about his top three priorities – and his first answer was categorical – develop, empower and retain highly competent people who have integrity. That's pretty much a word for word quote.

      Second was the need to have strong systems of ‘governance’ in place and in operation.

      Third was managing and balancing off the competing interests of all the external stakeholders. Most large engineering projects these days have a critical dependency on what’s called ‘social license to operate’ that demands constant attention.
    • Tricledrown 12.2

      5 February 2021 at 11:14 am

      Lprent so true and succinct.
13. RedLogix 13

    5 February 2021 at 10:31 am

    “Aotearoa NZ’s history has been shaped by the exercise and effects of power.”

    Reducing everything to nothing but the raw exercise of power is a sword that can be wielded by any hand.

    Democracy on the other hand is a system that attempts (albeit imperfectly) that attempts to moderate power in order to serve the greatest good.

    Maybe we should teach that.
14. David 14

    5 February 2021 at 11:44 am

    While I admire the intent of the NZ history curriculum refresh, I find it surprising narrow in focus and scope. For example, the second objective of linking New Zealand’s recent 200 year history solely to colonisation. That seems to totally disregard the impact global events had on shaping New Zealand history over that period … two world wars for example. Over the past number of years I’ve taken various university history papers covering periods of New Zealand, Pacific, European and South American history. Without exception global context is always important in understanding national or regional history. We seem to be missing a trick here with such a narrowly focused curriculum.
    • mac1 14.1

      5 February 2021 at 12:13 pm

      David, does not the third 'big idea' include global ideologies and beliefs and the events like wars that arose from them- colonialism, imperialism, fascism, anti-communism?

      These same ideas and ideologies drove our social history, our economic history, our system of government, our sense of nationhood.

      The stuff of history is there.

      Dr Michael Bassett argued recently that starting history in 1840 would be dishonest. Of course this was a ploy to allow him to attack Māori history prior to 1840.

      But, of course, as is the case when personal views ignore facts, the history curriculum was not limited as Bassett claimed. The first 'big idea' gives the lie to that. Secondly, any history of a period has to also acknowledge and understand what gave rise to the events, the history of that period.

      WW1 did not start in 1914 in terms of its causes. Some Germans regarded WW2 as a continuation of WW1, and so on.

      Good teachers of history, and the writers of the text books and historical material will ensure that history is taught properly.

      For, it has not been in the past. In our community paper today, I read this. "During part one of our investigation published last year about Stuff, we also realised New Zealanders, in general, are ignorant about this country’s history.”

      I look forward to being further educated in NZ history, as some of my scholarship is at least fifty years old, and today I found a recent academic work that proved that.
15. Historian 15

    7 February 2021 at 2:30 pm

    There are a few historical points I would like to reply to here.

    Firstly, even within the confiscation areas about a third of the land was returned to Maori ownership. This is why there are Maori settlements at places like Whatawhata, Kohanga and Waahi.

    Secondly the export oriented Maori economy in the Waikato in particular had collapsed by 1860 after flourishing during the boom years of supplying food to the Australian goldfields. This is acknowledged in the Waitangi Tribunal report at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_806544/Wai%20898%2C%20A026.pdf and other histories. East Coast Maori had lost most of their schooner fleet to storms and floods.

    Thirdly, the Maori population of New Zealand in the 1850s was between 50 and 60,000 and large parts of the country were uninhabited. Travellers could go for days without coming across a single village, look down at hundreds of thousands of acres without a house or a cultivation.http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document/?wid=492&action=null http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document/?wid=5028&page=0&action=searchresult&target=

    The cost of turning bush and swamp land into the productive pasture that underlies our prosperity as a country today was many times the value of the land. Think roads and railways, water troughs, felling and burning the bush, fences, cowsheds and shearing sheds for a start.

    It might also be noted that the tribes inhabiting Wellington in 1840 had seized it from the previous owners in bloody battle without paying a cent only a decade before the settlers arrived.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS