Maori Land – Right of First Refusal
Tainui have begun to make another push towards getting recognition for their claim for the “Right of First Refusal” as set out in the document produced by Tainui back in 2015.
There seems to be many Iwi members making the claim that there was something untoward in the fact that Maori have ended up with only 6 percent of the land in New Zealand under Maori title.
So in relation to this claim let’s actually look at the full facts of the issue in relation to Maori land ownership.
New Zealand has a total land area of around 26-million hectares.
About 1.3-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s as a consequence of tribal rebellion.
There were complaints at that time, and the confiscations were investigated. As a result of those investigations a total of 646,774 hectares were returned, which left 651,793 hectares that remained confiscated.
To be quite clear, the confiscations were legal, a consequence of rebellion and had been carried out under two pieces of legislation passed in 1863 -- the Suppression of Rebellion Act and the New Zealand Settlements Act.
Fast forward to today. Approximately 1.47 million hectares are currently classified as Maori land, and this includes customary land.
So, since Maori owned most of New Zealand’s 26 million hectares in 1840 when the treaty of Waitangi was signed, 1.47 million hectares remain as Maori land, with around 0.6 million hectares remaining confiscated, what happened to the remaining 24 million hectares?
It was sold.
Maori vendors sold a whopping 92 percent of the land area of New Zealand for all sorts of reasons, but mainly, that it was more in their interest to sell than to hold on to it, which is much the same choice made by any ownership group of any asset.
A myth has grown over the years since 1973, when Nga Tamatoa protesters disrupted Waitangi Day by wearing black armbands mourned the loss of the entire land area of New Zealand.
That myth is that since the 1800s, Maori “lost” most of their land.
But as we have seen, apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated, and apart from surplus land retained by the Crown, Maori vendors sold land at mutually agreed prices over a long period of time.
For instance, a handful of Ngai Tahu chiefs sold most of the 15-million-hectare South Island in 10 deals over 20 years from 1844 and this was after they had sold much of the same area before 1840.
Selling land was good business.
There is a world of difference between losing something and selling it.
Maori may claim that their position has been diminished by the loss of the large percentage of their land but the fact of the matter is that this has come about by the actions of their predecessors who sold the majority of their land.
Though they may have sold it for what would be considered today, as a paltry amount, at the time of the sale they were receiving the going rates and it is not possible to expect any type of redress due to the increase in values since the time of sale.
To even suggest such a thing is nothing short of ludicrous. It would be like me trying to ask for a further payment for a vehicle that I sold some forty years ago, because it is now worth a hugely increased value.
On this basis it doesn’t matter how you would feel about only having 6% of the land under Maori ownership simply due to the fact that his ancestors sold the land of their own free will and if you feel somehow diminished because of that fact then blame your ancestors.
To now come back and be trying to claim that somehow they deserve to get further compensation for the land that was sold by their ancestors is wrong and should surely be destined to fail.
Maori have through the Waitangi Tribunal process, been compensated for past wrongs in relation to treaty grievances with full and final settlements of billions of dollars yet we are still getting calls for separation and special rights to Maori, coupled with a denial of equality, has become widespread, a national ideology.
That belief in racial division is based on a belief in wrongs committed against Maori by the Crown as a result of colonisation. Based on that false belief, Maori are demanding further recompense and New Zealanders are not being seen as one people, but divided into indigenous people and the others – second-rate citizens who must pay for fake claims of past wrong-doing by their ancestors.
Based on detailed instructions from the British Government, and after several days of debate, the final copy of the Treaty of Waitangi was decided upon, and written down by James Busby, on February 4, 1840. This was translated into Maori by Reverend Henry Williams and his son, Edward, before being handed back to the Governor, Captain William Hobson. This initial text was missing for some years before it was found in 1989; it is often referred to as the “Littlewood Treaty”.
It is the same as many back-translation from the Maori in the years following 1840, and is in accord with the Maori understanding of the Treaty as was made clear in the words of the chiefs during many meetings and, most significantly, with the forthright discussion in 1922 by the great Maori leader and statesman, Apirana Ngata, a prominent scholar, Government Minister and champion for Maori culture, in his booklet, “The Treaty of Waitangi, an explanation”, which was written in Maori, for Maori, and then translated into English.
The foundations of New Zealand were laid down by the British who had put an end to slavery and cannibalism. They would never have written, or agreed with, a Treaty that divided the country into two unequal races, having asserted the very opposite, that all New Zealanders were equal British subjects. This was a precious legacy for the new nation, to be safeguarded and never taken for granted.
Yet we are now paying the price of ignorance and inactivity, allowing a determined minority to build a tribal, ‘indigenous’, race-based division which destroys the claim to equality and liberty of all others.
No standing should be given to the many, and often conflicting, versions and interpretations built up during the last 49 years as an alternative Treaty is put forward to destroy the true intention by contradicting the initial call by Hobson to the chiefs: “Now we are one people.”
Race based governance has never succeeded anywhere and it would not be any different here in New Zealand if it was implemented.
In relation to the Tainui claiming a Right of First refusal in relation to any surplus government land, I don’t have any problem with them being granted this right as long as it is on the basis that they will then pay the fair market value for any such land which they wish to claim under that right.
Iwi have received billions of dollars in compensation under the Waitangi tribunal settlements and should now be in a position where any claimed first right of refusal would only be actioned if they are prepared to pay the going market rates for any such land claimed the same as any other person or body would be expected to.
The acclaimed Maori Leader; Sir Apirana Ngata- M.A. LLB. LIT.D in his book, the "Treaty of Waitangi" concludes with the words:
"The Treaty made the one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful".
One law for all regardless of race; a guarantee of equality for all citizens of New Zealand. Under that Treaty over the years our governments have redressed the wrongs and made settlements in relation to those wrongs through the Waitangi Tribunal and any further claims such as the claim for First Right of Refusal should be treated the same regardless of the ethnicity of the claimants.