Apartheid here in NZ . Co-governance agenda of Maori separatists

[Perry]

I notice that my question was avoided, being instead sub-
stituted with a strawman logical fallacy response. Perhaps
someone else could try answering?

Perhaps you could explain just how they got
a Treaty settlement when they didn't sign it,
then? I could never figure that out.

Learn your history so it is not a mystery.

One must be very careful of the lesson material, these days,
with so many people re-writing history to suit themselves.
Having read a few books written by authors living in NZ in
the early eighteen hundreds, (Buick, Maning, etc.) it's easy
to see how history has recently been slowly and steadily
distorted to suit a particular agenda.

[iwik]

I notice that my question was avoided, being instead sub-
stituted with a strawman logical fallacy response. Perhaps
someone else could try answering?





One must be very careful of the lesson material, these days,
with so many people re-writing history to suit themselves.
Having read a few books written by authors living in NZ in
the early eighteen hundreds, (Buick, Maning, etc.) it's easy
to see how history has recently been slowly and steadily
distorted to suit a particular agenda.

Excuse me I did answer it !

What is your version of history ?

[Wayne]

Could it be Perry that the claim is settled as a 'treaty' settlement as this provided a process to air the grievance?
You would have to read exactly what the process was set up for - it may not be just claims under the "treaty" - which Tuhoe didn't sign.
I don't know the answer - just suggesting.

[spaceman]

Morally of course you would be entitled to compensation, if anyone thinks
differently are they not siding with the thief ?

No they're not siding with the thief.... the thief is long dead.

Where do you stop? Most of the land in the world was 'stolen' off somebody at some stage....were Tuhoe the original inhabitants of their land? ....or just the last in a list of 'owners' when the greatest empire the world has ever seen showed up on their doorstep?

Cheers
Spaceman

[Damap]

No one wants Tuhoe to compensate the Moriori. Oh that's right they murdered them all.......

[Wayne]

No one wants Tuhoe to compensate the Moriori. Oh that's right they murdered them all.......

I thought that was the Taranaki lot?
And the weren't all murdered either.

[Perry]

Excuse me I did answer it!

You did not say how a tribe that was not a party
to a treaty could make a claim (or receive some
settlement) under that treaty.

What is your version of history?

I don't have any of 'my' versions. I read what
non-PC historians and others who lived in that
era have to say about what they saw and what
they experienced.

Even latter day writers like Sir Apirana Ngata*
seemed clear about what really went on.

Could it be Perry that the claim is settled as a 'treaty' settlement as this provided a process to air the grievance?
You would have to read exactly what the process was set up for - it may not be just claims under the "treaty" - which Tuhoe didn't sign.
I don't know the answer - just suggesting.

Possibly. But that's a bit of a stretch, when one
looks at the empowering Act relied upon.

Media Release
The Government has today addressed "some of the worst" breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi with a settlement which will see Tuhoe receive a redress package worth $170 million, Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson says. (June 2013)

There is still opposition within Tuhoe itself. Last week one hapu took its case to the Waitangi Tribunal saying it does not accept the settlement.

6 Jurisdiction of [the Waitangi] Tribunal to consider claims

(1) Where any Maori claims that he or she, or any group of Maoris of which he or she is a member, is or is likely to be prejudicially affected by any act done or omitted at any time on or after 6 February 1840, or proposed to be done or omitted, by or on behalf of the Crown and was or is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty, he or she may submit that claim to the Tribunal under this section.

- Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

Note the use of the expressions, "breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi"
and "took its case to the Waitangi Tribunal saying it does not accept
the settlement" and "principles." The Treaty contained no principles.
The Treaty was a simple document, with simple language. It contained
no reference to principles. Or forest and fisheries or partnership, for
that matter. They are confabulations invented by modern-day politically-
correct historians and politicians plus others who have a not-too-well
hidden agenda of some sort.

Whatever - Tuhoe didn't sign the Treaty of Waitangi and the contemp-
orary tribe members say they're proud of it. So how can the Crown
settle pursuant to a Treaty with a non-signatory to that Treaty?

---

* The Treaty of Waitangi - an Explanation
by The Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata M.A, Ll.B., Lit.D.
First published in 1922

Excerpt from the book above:

Confiscated Lands
In conclusion I would just like to say a word about the lands that were confiscated by past Governments. Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This it self is a Maori custom—revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.

[Wayne]

Perry - that section you showed doesn't say that the party has to have signed the treaty.
Just that an act was done by (or on behalf of) the crown and is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty.

Interesting excerpt.

[eri]

the treaty industry people

don't even want to limit their interpretation to the "4 corners" of the treaty

they want it to be an open-ended contract with a 1 way direction of cash

forever

how otherwise would maori tv and payment for using the airwaves exist?

those who are getting fat on the treaty are acutely aware

that the trickle down is not getting to the average maori

so they are searching for even more ways to raise the treaty tax on the rest of the country

[iwik]

Moriori were from the Chatham Islands

So no first hand experience then Perry - just more Chinese whispers ?

My mates family had their land stolen off them to build the Rotorua airport



Back in the 1960s, local authorities in Rotorua had decided to bulldoze the whare tūpuna of the Ngāti Uenukukōpako people, because it was in the flight path. The iwi, of course, refused. Fifty years on, the airport authority builds a new $24 million extension to the runway, and, again, nobody is surprised that there is no regard whatsoever for the impact on the marae, the kōhanga reo, or the iwi itself.

From:

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/speeches/49HansS_20100623_00001145/harawira-hone-civil-aviation-cape-town-convention-and

[Wayne]

Moriori were from the Chatham Islands

True - your point?

[Wayne]

Fifty years on, the airport authority builds a new $24 million extension to the runway, and, again, nobody is surprised that there is no regard whatsoever for the impact on the marae, the kōhanga reo, or the iwi itself.

Unfortunately an incomplete web link

So the RMA process wasn't used?
No notified consent etc?

[iwik]

The link works for me when copy and paste.

RMA only been around since 1991

[Damap]

Moriori are no longer considered to be from the Chathams.
"Current research also indicates that Moriori came to the Chatham Islands from New Zealand about 1500"
They were exterminated by the maori.

[Wayne]

RMA only been around since 1991

Gather no consent was given

I was thinking of the one 50 years on (the bit I quoted) - that was 2010 or so.
No notification etc?

As for the 1st one in the 60's they had the Public Works Act where they could force you to sell if they need your land.
I presume Hone is saying they got no compensation at all.
Being in Hansard doesn't mean it is fact, just means that is what Hone said.