Settling Maori claims. Someone explain.

[short-circuit]

So you're saying twenty years is not enough time to prepare a greivence?

My response to that was post #463.

I could add other variables such as tribes with less power and resources, dead witnesses, difficulties with producing evidence where it was actively destroyed, having an oral history as opposed to a written one, the massive resources of the crown, the non-binding nature of the tribunal's recommendations, the bottlenecking of claims....etc etc...

but these considerations are inconvenient to someone who isn't really interested in gaining a balanced viewpoint and merely wants to remain entrenched with a particular position

[Bonez]

My response to that was post #463.

I could add other variables such as tribes with less power and resources, dead witnesses, difficulties with producing evidence where it was actively destroyed, having an oral history as opposed to a written one, the massive resources of the crown, the non-binding nature of the tribunal's recommendations, the bottlenecking of claims....etc etc...

but these considerations are inconvenient to someone who isn't really interested in gaining a balanced viewpoint and merely wants to remain entrenched with a particular position

Good post. With regard to Crown forest and SOE lands the tribunal can and has made binding recommendations for the Crown to return land to Maori.

For those interested the The Maori Purposes Bill 2006 introduced the cut off date of 1 September 2008 for submitting historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal.

[short-circuit]

Good post. With regard to Crown forest and SOE lands the tribunal can and has made binding recommendations for the Crown to return land to Maori.

For those interested the The Maori Purposes Bill 2006 introduced the cut off date of 1 September 2008 for submitting historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justi..._williams.html

"In large part the Tribunal has no mandatory powers. It reports on grievances but can generally only make recommendations to Government. There are two limited exceptions. The Tribunal can direct that State Enterprise lands be returned to Maori and that Crown Forest lands be returned to Maori (in the latter case together with monetary compensation if that is seen as appropriate). These powers have been used once in the last 15 years. They are seen by the Tribunal as truly exceptional.

[Bonez]

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justi..._williams.html

"In large part the Tribunal has no mandatory powers. It reports on grievances but can generally only make recommendations to Government. There are two limited exceptions. The Tribunal can direct that State Enterprise lands be returned to Maori and that Crown Forest lands be returned to Maori (in the latter case together with monetary compensation if that is seen as appropriate). These powers have been used once in the last 15 years. They are seen by the Tribunal as truly exceptional.

So it has been done right? Prior to 2001. And more recently.

This pdf may be of interest/helpfull to some interested in the process http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyre...2/0604ToW7.pdf

[Mr Merde]

That link is very interesting and begs the question why more people are not questioning the validity of maori claims. I particularly like a sentence that ends ''selective yesteryear concepts''.

http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htm


Try this site, go to the radical history sectiuon, read it through. make up your own mind

[Whynot]

Only one man can fix this

-Indy

haha, nice

[davereid]

http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htmTry this site, go to the radical history sectiuon, read it through. make up your own mind

I don't particularly see anything radical there. European and Asian explorers had boats well capable of these kinds of trips, and were well able to use them !

The problem is more one of Navigation. Use of celestial navigation allows one to accurately find, chart and return to a given latitude. But until the 15th century, no clocks existed that had sufficient accuracy to determine longitude.

It's very likely that Navigators found their way to this part of the world. But there was no gold, no trade, little arable land - so it was valueless, and would be consigned to a longitude free note in the log book, as the explorer searched for trade and booty.

By the early 15th century, crude clocks existed allowing the land to be mapped and claimed, and of course by 1750, the british had clocks that enabled them to navigate reliably to a few miles.

Maori were almost certainly not the first to arrive in New Zealand.

But they were very likely the first to lack the ability to leave.

[Finn]

You know, yah gotta give the horries some credit where it's due. Boy do they have the simple white folk wrapped around their fingers.

If I can find one thing that's great about being a first generation New Zullander, it's that I don't have an once of guilt. From where I sit, I see both sides wasting away a perfect opportunity to make this little insignificant Island something great.

So no, I don't buy into the grievance industry, in fact, it has done more harm than good, just like the UN (you would have thought that in 55 years of handouts, all Africans would have iPods by now). What the majority of Maori really need is a good swift kick in the arse. Same goes for a lot of kiwi's while we're at it.

[davereid]

What about the small issues of colonization and oppression?

Colonisation ?
Merely the arrival of a later immigrant. Thats all we are talking about here. Each wave of arrivals altered the balance of power, and land held by the previous immigrant.

It still happens today, in fact I might take advantage of it and have a kebab for lunch in stead of the raw kina my forefathers may have had.

Oppression ?
Hardly. Land was taken without agreement - pretty standard for all previous immigrants, hardly a new thing, and very standard in the world of the time.

My iwi were overun by Ngati Tuwharetoa. Now I get to pay them to launch my boat at Taupo. Is that oppression ? Should I claim my launch permits back ?

Get real.

Anyway serious work is being done correcting land seizures, the best that can possibly be done without punishing modern New Zealanders for the crimes of their great great grand uncles.

Government was formed, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be called oppressive. In fact maori were given special protection with extra seats in Parliament, and still have that advantage.

Maori also enjoy genuine (if not always effective) extra assistance at school, university, and for welfare and health.

Maori have to move forward on their own now.

The modern New Zealander of any heritage is now way past caring about the whining and snivelling of a small number of (part) maori who blame their lack of achievement, poor educational outcomes and high crime rates on my great grandad.

[Finn]

Colonisation ?

Don't worry, that's just what Short Circuit learned from his oppressed education at University. The "education" that you're paying for.

[Finn]

This is funny...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2613...for-tat-rages/

[peasea]

Colonisation ?
Merely the arrival of a later immigrant. Thats all we are talking about here. Each wave of arrivals altered the balance of power, and land held by the previous immigrant.

It still happens today, in fact I might take advantage of it and have a kebab for lunch in stead of the raw kina my forefathers may have had.

Oppression ?
Hardly. Land was taken without agreement - pretty standard for all previous immigrants, hardly a new thing, and very standard in the world of the time.

My iwi were overun by Ngati Tuwharetoa. Now I get to pay them to launch my boat at Taupo. Is that oppression ? Should I claim my launch permits back ?

Get real.

Anyway serious work is being done correcting land seizures, the best that can possibly be done without punishing modern New Zealanders for the crimes of their great great grand uncles.

Government was formed, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be called oppressive. In fact maori were given special protection with extra seats in Parliament, and still have that advantage.

Maori also enjoy genuine (if not always effective) extra assistance at school, university, and for welfare and health.

Maori have to move forward on their own now.

The modern New Zealander of any heritage is now way past caring about the whining and snivelling of a small number of (part) maori who blame their lack of achievement, poor educational outcomes and high crime rates on my great grandad.

Absolutely. "Small number" is the clincher here, a vocal, myopic minority who make their whole race look bad. The treaty was about "one people" (Hobson's words) and the version currently bandied about is not what he was citing either.

You also state that Maori "enjoy genuine...extra assistance" etc., so why is that they suffer "lack of achievement, poor educational outcomes" etc.? I have no idea; it must be incredibly frustrating for those who try to point them in the right direction. The only thing Maori and Pacific Islanders seem to embrace these days (a generalisation, sure) is the lifestyle of LA street gangs. We need that like a hole in the head.

[Mr Merde]

Absolutely. "Small number" is the clincher here, a vocal, myopic minority who make their whole race look bad. The treaty was about "one people" (Hobson's words) and the version currently bandied about is not what he was citing either.

You also state that Maori "enjoy genuine...extra assistance" etc., so why is that they suffer "lack of achievement, poor educational outcomes" etc.? I have no idea; it must be incredibly frustrating for those who try to point them in the right direction. The only thing Maori and Pacific Islanders seem to embrace these days (a generalisation, sure) is the lifestyle of LA street gangs. We need that like a hole in the head.

Why should they succeed? There polititians think that they should go to uni without any quals, the government gives handouts and reparation at the drop of a hat. The greenies and PC brigand are too busy sucking their proverbial dick to notice that they are breaking the third rule of oral sex*.

Why should they do anything when they can just scream "Waitangi Treaty" and have all the tossers jump as high as they are told.

All this in order to look like a feeling and sensitive country.

===============

* The Three rules of Oral Sex

1) I love you
2) The cheque's in the post
3) I WONT cum in your mouth

[idleidolidyll]

I gotta ask this:

Given the strong opinions and beliefs you seem to have about the issue; have any of you ever made a submission to the Waitangi Tribunal, attended a hearing, written a letter to your MP on this subjectetc and if so, what was the outcome/reply?

[scracha]

I gotta ask this:

Given the strong opinions and beliefs you seem to have about the issue; have any of you ever made a submission to the Waitangi Tribunal, attended a hearing, written a letter to your MP on this subjectetc and if so, what was the outcome/reply?

The Tribunal can examine any claim by only Māori then what would be the point? Local MP's have no influence over it and neither would your average joe if they wrote in. Most Tribunal's are heard on Maraes so that instantly puts other races on the backfoot.

http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz...uestions.asp#3
"Why can't non-Māori make claims to the Tribunal?
Treaty claims must be based on the relationship established in the Treaty of Waitangi between the Treaty partners – the Crown (the Government) and Māori."

See...the point above about the treaty not including all enzeders is a major part of the problem.