Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 91055	2008-06-24 21:04:00	Claims	Sweep (90)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
682074	2008-06-25 10:22:00	So where does the money go anyway? The facts are that Maori on a percentage basis per head of population are still well up on the bad statistics like crime, education and health for example. Well, as far as Ngai Tahu (and I believe Tainui as well after a stuttering start) have been investing big time to create trust funds and income streams for their iwi members. Ngai Tahu is now the second biggest land owner on the Mainland after the gumberment. My limited understanding is that they have taken some time to get the commercial aspects of investment under way, and are now starting out on trusts that will be available to all Ngai Tahu whanau for education, housing etc. They could have simply divided up the pot and given a certain percentage to every iwi member, but that is a bit like the current clamour for tax cuts - the pot might be huge, but if you divvy it up amongst everyone, it turns out that each person gets a meaningless "block of cheese". Hence the strategy of using the capital to earn for everyone, and not have it frittered away. On your last point, when the huge land purchases were made by the gumberment from Ngai Tahu, they were meant to preserve sufficient land for Ngai Tahu to support themselves. In fact, this term in the contracts was ignored by the Crown, and Ngai Tahu were left destitute and largely landless. Along with that, and all the other aspects of institutional racism (shared by Maori throughout the country) there have been a lot of negative events that have led to the stats you refer to. You don't turn that around in 10 years - it probably won't get turned around in a generation (or two). It took the Scots many generations to get out of the pit they were in after the English had finished with them.	John H (8)
682075	2008-06-25 10:25:00	Cool, Lets devide by colour.	Metla (12)
682076	2008-06-25 10:30:00	What about the Tuhoe tribe for example whom apparently did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. www.nzhistory.net.nz And, as usual, there are various interpretations of text. This is why we have lawyers to explain what was really meant at the time. I think you are right that Tuhoe didn't sign. However, they have had a claim in, and the Waitangi Tribunal has held the hearings. I don't know how that works - I think the government made the decision to regard the Treaty as applying nationally, whether or not an individual iwi signed. And of course there is a claim coming from Moriori who also did not sign. I must look up how it happened that non-signatories were included in the deal. I imagine that it was a public policy decision not to have a remedy for some and not others, where they had all suffered similar injustices. The problem with interpretation of the texts is because of chicanery at the time the Treaty was written, and you can blame the Rev Williams for that. He drafted the original Maori text in a way that would encourage Maori to sign (i.e they did not cede sovereignty in the Maori text, but did in the English version), whilst protecting the Crown. There is a contra proferentum rule of international law that should clear this up - it basically says that treaties with indigenous people should be interpreted to mean what the indigenous signatories understood the treaty to mean at the time (and their understanding is well recorded). However, the Crown has never been keen to accept the rule.	John H (8)
682077	2008-06-25 11:39:00	There is a contra proferentum rule of international law that should clear this up - it basically says that treaties with indigenous people should be interpreted to mean what the indigenous signatories understood the treaty to mean at the time (and their understanding is well recorded). However, the Crown has never been keen to accept the rule. Interpretation is just that. International law means nothing as most of it was drafted after 1840 I would think. How about I go get some Buffalo and let the Red Indians get on with it in the USA. Or I move Sydney and let the aborigines have the lot. Do not get me wrong John H. I have nothing against the Maori race per se and as I mentioned before I do work with some. As I also said there were injustices that need to be corrected and that is fine. But claims as to airspace etc just come out of the air. So when is it going to stop? Don't even get me started on the bible where we seem to have different interpretations once more in that there are various sects of people claiming to be followers of Christ. My understanding was that the Treaty of Waitangi was written somewhat after the bible and people still argue about the bible today even after much research into what it means. I guess my point is that not a lot can be proven as nobody alive today was alive in 1840. Most so called knowledge was word of mouth so I presume that there are no actual witnesses alive that can testify to the events that took place at that time. I further note that you have not commented on where the money actually ends up!!! The whole issue is dividing the country unfortunately. I just want one country and all laws apply equally to all citizens regardless of race.	Sweep (90)
682078	2008-06-25 19:57:00	Interpretation is just that. International law means nothing as most of it was drafted after 1840 I would think. The body of international law around this subject has formed over the last 500 years or so. It generally favours the colonising power which is generally European as it was the European nations like Spain, Belgium, Portugal, France and England that explored with a view to colonisation. It was never "drafted" as such. It deals a lot with the notion of "aboriginal title" and usually dismisses out of hand the idea that an aboriginal people, or pre-existing population, have any title to the land that the colonisers want. Look up terra nullius if you want to know more... But claims as to airspace etc just come out of the air. So when is it going to stop? This sort of claim (airspace) is more of an opportunity for the Courts to give deeper and better definitions to the meanings and limits of the body of law around claims. It's usually seized upon by the news media as it is good fodder for the general (and very poorly informed) bigotry that is to be found in NZ. The whole issue is dividing the country unfortunately. Injustice, bigotry and hatred divides a country. I just want one country and all laws apply equally to all citizens regardless of race. We do have one country and if you have a claim then you should make your application to the Waitangi Tribunal and get a Wai number like everybody else who has a claim. Of course, you'd have to prove a mandate and fit yourself into a European notion of race and community interest - the way the Waitangi Tribunal works is very biased toward European ideas - so I'm not sure it applies to all citizens regardless of race...	Deane F (8204)
682079	2008-06-25 21:24:00	as far as I know this was all driven by the british govt back then so why are the claims not landing on their doorstep ?.....and as for todays people, you and I, paying for problems caused in the past.....well as no doubt has been said before how about we all try to claim in a court for that deal we got ripped off on or that bad agreement we didn't really want to sign but had to or or or or ?......... fat chance	drcspy (146)
682080	2008-06-25 21:33:00	well as no doubt has been said before how about we all try to claim in a court for that deal we got ripped off on or that bad agreement we didn't really want to sign but had to or or or or ?......... fat chance Well, the point is that if you wanted to go to court over a bad deal or agreement then you could. That's what the (civil) court system is there for - to settle disputes. The idea that it shouldn't be justiciable just because it happened a long time ago is a nonsense - especially in light of the fact that most Iwi's have been making legal claims over these disputes over the last century or more. There are countless cases and judgments going right back to the mid to late 1800s. There is continuity to the claims process - it isn't a new thing. The actual things that caused the grievances might have happened a long time ago - but the struggle for justice over those grievances has in nearly every case been constant since then.	Deane F (8204)
682081	2008-06-25 21:36:00	yes well my grandfather was I feel taken advantage of by a bit of 'shark' when he sold his farmlet 40 years ago - what you reckon my chances are of getting the transaction 'revisited' and maybe some compensation ?	drcspy (146)
682082	2008-06-25 21:41:00	If people can claim for land then how about the rest of claim for everything thats on it then. Like I said earlier, the whole thing is crap.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
682083	2008-06-25 22:27:00	If people can claim for land then how about the rest of claim for everything thats on it then. Like I said earlier, the whole thing is crap. Like I said earlier rob, you have a closed mind and seem disinterested in doing a small amount of research to open it.	John H (8)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16