Who is getting most of the blame at the moment? Yep, it's Maori again.
Recently, and foolishly, I got involved in a "debate" on facebook concerning the "treaty gravy train". Apparently "in years to come our crippled country will look back scratching our heads wondering why we didn't stop such an obvious and ongoing blight on our economy". Eh?!
The view that Maori treaty claims are a crippling and overwhelming burden on the poor old taxpayer is a common one, but how does is stand up to some facts? I decided to point some out: so far TOTAL treaty claims have cost the taxpayer around about $NZ1 billion. Sound like a lot? Well it's about 4 weeks worth of the health budget. So far a total of 5.5 DAYS of your tax revenue has been paid out in treaty claims. Hell, you want to talk about obvious and ongoing blights which will cripple the NZ economy? Well, NZ Super Costs about $9 billion per year ("I paid tax my whole life. I'm ENTITLED to it". Grrrr....). You can bet a fair proportion of those rattling their sabres about the "treaty gravy train" are pocketing NZ Super to pay for this years trip to the Gold Coast. And how about the bail out of South Canterbury Finance investors by the foolish Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme which enables investors to make ridiculous investments at almost no risk? You can bet there weren't too many maori on that particular gravy train.
Let's look at the biggest treaty settlement to Ngai Tahu. The tribe settled on $170 million which was chump change compared to the $20 billion in assets which were independently assessed to have been ILLEGALLY taken from them (and, let's be clear: an agreement doesn't cease to be binding just because it becomes inconvenient for one of the signatories). Ngai Tahu Holdings now, as best as I can tell, contributes about $100 million in tax each year. Crickey, did we give them enough?! Even if Ngai Tahu had received all of the $1 billion in settlements so far, a 10% annual return on investment would be stunning not to mention the near 60% return the "poor, overburdened" NZ taxpayer is getting.
No one in the facebook debate took too kindly to being presented with such inconvenient facts. I was told "you've made your point, now back off", another of other "points" which totally ignore facts were made and shortly later I received an abusive and threatening (and anonymous) e-mail for my troubles. I should have known better: another key attribute of your average NZer is that he/she is at least somewhat anti-science, anti-fact and prefers to make arguments based on emotion and feeling.
If this country does indeed become a "crippled" cot case, and I'm not confident that it won't, then it won't be the fault of maori. It won't be the fault of beneficiaries. It won't be the fault of immigrants. It'll be the fault of you and me, white NZ. It'll be the fault of a group of people who have developed a whiny entitlement culture (after all, you hear the call for "compensation" for something or other as frequently from pakeha as from maori). It'll be the fault of a generation who did nothing to develop NZ's economy or industry, instead preferring to rob the subsequent generations of their wealth via property investment. It'll be the fault of a people who elected "leaders" based on a popularity contest rather than a vision. It'll be the fault of our deeply ingrained environmental hypocrisy (how often have you seen "No fracking" or "No deep sea drilling" bumper stickers of SUVs lately?).
Rant complete.
Well, more coherent that previous ones. You are right to actually add things up for a change, I didn't realize how little comparatively the treaty settlements where.
ReplyDeleteWho sent you an anonymous email? Thats terrible. I didn't know facebook posted your email like that, perhaps you should remove it.
Thor
So you DO rant.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame online discussions are so prone to degeneration. I wasn't expecting that comment to gather quite so much attention but on the odd occasion when they do you have to almost sit and wait for things to turn pair shaped.
Rants are usually brief and refuse to address the facts, generally out of ignorance but sometimes for good reason. One of which is that they would cease to be a rant and become a list of mind numbing quotes and numbers leaving no room for thought or interpretation. Not a soul in the Facebook universe would read them. That's not to say they aren't thought through and/or do not take the facts into account. I am of the opinion that rants are an effective and perfectly acceptable means of both venting and evoking.
This may be where you and I part ways a little because on facebook I would give more credence to the effectiveness with which an idea is communicated than any exhaustive attempts to cover all facts, figures and statistics in support of that that idea, which may be cleared up later. That's not to say I don't value the truth, that would be absurd. I simply cut the fat in an attempt to convey my thoughts in a more succinct format. An offshoot of which is that it leaves room for comment and debate, which was my aim.
…and appeared to work on this occasion.
Nice rant big bro.
ReplyDeleteParagraph two, first sentence, remove "foolishly". Bravo for engaging in the debate. How can logic and reason prevail if those enlightened by it stay silent?
L, when I'm not ranting I also like to rage!
ReplyDeleteNow I'm not comparing you to Joseph Goebbels but I'm sure he'd agree that the way the message is conveyed should be given more credence than the facts! Facts are not "the fat" but the essence of what separates good sense from prejudice.
I personally think that maori cop too much heat re treaty claims given that they have ultimately come out of the treaty much worse off when all is said and done.
I hope you didn't take this blog post as a personal attack since it isn't intended to be. I just strongly disagree with your opinion in this case.
"I'm not comparing you to Joseph Goebbels but… [queue comparison to Joseph Goebbels]"
ReplyDeleteDid you really just compare my morning Facebook rant to histories grand master of propaganda? I'm flattered :P
The "fat" I was referring to is any information I don't need when trying to get my point across. That is not to say that the facts weren't considered when formulating my point. They were. My opinion is not negligent of the facts and the fact that so many agreed with me suggests that i'm heading in the right direction. Like you say, it's just unfortunate that my opinion doesn't match yours on this occasion.
No worries, I have a policy of not taking anything on the internet personally, imagine if I did !! This creotard wouldn't be able to face the world.
I can guarantee you wont ever see me rage :)
Hang on a sec here! Your FB post suggested that the treaty "gravy train" would "cripple" NZ's economy - OK, fair enough, but where are the facts that support your opinion? I didn't see a single fact which supported this argument from anyone who responded to your post - what I did see was comments like "loads shotgun and heads to winz office" etc.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that most people agree with you, does not make what you are saying correct - for thousands of years it was universally accepted the world was flat and yet the fact that people thought this did not make it true!
OK, I accept that maori receiving money from the government in redress for breaches of the treaty generates strong opinions. The water rights issue makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I just think that the actual economic impact of the redress process is massively blown out of proportion by its opponents. I also find the tendency to blame beneficiaries and maori for this country's woes (real or imagined) is both factually and morally repugnant. Unless we get over this tendency to blame others for our situation, I suspect NZ will become an economic basket case despite the many advantages this country enjoys.
And it probably wasn't fair to use Goebbels as an example, so I apologise. I could have substituted his name with any number of NZ politicians!!!
ReplyDeleteMore than anything I'm interested in defending my right to actually have a rant. People will disagree but diversity is the spice of life is it not?
ReplyDeleteAs far as the actual content is concerned I am pointing out that a line needs to be drawn before it gets out of hand. As it stands the economy isn't exactly straining under the weight of treaty claims but where will it stop? Just a year or two ago we thought it absolutely absurd that Maori might attempt any claim on the wind, yet here we are, it was always just one stepping stone away and that stepping stone has appeared in the form of water claims in the wake of asset sales.
I opened myself up for it a little with that "crippled country" call. Looked into my crystal ball a bit for that one which of course none of us can actually do. Seriously though, will Maori shortly be shaving a little out of our pockets every time we plug anything into the wall? Quite possibly. I firmly believe that no New Zealander should have that kind of an advantage over the next on the basis of ethnicity, where is the gravy train for NZ Europeans, NZ Asians, Polynesians etc...? There isn't and it would be unfair to grant them one, the very definition of discrimination. Health and Super, regardless of whether you agree with the policies or not, are equally available for all NZers. The provisions are already there for anyone equally to earn their way out of poverty and I know plenty of Maori who are doing a fantastic job. There are even some who don't take advantage of government handouts for education etc on principle. Like you said, perhaps we need a constitutional review, stat.
You'll forgive me for the "legalised corruption" call after having spent some time in PNG where it's absolutely and so obviously rife. Over there it has truly and frustratingly got to the point where it is actually crippling the country.
We need to bury the past, get over our differences and start acting like a country.
Well, if we didn't have anything to argue about what would we do for entertainment?! I'll let the "crippled country" thing go for now - I think I've made my point.
ReplyDeleteFor a start, let's clarify something. Maori didn't just put up their hands for water rights after asset sales were mooted. The concern Maori have is for how asset sales will impact water rights claims which have already been made. The distinction is very important and often (conveniently?) forgotten.
Now let's look at the "drawing a line" / "bury the past" argument. Firstly, the treaty claims system IS the way in which the line is being drawn in the sand! Take a look at the deeds of settlement with various tribes - these settlements are final based on the terms of coverage of the particular settlement (the idea that maori keep returning to the trough is a myth).
And who gets to draw the line and under who's terms? As I've said before, just because an agreement becomes inconvenient to one of the signatories, it doesn't give that signatory the right to ignore that agreement. Saying "sure, great injustices were done, but we can't be bothered anymore so sit down and shut up" doesn't really wash, does it? "Burying the past" in the manner you advocate will create deep racial division in NZ, since the burying will be done by one party without redressing legitimate grievances.
I find it quite laughable that you believe that "the provisions are there for anyone equally to earn their way out of poverty". If that is the case, then why are Maori more likely to be poor? Is it because they're plain lazy or because they were disadvantaged in the first place? Oh sure, anyone can earn their way out of poverty, but it's a damn sight harder if you're born poor. Like it or not, if you were born a European NZer chances are that the road for you to reach success would have been much easier than if you were born Maori. It's true in my case, and I bet it's true in yours too.
Where is the gravy train for NZ Europeans? Are you kidding me?!! Much of NZ's wealth is in our hands, and a lot of it is in our hands because of illegal confiscations of land etc from Maori. You can bet this country would be a very different place if that hadn't have happened.
I don't have the slightest problem with the possibility that Maori will be "shaving" a little out of my pocket when I use electricity. I'd rather my money went to helping out NZers than it going off shore, which will inevitably happen should asset sales go ahead.
No need to apologise for the "legalised corruption" call since it's irrelevant! Maori treaty claims (which seek to redress the corrupt practices of NZ's past) is not a form of it.
Probably not my most well written response, but that's what happens when one uses ones mobile phone to type!!
ReplyDeleteIt's your Birthday, relax :D We'll pick it up again tomorrow !!
ReplyDeleteConcerning water rights. I have no problem with the distinction you explained. I think our disagreement is a little more deep seeded though. So let's address the elephant in the room. You and I would find it much easier to agree on these lesser points if we found common ground at the foundation (though I suspect this is unlikely). So let me lay it out.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe modern day Maori have a legitimate claim on their ancestors grievances.
What we need to decide is whether or not modern Maori are financially aggrieved TODAY by what was done to their ancestors in the 1860s which let's be honest, in the light of honoring the Treaty was messy from both sides. I believe that Maori should be afforded customary rights to the land that their forefathers inhabited, that is so significant to the Maori culture. That is not to say that customary rights add up to modern Maori being financially (or otherwise) aggrieved.
Let's also recognise that British we're not the first people to immigrate to New Zealand. The words Maori and Pakeha were introduced when British arrived to differentiate between the two. Maori were the one's who had been here for generations, Pakeha were the one's just arriving. But let's be clear, the Maori who lived in New Zealand at the time had no choice in the matter since they had been born here as a result of their ancestors sailing in from the pacific islands. Compare that to today. I am a Kiwi that has no choice in the fact that eight generations ago my ancestors arrived on these shores by boat. So you can see we were ALL Pakeha once. This fact doesn't address what happened in the 1860s but does serve to point out that MODERN Maori do not have any more claim to land ownership in this country than do modern Pakeha. We are no longer Pakeha and Maori, we are New Zealanders.
An analogy in an attempt to put it simply. If your great grandfather stole land from my great grandfather, you are not expected to pay me compensation (in any form) for what is not your mistake. An apology would be a kind gesture but not required. Recognition of my families part in the history of that land would be spectacular. But I am not aggrieved by what your great grandfather took from mine so "I" have no legitimate claim against YOU.
One may argue that the gap has not yet closed from the hangover of the Maori wars and land confiscations etc, so we owe a leg up to modern Maori because they are aggreived. I am convinced that is not the case and that the statistics point to a victim mentality, not healthy in any circumstance, which has become cultural and is eroding the potential that Maori have had for a fair few generations to excel in anything they so choose. It frustrates me to see. Like I've said, some [I actually have relatives who…] have escaped this mentality and excel in an equal opportunity society (which DOES exist, if anything the pendulum has swung the other way, don't get me started) whilst still honoring their roots. They are doing very well for themselves indeed.
I wish all Maori would do the same.
I am aware that treaty settlements are 'A' way of settling these claimed grievances and 'IS' the way our Government is choosing to do so. I don't even worry myself too much with one off cash settlements, at least something is being done to solve all of this. But I am very much against ongoing profiteering with reference to treaty claims, on this occasion any capability to charge the likes of power companies for the use of water or air (which from memory we agree, nobody should own). In a country where we strive for equal opportunity, this simply is discrimination on ethnic grounds against all other citizens of New Zealand.
How's your rage levels? Skin not turning green yet I hope.
I'm not too enraged, I just think that you're wrong! As you quite rightly speculate, we may just have to agree is disagree.
ReplyDeleteA rambling series of observations:
Your analogy is not really an analogy at all, since they deal with issues which are both factually and legally completely different. Crimes committed by an individual are quite different from those committed by the Crown, a state or some other entity. Think the compensation paid by the Japanese government to WW2 "comfort" women etc.
The "we are all Pakeha" argument is an interesting, and odd, one. Are you saying that if the Chinese suddenly turned up in their (nuclear powered, armoured) boats and took everything, you'd just shrug and say "well, I guess they're just Pakeha like the rest of us"?!
Making statements like "the statistics point to a victim mentality" does not constitute an argument. How? Why?! And if I was one of those relatives, I think I might find your "they are doing well" comments quite condescending, but that's just me.
The provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi make it quite clear who had (and has) ownership of what, and who can legally purchase those from Maori. Disregarding the illegal confiscations etc, those entities which were not sold to the Crown STILL belong to Maori. In many cases, it is not Maori who have customary rights since they are the LEGAL owners, it is Pakeha who have developed these rights over generations.
As an aside (because it is somewhat of a different argument), as you've said that you think "nobody" owns water, are you then happy for the rights for its utilisation to be sold to the highest bidder? You are against "ongoing profiteering" from a natural resource specifically by Maori, but do you have no issue with it by anyone else?
Figured as much. Incidentally the Tuhoe settlement going through today is quite topical. Right on your back doorstep too. Interesting being one of the tribes that didn't sign the Treaty.
ReplyDeleteHistoric Maori had a legitimate grievance claim against the Treaty at the time. What i'm saying is that doesn't translate to modern Maori. If the Japanese turned up as you say, we would have every right to do everything in our power to stop it and complain (to who i dont know, UN maybe) if it went ahead anyway. If we fail to make a difference and a new society develops as a result then our descendants cannot very well go claiming they have a grievance against Japanese descendants in the year 2225. It would be an entirely different society by then as NZ is now to what it was in the 1860s. Big difference.
River runs both ways here, as I might find your "I bet it's is true in your case" comment condescending? Since you have no idea what my upbringing was like or what my parents had to go through to provide a future for their kids. Huge ethnic based assumption on your part. My comments were not of ALL Maori. As I have pointed out there are plenty who have broken that mentality and thrive.
I have no problem with that point. Pakeha can only have developed those customary rights if they lived on that land, unlikely if it is under Maori ownership, unless Maori have eventually sold that land to the Crown or if Pakeha were allowed to live there on a lease or something. Do you have examples of land like this? It's an interesting scenario though I can't see how it would present an issue since Maori would still own and control that land.
I don't see it as a question of the rights to the waters utilisation, rather the rights to the utilisation of the power station. Water by its nature cannot be owned, it comes and it goes. The land that the power station was built on can be and so can the power station istself and that is what is being floated as an asset. If water happens to be flowing over that land then the use of it comes part in parcel. If by some volcanic catastrophe (not entirely implausible) the Waikato dries up and is redirected elsewhere, the asset becomes useless. Owners of the asset cannot then claim the water that is now flowing elsewhere to be under its ownership. The owner of the land which it now flows over would then receive the perks of the river.
Same goes for air, can't be owned. Maori have even tried claiming radio waves at one point but that didn't go so well. Radio waves weren't even discovered at the time of the Treaty or Wars and confiscations so how could they be aggrieved by the use of radio waves. Incidentally, the concept of land ownership didn't exist before British colonisation. So by the same token one must ask how Maori are aggrieved by something they weren't aware existed. There are a few curly corners to navigate in that argument but it's an interesting thought and a little removed from what we're on about, but I thought why not while we're off topic.
First all, I've got to object about your taking my "I bet" comment out of context. A bet is something you make on the balance of probabilities. You're a Pakeha, so CHANCES are you enjoyed certain advantages that you PROBABLY wouldn't have enjoyed if you were Maori. I'm not saying it IS true (how could I know?).
ReplyDeleteGiven your obviously strongly held opinions on this issue, I find it quite surprising that you cannot think of anything that, from the treaty, is owned by Maori and yet could be argued that all NZers have customary rights over. I suggest you have a read of the treaty.
What I sense from your last two paragraphs is that you have a very limited understanding of what Maori are actually asking for concerning water. What is it you think Maori want? Without wanting to be too blunt, your absurd comment concerning the concept of ownership might give you a clue, but I'm not holding out too much hope at this point.
This is off topic, but I was having a bit of a chuckle last night re your we-are-not-responsible-for-the-actions-of-our-ancestors argument. Surprising for someone who believes that every person on earth is punished daily (by a supreme justice who is always right) for the crime of some chick eating a piece of fruit several thousand years ago!!! ;o)
ReplyDeleteHaha ! Life is a gift if you know you're forgiven :P I think that's a rabbit hole I fear we would never climb out of. So let's not.
ReplyDeleteNo problem with your objection, I was just pointing out that your argument (perhaps conveniently) is not without its assumptions.
Perhaps I am missing something on your Maori owned, Pakeha customary rights point. As far as I can tell I don't have an issue with that. Nor do I have an issue with a Pakeha owned land, Maori customary rights scenario. So long as in both cases those customary rights are acknowledged. That's just courtesy. I can see what you're trying here but you said "land confiscations aside" which makes this a sideshow since land confiscations and subsequent grievance claims against the Treaty (historic vs modern) is our original argument. Regardless of whether I can think of an example of the former, the point is void, I have no issue there, let's move on.
I did state that the 'Maori no concept of ownership (more of a guardianship concept) before the British' argument had some issues and isn't really what we're talking about anyway (another sideshow). There isn't any confusion over my own concept of ownership.
'What I understand' is that Maori are now murmuring of a 20% royalty on profits from Mighty River Power. Which understandably has the bean counters all in a huff, but in the end the cost will be passed on to you and I. They want to charge for the use of the water, but how can they since nobody can own the water? It's quite obviously a matter of trying to pluck money from thin air based on a grievance they don't have, problem is 'thin air' in this case equates to the consumers back pocket. Why not legitimately purchase shares when the SOE is floated with everyone else? Ngai Tuhoe has a spare 170mil they could pitch in.
If you have no problem with lining the pockets of Maori then why don't we establish some sort of an "All other kiwis give money to Maori compulsory fund" and avoid the implications of SOEs and other pesky political death traps. Sarcasm is difficult convey on text, I hope you picked up on it.
Let's go nowhere near that rabbit hole!!
ReplyDeleteIt's a myth that Maori had no concept of ownership. Maori did own things, it's just that they did not have a concept of absolute ownership of land. I think you probably understand that anyway, but it's a pretty important distinction.
What I was getting at with my attempt to assess your understanding, is that Maori are not claiming ownership of water. They would AGREE with you, under their concept of ownership, that it is unable to be owned. There is a great difference between ownership of something and the right to utilise that something, and this is where the dispute lies.
You may find it interesting to know that I'm reasonably ambivalent as to the outcome of Maori water rights sideshow and their impact on the much greater asset sales issue.
If we return to what the discussion was originally about, my beef is that you, like many others who share your opinion, have a tendency to greatly exaggerate the impact of treaty claims (comprehensively covered, so I won't labour the point), make statements as if they are gospel which you are unable to support with facts (I'm still really interested for you to show me the statistics you claim "point to a victim mentality" - I'd be surprised if you can ever present any, particularly because I think you'll struggle to find a relevant metric) and propose "solutions" which will only serve to further increase racial disharmony and discrimination.
I know that nothing I can say will get you to change your opinion and, although if someone proves to me I'm wrong I'll change my mind, I've heard nothing from you about this issue which I couldn't hear by tuning into talkback radio. We're not going to get anywhere here though, are we?
I'll close with something one of my friends recently said: "170 odd years ago the white folks could have stomped the Maori out and taken everything - but they didn't, they opted to sign a contract. Tough shit that they wish they hadn't."
With reference to land, yes that's what I said if you'll look back to the original comment.
ReplyDeleteIf it's purely a utilisation issue then that should've been taken up back when they built the power station. The station and the use of the water should not be separate issues, common sense dictates that ownership of the station and the right to use the water are exactly the same thing. It actually always has been so why are we splitting the two issues at this juncture? Simple, money out of thin air.
It's a sideshow to the asset sales yes, but it is nonetheless an ongoing sideshow that needs to be resolved. It WILL carry through to other issues as they arise. Also, agree with it or not, the asset sales are aimed at the stimulation of the NZ economy for all NZers while the Treaty claims only benefit one ethnic group.
I have already presented the facts, you just seem to have glossed over them. Don't be disappointed that you didn't see any numbers or percentages since the same statistics you presented support my claims as well. I could go and find all sorts of other numbers, google would help me i'm sure. But It isn't the number of impoverished, rather the reason they are impoverished that we are arguing. It is plain to see that they are, but WHY are they? You hold a different view as to why and it appears as though we will not reach middle ground on this occasion. I wasn't expecting to really, I just wanted to make clear that my rant, which you considered so damaging to NZ society, was as thought out as it was thought provoking.
There is no racial discrimination in my argument. I must stress at this point that a victim mentality can engulf ANY culture if they are not careful. There are many examples but a good recent one would have to be the underclass in London who, in a society of equal opportunity, believe the government somehow owes them for the way their life has turned out. That and a myriad of other factors culminated in the riots of 2011. Over here there are completely different contributing factors, the resulting victim mentality though can be drawn as a parallel.
Some light reading for you: Michael King's "Being Pakeha Now"
How do the statistics I have presented support your claim that Maori have a victim mentality?
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed the comment section. 100% of it was interesting, but only 50% made any sense. To the Anonymous writer who "wanted to make clear that [his] rant...was as thought out as it was thought provoking", I couldn't help but think of the verbal exam scene from Billy Madison as I floundered my way through the random collection of letters you submitted as comments.
ReplyDelete"[W]hat you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."