I am New Zealand-born 100 per cent Pakeha. I have lived 62 of my 63 years in Mount Maunganui.
My opinion on the proposed vesting of 200ha Panepane Point of Matakana Island back into Maori ownership is 100 per cent supportive.
I see the return of this area to its original owners subsequent to its forced acquisition under Public Works Legislation in 1923 as natural justice.
Land forcibly acquired and subsequently not used for the purpose it was taken for nearly 100 years ago should be returned to its original owners as a matter of course.
If it was your grandparents or parents' land, farm or house I am sure you would feel the same.
Race should be irrelevant in such a situation, although the similarities reminiscent of Raglan Golf Course, Orakei Bastion Point etc. do come to mind rather too easily for the comfort of my strong sense of equity and justice, bred as it is from a Scottish-Welsh-Irish bloodline.
W Friend, Mount Maunganui.
11 comments
Original owners
Posted on 09-02-2018 09:02 | By crazyhorse
Who are the original owners who's name, or names are on the document drawn out when this land was taken under the public works act?
W Friend
Posted on 09-02-2018 09:42 | By tutae.kuri
This subject is being discussed in last week's letters and comments.Our family, Having had a farm acquired under the Act in 1946, it took the Govt 70 years to do the work for which it was acquired.The price paid was at Govt Valuation of the day. We did attempt to recover the property in the 1960's and the response was that the price would be at present day valuation, if indeed it were to be released.The rules were clear in the Act and Panepane Point should be no different to any other aquisition under the legislation where Public Money has been expended.
@ Friend
Posted on 09-02-2018 18:52 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Clearly you dont know the hiistiry of the site, hence you 100% support. race is relevant here as any non-part maori would indeed not do/get/seek teh same thing in teh same way without being locked up at the start.
Not GIFTED BACK.
Posted on 09-02-2018 20:28 | By Murray.Guy
Land taken under the Public Works Act if not required is to be offered back - I have NO problem with that. But it is NOT gifted back, the former owners or family have the 'first right of purchase' and just as they were paid the value at the time, so shall the purchase price be, the value today.I acknowledge that in all likelihood the amount paid by the Crown, the valuation secured, was likely somewhat 'light', and that same mindset should apply today for a re-purchase. BUT not a 'freebie'.
@ crazyhorse
Posted on 10-02-2018 01:50 | By waxing
I have done the work for you on this and have answered it in last week's comments.
Murray Guy, clearly you are in the dark,
Posted on 10-02-2018 15:41 | By R. Bell
There is an excellent work by Cathy Marr and others entitled " Public Works Taking of Maori land" I suggest you read it. You will find that the " taking " of Maori land for purposes unrelated to those given was common practice. The legislative right to take up to 5% of Maori land WITHOUT compensation and that the Public Works Act 1882 began a new pattern of separate "taking" of Maori land that were harsh and vindictive. The attitude that Maori land was rarely worth compensation endured until at least 1928, some would say it persists to this day. Robin Bell.
Carcass
Posted on 11-02-2018 13:25 | By Carcass
One pound per acre was paid for Panepane and Purakau in separate parcels of land 1923 in compensation to the owners.It was unstable land and to plant it in pine trees was to stable the harbour entrance.We all benefit from this. As for R Bell forget get his story telling as none of it is true.
Value for money, carcass and Murray.
Posted on 12-02-2018 12:43 | By R. Bell
The price that ruled in 1923 is easily confirmed. Poor land sold for around 16 pounds per acre. Developed farm land ranged from 40 to 100 pounds per acre. It seems that yet again Maori were ripped off, if, carcass tells the truth. 95yrs is about 4 rotations of pine plantation. Nice if you can get it. Robin Bell.
Carcass
Posted on 12-02-2018 13:42 | By waxing
Firstly what is your source for the price you allege was paid for Panepane and Purakau? Secondly, if you are are going to allege that the "story telling" by R Bell is untrue, what are you sources for this wild allegation?
@ R Bell
Posted on 13-02-2018 13:38 | By waxing
Except that up to and including the date of acquisition of Panepane Point, there was largely no compensation paid for Maori land compulsorily acquired.
Yes waxing,
Posted on 13-02-2018 15:43 | By R. Bell
it's also true that in the event that Maori owners were hard to trace, a simple notice attached to a tree or building was all that was required for " ownership" to change hands. Sad really. Cheers, Robin Bell.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.