Peter Dey (2/8/13) appears to be plucking figures out of the air when he says more than $100-million worth of Tauranga land was confiscated in 1865. Remember, the confiscated land was largely unimproved so did not have the value that settler capital and labour added to it.
The entire Tauranga district, estimated at 290,000 acres (117,359 hectares), was included in a confiscation proclamation issued in1865. The Crown returned 240,000 acres (97,125ha) but kept a 50,000-acre (20,234ha) area.
Land was selling for £1 per acre in 1865. Therefore, that 50,000-acre block would be worth £50,000. The Reserve Bank inflation calculator puts that figure at $4,813,650.65 today, although the actual value of the land could be considerably higher depending on the land use and demand for it.
Dey goes on to say that it was 'an unjustified $100-million windfall”. Dey forgets that the confiscation was clearly justified as being the consequence of fighting against the government --which was regarded as a breach of the treaty in those days.
I'm not sure what Dey bases his claim that the windfall 'has been worth more than $2-million a year to the Government and New Zealand citizens from 1865 until last year”. The rent of a run was around two shillings per acre per year in 1865. Therefore, Tauranga's 50,000 acres would have brought in £5000 a year, or $481,365 in today's dollars.
Dey should explain exactly which taxpayers are benefiting from the confiscated 50,000 acres so we can all see who should pay for it, if in fact anyone should be paying anything. I'm a taxpayer, I have never benefited from the 50,000 acres in Tauranga, but I assume that I am contributing towards this settlement, against my will.
There are a few other gaps of logic and information in Dey's argument, such as current ownership of the 50,000 acres. If Dey is so enthusiastic about these settlements, he is most welcome to pay for them, but leave me out, I do not wish to contribute.
Anyway, pondering who should foot the bill for treaty settlements assumes such settlements should be made.
A closer look at our brief history shows that settlements have been made repeatedly for alleged grievances. Moreover, the current round of 'settlements” includes trumped-up payments to descendents of people who had no complaint whatsoever.
Mike Butler, Hastings.
9 comments
Air Plucking
Posted on 14-08-2013 14:24 | By Fonzie
Peter Dey plucks lots of things out of the air He never comes up with valid facts Probably goes down well in certain company however
NO INVENTED INFORMATION JUST COMMON SENSE
Posted on 14-08-2013 17:27 | By Peter Dey
Mike Butler and Fonzie seem to be lacking in common sense. Compensation is always based on current value. Current value for 1 hectare of BOP farmland is about $40,000. The value of 20,000 hectares is $800 million. $100 million is a conservative estimate. Mike Butler comes up with a figure of $4 million. This would be $200 a hectare. Mike Butler has lost the plot.
Peters values ...
Posted on 14-08-2013 22:07 | By Plonker
It is not about the values Peter, it is about the basis of the claims and they are false, when you get up to speed with that then you will realize the errors of your words to date. I would suggest that you read Mike Butlers book ... if you still don't get it then read it again.
PLONKER HAS NO PROOF OF TAURANGA TREATY FRAUD
Posted on 15-08-2013 08:06 | By Peter Dey
Plonker, the Waitangi Tribunal report on Tauranga land confiscation is available online. Nobody, including Plonker, has produced any credible contradiction of the report. When Plonker describes the Tauranga claims as false he is simply mouthing without any evidence to back up his claim.
MIKE BUTLER'S HISTORY IS HALF-TRUTH
Posted on 15-08-2013 08:32 | By Peter Dey
Mike Butler ignores the fact that in 1865 Maori did not want to sell land, and the Government had to use the army to force Maori to sell. The Government had no money to pay the army so they would have had to borrow the equivalent today of hundreds of millions of dollars to do this and also buy land. A conservative 2% interest on $100 million borrowed is $2 million a year. This is what taxpayers have saved every year since 1865 when $100 million worth of land was confiscated to pay the army through settlement grants.
THE TAURANGA CONFISCATION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED
Posted on 15-08-2013 09:04 | By Peter Dey
Mike butler states that the Tauranga land confiscation was justified as being the consequence of fighting against the Government which was regarded as a breach of the Treaty in those days. Mike Butler ignores the Tauranga-Moana Waitangi Tribunal report which makes it clear that the confiscation was not justified and that the people evicted were not the people who did any fighting.
MAORI PAID EVERY TAXPAYER BENEFITS
Posted on 15-08-2013 09:40 | By Peter Dey
Mike Butler says he has never benefited from the 50,000 acres confiscated in Tauranga. As I have pointed out, because the Government at the time benefited from the confiscation, the asset that it gained has benefited every Government and taxpayer since that time. The Tauranga tribe paid for the confiscation by their loss. So Tauranga Maori paid for the confiscation and every taxpayer since, including Mike Butler, has benefited and still benefits. This is because compensation paid is far less than 100% of the value lost.
ONLY UNFAIR SETTLEMENTS HAVE BEEN REPEATED
Posted on 16-08-2013 09:49 | By Peter Dey
Mike Butler's reference to repeated Treaty settlements is another half-truth. In Tauranga there was a Treaty settlement of $250,000 paid in 1981 for land worth about $100 million at the time. This was 0.25% compensation. Maori were told to take it or leave it. A repeat claim is perfectly reasonable after such unfair compensation. Mike Butler has never found any credible fault with the Ngati Ranginui settlement.
THE CROWN WAS NOT FREE TO DISREGARD ITS OWN LAWS
Posted on 17-08-2013 12:55 | By Peter Dey
When the Crown signed the treaty of Waitangi they got the right to govern New Zealand. They did not get the right to disregard their own laws, and deprive Maori of the rights of British citizens. When the Crown confiscated Maori land they disregarded individual Maori rights. Mike Butler thinks that was ok. Professional historians and governments now think it was not ok.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.