Maori land - Ownership

Maori land - Ownership

We are currently hearing much commentary from some Maori in relation to ownership of land in New Zealand.

The fact is that land in New Zealand held under Māori Title is now approximately 6 per cent of the total land mass.

The commentary seems to be making the inference that this has come about because the land was taken from their ancestors and there was something untoward in the fact that Maori have ended up with only 6 percent of the land in New Zealand under Maori title.

So let’s actually look at the full facts of the issue in relation to Maori land ownership.

New Zealand has a total land area of around 26-million hectares.

About 1.3-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s as a consequence of tribal rebellion; approximately 5% of the total land area.

There were complaints at that time, and the confiscations were investigated. As a result of those investigations a total of 646,774 hectares were returned, which left 651,793 hectares that remained confiscated (approximately 2.5% of the total land area).

To be quite clear, the confiscations were legal, a consequence of rebellion and had been carried out under two pieces of legislation passed in 1863 -- the Suppression of Rebellion Act and the New Zealand Settlements Act.

Fast forward to today. Approximately 1.47 million hectares are currently classified as Maori land, and this includes customary land.

So, since Maori owned most of New Zealand’s 26 million hectares in 1840 when the treaty of Waitangi was signed, 1.47 million hectares remain as Maori land, with around 0.6 million hectares remaining confiscated, what happened to the remaining 24 million hectares?

It was sold.

Maori vendors sold a whopping 92 percent of the land area of New Zealand for all sorts of reasons, but mainly, that it was more in their interest to sell than to hold on to it, which is much the same choice made by any ownership group of any asset.

A myth has grown over the years since 1973, when Nga Tamatoa protesters disrupted Waitangi Day by wearing black armbands mourned the loss of the entire land area of New Zealand.

That myth is that since the 1800s, Maori “lost” most of their land.

But as we have seen, apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated, and apart from surplus land retained by the Crown, Maori vendors sold land at mutually agreed prices over a long period of time.

There is a world of difference between losing something and selling it.

While they say that the Maori position has been diminished by the loss of the large percentage of their land, but the fact of the matter is that this has come about by the actions of their predecessors who sold the majority of their land.

Though they may have sold it for what would be considered today, as a paltry amount, at the time of the sale they were receiving the going rates and it is not possible to expect any type of redress due to the increase in values since the time of sale.

To even suggest such a thing is nothing short of ludicrous. It would be like me trying to ask for a further payment for a vehicle that I sold some forty years ago, because it is now worth a hugely increased value.

On this basis it doesn’t matter how they would feel about only having 6% of the land under Maori ownership simply due to the fact that their ancestors sold the land of their own free will and if they feel somehow diminished because of that fact then blame their ancestors.

Those Maori, who are making the claims that they have lost their land and they should have it returned, should have to justify this claim. Explain why they believe that they deserve to have their land given back to them or even why they should be given first right of refusal on sales of surplus government land holdings.

Why should the taxpayers of New Zealand have to subsidise them to regain ownership of land that in the main their ancestors willingly sold.

If they are to regain ownership of the land then they should have to bid for that right in a competitive bid process where all bids are treated as equal unless they can produce irrefutable evidence that the land in question was in fact unlawfully taken from their ancestors.