Return Panepane Point

The recent constructed arguments against the return of Panepane Point to its previous owners (SunLive, January 26) need some examination.

N Mayo, finds it "hard to believe" that the WBOPDC is negotiating the return of 200ha of land. How so? The land in question was taken for a specific reason i.e. port development.

It was never used for the reasons given. It cannot be considered a public asset, even though ‘ownership’ currently rests with WBOPDC – shades of the Raglan golf course.

C Humphreys attempts to justify continued seizure by comparing this case to “land taken all over the country" for development infrastructure. The most obvious difference being no development. Surely that is obvious to all. R Paterson claims "Maori just want to own it" and that it only came into their vision in 2011. Complete and utter nonsense. They have lived there for almost 900 years. It is their land, return it.  

R Bell, Omanawa.


33 Comments

Compensation

Posted on 15-02-2018 19:42 | By waxing

As I have said before, it is not unusual at all for no compensation to have been paid at all for collective land taken under the Public Works Act at that time. For confirmation, contact Ngaraima Taingahue at rangiwaeaisland@gmail.com.

still around

Posted on 15-02-2018 17:21 | By tutae.kuri

Waxing has stated that no compensation was paid. Would you kindly substantiate that claim ? That does surprise me as strictly speaking, if 5% of Maori land could be taken with no compensation, how was a whole block taken like that ? 200 hectares being 5% of a 4000 hectare block ? The whole 200 ha was one block. If there was no compensation then I have to agree that it was a pretty unjust move from today’s point of view. Waxing will have to substantiate the claim first before I change my mind though.

Where have they gone?

Posted on 15-02-2018 12:38 | By R. Bell

waxing. Seems a few tito have been told. Always the same culprits. Robin Bell.

Original owners and their compensation

Posted on 14-02-2018 16:20 | By waxing

The original Maori collective owners at the time of compulsory acquisition were families connected to five hapu - Tuwhiwhia, Ngati Tauaiti, Ngai Tamawhariua, Tauwhao and Te Ngare; all under the umbrella of their iwi Ngai-te-rangi. No compensation whatsoever was paid for the Public Works Act acquisition, as was so common with collective Maori land at the time.

Comparing Apples with apples, tutae.

Posted on 14-02-2018 08:45 | By R. Bell

Give me a break!! We are talking about 1923 not 1946.The years between those dates contained, 1. the great depression, and two the second world war, both impacting on land values. I refer you to a letter in Papers past by ex M.P. Mr E. Newman in 1923 to the Dominion. You will find my figures are accurate. As for your erroneous opinion that 200 hts at Panepane had no other use, forestry is a lucrative business as you know. So is housing development, just cast your eyes across the entrance to see what can be done on similar land. Robin Bell.

R Bell

Posted on 13-02-2018 16:53 | By tutae.kuri

Look, you are still in difficulty and need to compare apples with apples. In 1946 my family was paid 41 pounds per acre for a going concern dairy farm, we still have the receipts and agreement from the Crown.In 1958 I paid 3 pounds 2 shillings and sixpence per acre for some cut over bush which was completely undeveloped.Scrub land in the area, also undeveloped, was available for 6 pounds per acre which recognised the fact that it was easier to develop than the bush country.Your Panepane point was only useful for the purpose it was purchased for so I believe 1 pound per acre was a pretty fair price at the time and for the only purpose it could be used for.I still believe that you and waxing should retire from and give up on this subject.

@ crazyhorse

Posted on 13-02-2018 13:29 | By waxing

So if it is so easy, do your own homework

Tutae kuri, retirement is rarely gracefull.

Posted on 13-02-2018 08:30 | By R. Bell

Now is not the time. If carcass is correct then 1 pound per acre proves the point that Maori were treated differently to Pakeha. By your own admission your land was paid for at gov’t valuation. The going rate in for poor land in 1923 was 16 pounds per acre. Gov’t valuation would probably less, but, "16 times less", give us a break. Perhaps a good compromise would be to value the land at 16 times less than current valuation. Robin Bell.

waxing

Posted on 12-02-2018 16:36 | By tutae.kuri

A post by carcass states that the original owners of Panepane point were paid 1 pound per acre, old money for the land in 1923. If this is correct, then yours and R bell’s argument is out the door I am afraid.The land was all used for forestry in order to stabilise the land for the harbour entrance. I do not know this personally, however, I did ask you guys to tell us whether the land was paid for properly. To date there has been no answer.I do think you have picked an unwinnable argument and should retire gracefully.

Bell there are a number of Hapu,

Posted on 12-02-2018 13:35 | By crazyhorse

But only one iwi, still haven’t answered the question, who "owns" Matakana, whose name, names were on the deed that would have been signed when it was taken under the public works act, why is this so hard to find out, one would think that there was no legal paperwork concerning owners of Matakana.

@tutae kuri

Posted on 11-02-2018 16:01 | By waxing

I’m not connected with the iwi of Matakana Island. I am only concerned with natural justice. I’m pleased you were paid for your land near Taupo in 1946. But there is a clearly established record of Maori not being compensated when their land was compulsorily acquired. The timing of the Panepane Point land acquisition and the purpose of its acquisition "justifying" no compensation is a perfect example of this. If you think that it is OK for national or local government to then make money out of land that was not paid for and not used for the purpose it was acquired, then you are very generous. The Crown still has compulsorily acquired land in Wellington that it now makes millions out of commercial leases. Perhaps I could get them to acquire more of your land and let me lease any they don’t use?

Crazyhorse, there are a number of Hapu,

Posted on 11-02-2018 12:56 | By R. Bell

but only one IWI on Matakana. I suggest you educate yourself, before pontificating. Robin Bell.

What is your point R Bell ?

Posted on 11-02-2018 12:23 | By tutae.kuri

Panepane point land is a separate block. Was it paid for or what? Until you can give a factual answer, you have no argument.

Tutae.kuri you seem blissfully unaware,

Posted on 11-02-2018 09:22 | By R. Bell

that Maori land was treated totally different to General Land. From the 1860s until the 1970s Maori land was viewed as less important than Pakeha owned land. In fact until the Public Works Amendment Act of 1928 up to 5% of Maori owned land was able to be taken WITHOUT any compensation. The land at Panepane point was taken in 1923 and amounts to less than 5% of the total land area of Matakana Island. Go figure. Robin Bell.

waxing

Posted on 10-02-2018 15:06 | By tutae.kuri

From several of your last posts, it appears that your main interest surrounds getting your hands on past, present and future earnings from this piece of land. Your whole argument is shrouded in mumbo jumbo designed to cloud the issue.The real point is that the land is now owned by the WBOPDC and they are entitled to the proceeds from the land without interference fro you or anyone else..Should they wish to dispose of the land, they will still be under the constraints of the Act and should be required to offer back to the original owners at Govt Valuation.If the original owners decline the offer, it may be offered to the wider Public.Can’t see you getting your hands on it for nothing though waxing, good try though!

But Waxo

Posted on 10-02-2018 13:10 | By crazyhorse

Who are the original owners, who’s name or names were on the title when it was taken under the public works act, there are different iwi on Matakana, who are the rightful owners?.

@ crazyhorse: ownership of Panepane Point

Posted on 09-02-2018 19:17 | By waxing

Seems like we have to do all the work for you again, but at least it means some factual accuracy. In 1877, the Tauranga Lands Commission under the Tauranga District Lands Act 1867/68 determined the title to the Panepane block (known as Lot 13 Katikati Parish). It remained in Maori ownership until compulsorily acquired in December 1922. On 1 July 1976, the majority of the Panepane block (planted in exotics) was leased to NZ Forest Products Limited for 50 years. In 1994, the lease was transferred to Rayonier New Zealand Limited. In 1989, ownership of the Panepane block was transferred to the Western Bay of Plenty District Council. The Government declined to transfer it to the new Port of Tauranga Limited. Your last comment is simply silly and fatuous, telling us more about you and your biased emotional attitudes to Maori than anything else.

@ crazyhorse

Posted on 09-02-2018 18:35 | By waxing

Perhaps you would care to elaborate and give specific examples rather than your wild generalisations?

Bell answers my question

Posted on 08-02-2018 19:38 | By crazyhorse

Ahh another case of co-governance, they take ownership or the same as and "we" pay for it, pathetic.

95 years on....

Posted on 08-02-2018 16:19 | By waxing

You cannot acquire land under the Public Works Act without knowing what it will be used for. If it is not used for that purpose, you cannot hold it for 95 years on the basis of undefined talk about future use. The original owners have a legitimate claim for the monies made by the Harbour Board and now the WBOPDC from the forestry leasing that most of the land taken has been used for. You can’t take private land for use as a public beach. Up to the high water mark is already owned by the Crown and available for public use. Anymore is by benevolence. The small area used for navigational lights would still be used for that purpose. Maori ownership of Mauo hasn’t changed any of this, nor has the co-governance arrangement with TCC. In fact, things like water supply to fight fires have been improved.

To answer your question crazyhorse,

Posted on 08-02-2018 10:20 | By R. Bell

unlike your procrastination. In my humble opinion a fair settlement would be along the lines given by waxing. Any monies paid to the owners in 1923 has long been recouped by lease agreements to forestry companies. Co-management works well, and protects the legitimate interests of all parties. Robin Bell.

R Bell

Posted on 08-02-2018 10:00 | By tutae.kuri

Your argument is supposition. Why don’t you ask the Harbour board and WBOP Council what their future plans are and while you are about it, ask them what the original price paid was. I pointed out that Govt was paying reasonable prices in 1931 which you dismissed. I assume that while the land was taken under the Act, the price paid was usually willing buyer and seller based. Was it taken under duress ? If not, I cannot see where this whole argument is going ?

Bell

Posted on 08-02-2018 09:49 | By crazyhorse

I said if the land was taken under the public works act money should have changed hands Kiwi’s who have land taken get paid they might not agree with the amount but they get paid, who are the actual owners of Matakana, if the recieved no compensation, why, stranger all the time this becomes, the Matakana mob know how to work the system proved that when the Rena ran aground filled with Kona,lol.

Tutae.kuri,

Posted on 08-02-2018 08:35 | By R. Bell

You couple me with waxing, thank you. First of all. If the Harbour Board had any plans for future development they would not have gifted said land to WBOPC. 2. Your own experiences are irrelevant in this instance.My question to crazyhorse has not been answered, telling me that he ( and probably you ) has no idea whether any money was actually paid over. If the stated "use" for this land is unfulfilled it is immoral to retain it after 95 yrs of misuse. Let the negotiations be successful. Robin Bell.

Ok Bell

Posted on 07-02-2018 18:27 | By crazyhorse

So you’re saying when Matakana was taken under the public works act they weren’t paid for it?, So if this land is handed back, who is it actually as in iwi gets it and what do you think would be a fair "settlement"?.

waxing and Bell

Posted on 07-02-2018 17:55 | By tutae.kuri

Firstly, neither of you seem to know whether the land in question has fulfilled the reasons for being purchased in the first place. As I said earlier, the Harbour Board may have plans for the future. Who knows, it could be still many years in the future?The price paid in 1923 has no relevance today as it would have been the then Govt Valuation. Neither does the disposition between Crown Entities have any relevance. I had some land near Taupo which was purchased from Maori ownership by the Railways Dept in 1931. The price paid was 33,000 pounds, old money. A big price in that year when the Depression was in full swing. I bought it for considerably less in 1958 after logging operations.Waxing"s argument about co governance would be theft from the taxpayer, in my opinion.

@ crazyhorse

Posted on 07-02-2018 16:19 | By waxing

While I’m not surprised at your complete misinterpretation of my comments, I will try and explain them to you again.Firstly, where have I said just give Panepane Point back? Secondly, a sale and purchase agreement is normally where cash is paid. An agreement or settlement can instead include non-cash items (eg co-governance arrangements). Is this too difficult to understand?

O.K. Crazyhorse,

Posted on 07-02-2018 15:33 | By R. Bell

Tell everyone just how much Matakana Maori were paid out, when they were "relieved" of 180Hs of land in 1923. Don’t be shy. While your at it tell us how much WBOPDC paid for it when they took over " ownership" Just asking the expert. Robin Bell.

Race based obsession

Posted on 07-02-2018 14:56 | By crazyhorse

Great example of the culturally hypnotised here campers Waxo is now saying not just give Matakana back there needs to be a "settlement" made, they have actually been paid out once have they not?.

@tutae.kuri

Posted on 05-02-2018 20:38 | By waxing

There is absolutely nothing in discussions to date that undermines the original use under which the land was acquired (albeit only a very small fraction of it used for) - i.e. navigational harbour lighting. There is also absolutely nothing that says negotiations re its return to its original owners can’t be part of some sort of agreement/settlement other than sale and purchase.

R Bell unaware of the Rules

Posted on 04-02-2018 17:35 | By tutae.kuri

R Bell again shows ignorance of the rules.Our Farm, near Paekakariki was taken under the Public Works Act in 1946 for roading purposes.It took the Govt 70 years to finally do the work proposed. It was, however, paid for at Govt Valuation at the time. We did make a move to recover the land in the 1960’s and it was mooted that if it was offered back, a Current Valuation would be used.Panapane Point may still be part of the Harbour Planning. My understanding is that the land in question was taken, and paid for in 1923, therefore, the disposition of it is subject to the same rules as anyone else, namely, to be offered back to the original owners at CURRENT VALUATION.Everyone subject to the same rules please!!

Silly comment

Posted on 03-02-2018 16:16 | By waxing

What a silly comment. Can’t you deal with the truth? If you want a discussion, raise your counter argument sensibly and rationally. Or is it that there is no sensible and rational objection?

carcass

Posted on 03-02-2018 09:04 | By Carcass

R Bellmust have dreams every night

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now
Opinion Poll

What do you think about businesses rejecting people’s job applications if they have tattoos?

I think it’s fine. Companies should be able to do what is right for their business.
They shouldn’t be able to discriminate someone for having tattoos.
I guess it depends where the tattoo is.

VOTE
VIEW RESULTS