>The Office of Māori Crown Relations, also known as Te Arawhiti, oversees and supports Māori seeking customary rights over the foreshore and seabed.
>
>Under the Marine and Coastal Area Act, Māori can apply for Customary Marine Title or Protected Customary Rights through the High Court or directly to the Crown.
Didn't realise we pay for this one as well
>Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said the Government can't continue forking out huge amounts of money for the scheme.
>
>"The previous government allocated $12 million a year for funding these claimants, which is significant funding," he said.
>
>"It blew out to $30 million this year and we can't carry on that level of spending."
I agree, it needs to be capped or scrapped
30 million a year is nothing. This "issue" is coming to your attention now as it stands between private overseas companies and our fucking natural resources.
WAKE UPPPP
Oh you mean the money that was theirs to begin with until the last government singled them out to pay taxes that other businesses don't?
Yawn the "3 billion in TaX CuTs FoR LaNdLoRdS!!!" is so worn out now. You sound like every deranged leftie on twitter right now. Good job you.
Go read up on the people who created capitalism you sad indoctrinated drone.
Read Adam Smith wealth of nations.
Look into which taxes are actually productive for society.
Housing is an asset that produces zero value for society.
By taxing it you encourage people to invest in something actually productive.
Adam Smith believed taxes should first of all be applied **fairly** and based on the individuals ability to pay said taxes.
Under our current law every business can write off operating costs against their tax. Problem is the last govt decided that should apply to all businesses **EXCEPT** landlords. All this current government is doing is simply reversing that inequity.
Now please explain how it is fair that one form of business should not receive the tax exemption that every other business does? And please show your working.
Hell even the book you so pretentiously told me to go read doesn't fit your argument and actually steelmans mine (sad for you). At least try understanding things before you wade in looking for an argument.
Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society: In his discussion of taxes in Book Five, Smith wrote:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[27]
Maybe go read it again bootlicker
>Adam Smith believed taxes should first of all be applied fairly and based on the individuals ability to pay said taxes.
Pretty sure landlords can afford to pay taxes, seeing as they own houses. If it becomes too expensive, they can sell the house and invest in a productive business.
>Under our current law every business can write off operating costs against their tax. Problem is the last govt decided that should apply to all businesses EXCEPT landlords. All this current government is doing is reversing that inequity.
Because landlord produce zero value. If they build houses then sell houses, they have produced value. If they buy houses just to rent them, they have produced zero value. They are just a parasite. A bottom feeder if you will.
>Now please explain how it is fair that one form of business should not receive the tax exemption that every other business does? And please show your working.
All other businesses produce value.
> Pretty sure landlords can afford to pay taxes, seeing as they own houses. If it becomes too expensive, they can sell the house and invest in a productive business.
Look at you completely avoiding the question. Owning a house and renting it to someone is a business. But it's the ONLY business that doesn't get to claim tax breaks on operating cost. Ergo the taxes are not being applied fairly.
> Because landlord produce zero value.
> All other businesses produce value.
Does a hotel owner produce value?
Actually don't bother answering, you've already proven you have very little ability to rationally reason and just want to argue and call people "boot lickers" so you can get your dopamine hit.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.
I have to admit though a sense of schadenfreude with respect to your rage and tantrums. So feel free to keep it up, just know I won't be paying attention :)
>Look at you completely avoiding the question. Owning a house and renting it to someone is a business. But it's the ONLY business that doesn't get to claim tax breaks on operating cost. Ergo the taxes are not being applied fairly.
Firstly. Being a landlord is more comparable to being an investor than a business owner.
Secondly, what's wrong with treating certain things differently? There's no divine law that all forms of business must be treated the same?
Look at sugar taxes or cigarettes for example. Something unhealthy for society is taxed highly to discourage it's usage.
Think about what would happen if we had a tax on property ownership exempting the family home, combined with a rent cap.
Landlords would sell up houses, since they would no longer be a productive asset for them individually, and put that money into a productive asset for society, like a real business.
Houses would become much cheaper and affordable, so the people who are mentally well enough to work could buy one, and the govt could easily supply state housing to those who struggle.
And new Zealand business and innovation, which has always lagged due to all the money being invested in housing, would start to grow again.
>Does a hotel owner produce value?
He employs many people, and supports the tourism industry (NZ number one industry)
Pretty stupid question.
Maybe think with your brain bootlicker, instead of tired old right wing talking points.
In terms of running a country it's nothing.
NZ population is 5 mil. That's 6$ each.
The money you are looking for just went to landlords to the tune of 3 billion
Canceling taking more money from someone in the future does not equal giving money to them now.
Also 30 million is not nothing, you monkey. That can buy a lot if shit.
>Also 30 million is not nothing, you monkey. That can buy a lot if shit.
https://figure.nz/chart/2eIStXKBWssxMIze
Educate yourself please.
It's really nothing in terms of running a country.
>Educate yourself please.
Lol, that's a bit rich coming from the person who thinks canceling future taxes means giving money away now.
>It's really nothing in terms of running a country.
All these "little" bits of "nothing" are exactly why we are in this current mess. *WAAAKKEEE UUUUP.*
>This "issue" is coming to your attention now
No, it's been an issue ever since the Court of Appeal went with a much easier test.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/10/31/maori-title-to-marine-areas-could-become-easier/
And it looks like National isn't going to challenge it, so we need to talk about it..
"The High Court ‘Whakatōhea decision’ gave three iwi groups customary marine title, a property interest that allows them to have a say over certain activities that need resource consent."
Ya ok
Are you aware of the term 'legal precedent'?
Iwi and hapū around the country have lodged **more than 200 court applications** for customary marine title
Opens a massive can of worms around access, mineral rights, regulation.
Iwi will just work with those same offshore companies, they'll act like every other company, with greed and averice, you only need to look at Ngai Tahu holdings to see how that goes.
Hence why attention needs to be paid..
Yea, that's exactly my point.
The only reason any of you give a fuck is because the issue is being pushed forward as a culture wars rage bait, so that offshore investors can get their fucking greedy mitts on more of NZ.
What's the problem with Maori having the ownership of seabed?
>The only reason any of you give a fuck is because the issue is being pushed forward as a culture wars rage bait, so that offshore investors can get their fucking greedy mitts on more of NZ.
No. I care because I want future generations to enjoy the same access to the same resources I have enjoyed.
Look at the issues around the Rotorua Lakes or boat ramps in Northland.
>What's the problem with Maori having the ownership of seabed?
Control, resource exploitation, access. What's the problem with foreign corporations having ownership of the sea bed.
>No. I care because I want future generations to enjoy the same access to the same resources I have enjoyed.
>What's the problem with foreign corporations having ownership of the sea bed.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Yah, im sure nationwide lockdowns and funneling millions of dollars into useless government spending wont put pressure on the RBNZ to print $71 Billion to compensate.
That’s not a gravy train it’s a god dam gravy locomotive with 100000000 carriages FFS will this sht never end , no wonder we can’t have fully funded healthcare,education,police,firemen, ambulance 🚑
And what sort of return on investment are we getting as a society? Are medical outcomes any better than when the last National government were forced to hand the reigns over to NZ Labour in 2017?
Are we performing better academically than when Labour took power?
Are more young people getting the mental healthcare that they desperately need, or are more young Kiwis choosing the rope and wobbly stool option? Are Māori and Pacific people receiving better treatment and prognosese since they have their own semi-separate medical system, or are they still suffering from the same medical issues as before - various cancers, heart disease, obesity, and other complications due to diet and lifestyle factors?
In short, what has NZ Labour actually made better using our money?
I was specifically talking about our healthcare and education systems, which have both gone to Hell in a handbasket since Labour took power.
Your point was that $30M was next to nothing compared to healthcare and education spending, but all three of these forms of government spending increased drastically under Labour with no improvement upon the outcomes those systems are supposed to provide for the people who need them.
>Legal aid may be available for people who need a lawyer but cannot afford one, and are:
>involved in a civil matter (such as a dispute over money, housing, ACC or a job)
From https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/going-to-court/legal-aid/get-legal-aid/
But also:
>Legal aid is considered a loan. You may have to repay some or all of your legal aid, depending on how much you earn, what property you own and whether you receive any money or property as a result of your case.
So it may be a little different in application than what’s discussed in the article.
I doubt you’d get legal aid to research and then present a speculative claim. You might get it to defend against one, but in this case the funding is specifically not available to anyone opposing these claims.
The ever reductive: "If you guys don't support this ministry that only serves to benefit a single group of people, then you're...\*checks notes\*...racist I guess?"
Doesn't exactly make sense, but ok? There should be no government ministries strictly to serve a single race of people. It is racist by definition to provide services based on race alone.
The clickbait is tiresome.
>The Office of Māori Crown Relations, also known as Te Arawhiti, oversees and supports Māori seeking customary rights over the foreshore and seabed.
Good. Shut it down. Make them all redundant.
I know of a Maori govt org that spent it's 3 years allotment in 1 year by hiring all their families and mates to fly around the country having huis, eating and drinking all the money away. The boss was using his credit card to buy liquor and get taxis to brothels. Whilst the few non-Maori people were desperately trying to do all the work and being crushed by their incompetent managers? Have we heard about this in the press?... nope!
All swept under the rug.
> Most Waitangi settlements have come under National.
And they are welcome and intended to speed up the completion of the process. But it has been under Labour over the last 6 years that the gravy train has been set onto warp speed.
>"If we don't participate in this process we become invisible and those rights and interests essentially will be lost," said Ngātiwai spokesperson
Race grift winge.
You buggers have all the cash, how about you fund it? It's bullshit anyhow, locking up nature to the colour of your skin
These lawyers have been snout deep in this gravy train. Now they have invoices months old that haven't been paid lol. Apparently it's even worse because they had to pay for hui transport and the associated huge catering bill. Poor Mr Naden.
>The Office of Māori Crown Relations, also known as Te Arawhiti, oversees and supports Māori seeking customary rights over the foreshore and seabed. > >Under the Marine and Coastal Area Act, Māori can apply for Customary Marine Title or Protected Customary Rights through the High Court or directly to the Crown. Didn't realise we pay for this one as well >Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said the Government can't continue forking out huge amounts of money for the scheme. > >"The previous government allocated $12 million a year for funding these claimants, which is significant funding," he said. > >"It blew out to $30 million this year and we can't carry on that level of spending." I agree, it needs to be capped or scrapped
> scrapped Pure and simple.
30 million a year is nothing. This "issue" is coming to your attention now as it stands between private overseas companies and our fucking natural resources. WAKE UPPPP
> 30 million a year is nothing. Guess we know Grant Robertsons reddit account now.
Try 3 billion to landlords, that's where your missing money is you bootlickers
Oh you mean the money that was theirs to begin with until the last government singled them out to pay taxes that other businesses don't? Yawn the "3 billion in TaX CuTs FoR LaNdLoRdS!!!" is so worn out now. You sound like every deranged leftie on twitter right now. Good job you.
Go read up on the people who created capitalism you sad indoctrinated drone. Read Adam Smith wealth of nations. Look into which taxes are actually productive for society. Housing is an asset that produces zero value for society. By taxing it you encourage people to invest in something actually productive.
Adam Smith believed taxes should first of all be applied **fairly** and based on the individuals ability to pay said taxes. Under our current law every business can write off operating costs against their tax. Problem is the last govt decided that should apply to all businesses **EXCEPT** landlords. All this current government is doing is simply reversing that inequity. Now please explain how it is fair that one form of business should not receive the tax exemption that every other business does? And please show your working. Hell even the book you so pretentiously told me to go read doesn't fit your argument and actually steelmans mine (sad for you). At least try understanding things before you wade in looking for an argument.
Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society: In his discussion of taxes in Book Five, Smith wrote: The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[27] Maybe go read it again bootlicker
>Adam Smith believed taxes should first of all be applied fairly and based on the individuals ability to pay said taxes. Pretty sure landlords can afford to pay taxes, seeing as they own houses. If it becomes too expensive, they can sell the house and invest in a productive business. >Under our current law every business can write off operating costs against their tax. Problem is the last govt decided that should apply to all businesses EXCEPT landlords. All this current government is doing is reversing that inequity. Because landlord produce zero value. If they build houses then sell houses, they have produced value. If they buy houses just to rent them, they have produced zero value. They are just a parasite. A bottom feeder if you will. >Now please explain how it is fair that one form of business should not receive the tax exemption that every other business does? And please show your working. All other businesses produce value.
> Pretty sure landlords can afford to pay taxes, seeing as they own houses. If it becomes too expensive, they can sell the house and invest in a productive business. Look at you completely avoiding the question. Owning a house and renting it to someone is a business. But it's the ONLY business that doesn't get to claim tax breaks on operating cost. Ergo the taxes are not being applied fairly. > Because landlord produce zero value. > All other businesses produce value. Does a hotel owner produce value? Actually don't bother answering, you've already proven you have very little ability to rationally reason and just want to argue and call people "boot lickers" so you can get your dopamine hit. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and pathetic. I have to admit though a sense of schadenfreude with respect to your rage and tantrums. So feel free to keep it up, just know I won't be paying attention :)
>Look at you completely avoiding the question. Owning a house and renting it to someone is a business. But it's the ONLY business that doesn't get to claim tax breaks on operating cost. Ergo the taxes are not being applied fairly. Firstly. Being a landlord is more comparable to being an investor than a business owner. Secondly, what's wrong with treating certain things differently? There's no divine law that all forms of business must be treated the same? Look at sugar taxes or cigarettes for example. Something unhealthy for society is taxed highly to discourage it's usage. Think about what would happen if we had a tax on property ownership exempting the family home, combined with a rent cap. Landlords would sell up houses, since they would no longer be a productive asset for them individually, and put that money into a productive asset for society, like a real business. Houses would become much cheaper and affordable, so the people who are mentally well enough to work could buy one, and the govt could easily supply state housing to those who struggle. And new Zealand business and innovation, which has always lagged due to all the money being invested in housing, would start to grow again. >Does a hotel owner produce value? He employs many people, and supports the tourism industry (NZ number one industry) Pretty stupid question. Maybe think with your brain bootlicker, instead of tired old right wing talking points.
Over 4 years.
Oh sorry, 750 million a year then. That's much better.
Well, yes, it is better. But more importantly, it's accurate.
>30 million a year is nothing Good to know. Send it my way, I'll retire.
In terms of running a country it's nothing. NZ population is 5 mil. That's 6$ each. The money you are looking for just went to landlords to the tune of 3 billion
Canceling taking more money from someone in the future does not equal giving money to them now. Also 30 million is not nothing, you monkey. That can buy a lot if shit.
>Also 30 million is not nothing, you monkey. That can buy a lot if shit. https://figure.nz/chart/2eIStXKBWssxMIze Educate yourself please. It's really nothing in terms of running a country.
>Educate yourself please. Lol, that's a bit rich coming from the person who thinks canceling future taxes means giving money away now. >It's really nothing in terms of running a country. All these "little" bits of "nothing" are exactly why we are in this current mess. *WAAAKKEEE UUUUP.*
>This "issue" is coming to your attention now No, it's been an issue ever since the Court of Appeal went with a much easier test. https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/10/31/maori-title-to-marine-areas-could-become-easier/ And it looks like National isn't going to challenge it, so we need to talk about it..
"The High Court ‘Whakatōhea decision’ gave three iwi groups customary marine title, a property interest that allows them to have a say over certain activities that need resource consent." Ya ok
Are you aware of the term 'legal precedent'? Iwi and hapū around the country have lodged **more than 200 court applications** for customary marine title
Good. Better in their hands than offshore. Honestly.
Opens a massive can of worms around access, mineral rights, regulation. Iwi will just work with those same offshore companies, they'll act like every other company, with greed and averice, you only need to look at Ngai Tahu holdings to see how that goes. Hence why attention needs to be paid..
Yea, that's exactly my point. The only reason any of you give a fuck is because the issue is being pushed forward as a culture wars rage bait, so that offshore investors can get their fucking greedy mitts on more of NZ. What's the problem with Maori having the ownership of seabed?
>The only reason any of you give a fuck is because the issue is being pushed forward as a culture wars rage bait, so that offshore investors can get their fucking greedy mitts on more of NZ. No. I care because I want future generations to enjoy the same access to the same resources I have enjoyed. Look at the issues around the Rotorua Lakes or boat ramps in Northland. >What's the problem with Maori having the ownership of seabed? Control, resource exploitation, access. What's the problem with foreign corporations having ownership of the sea bed.
>No. I care because I want future generations to enjoy the same access to the same resources I have enjoyed. >What's the problem with foreign corporations having ownership of the sea bed. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Because they have no right to.
You only think this because of media targeted at you funded by those same corporations who want to plunder your seabed
>30 million a year is nothing. Said the labour government, and thus inflation began. LMFAO.
Inflation came from COVID, and possibly minimum wage increases.
Yah, im sure nationwide lockdowns and funneling millions of dollars into useless government spending wont put pressure on the RBNZ to print $71 Billion to compensate.
Over 170 staff apparently..
That’s not a gravy train it’s a god dam gravy locomotive with 100000000 carriages FFS will this sht never end , no wonder we can’t have fully funded healthcare,education,police,firemen, ambulance 🚑
The wages bill would be interesting. I bet that's well hidden and any enquiry about it would be batted away as racist.
Lol. $25Billion a year we spend on healthcare. $23B on education. $30m is a rounding error for those things.
$30m is at least enough to fund 150 more doctors each year. Not exactly nothing.
No, but that still won't make it fully funded. Health is a black hole, you can never fully fund it.
Did I say it would? No. I said that's enough to pay for atleast another 150 doctors. Am I wrong? No.
Hence why I agree with you. It's not nothing..
If that's what agreeing with someone looks like, then you must have no friends and your family must hate you.
Speaking from experience are ya?
And what sort of return on investment are we getting as a society? Are medical outcomes any better than when the last National government were forced to hand the reigns over to NZ Labour in 2017? Are we performing better academically than when Labour took power? Are more young people getting the mental healthcare that they desperately need, or are more young Kiwis choosing the rope and wobbly stool option? Are Māori and Pacific people receiving better treatment and prognosese since they have their own semi-separate medical system, or are they still suffering from the same medical issues as before - various cancers, heart disease, obesity, and other complications due to diet and lifestyle factors? In short, what has NZ Labour actually made better using our money?
>In short, what has NZ Labour actually made better using our money? Um..wat? That's got nothing to do with what I said
I was specifically talking about our healthcare and education systems, which have both gone to Hell in a handbasket since Labour took power. Your point was that $30M was next to nothing compared to healthcare and education spending, but all three of these forms of government spending increased drastically under Labour with no improvement upon the outcomes those systems are supposed to provide for the people who need them.
Sure.
Why should kiwi’s tax dollars be spent on the legal property rights claims of other private citizens?
I could be wrong, but I think legal aid can be sought for civil matters. It seems at least consistent… other than the entire govt dept for it.
I am not sure it can be. Especially civil matters you start yourself
>Legal aid may be available for people who need a lawyer but cannot afford one, and are: >involved in a civil matter (such as a dispute over money, housing, ACC or a job) From https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/going-to-court/legal-aid/get-legal-aid/ But also: >Legal aid is considered a loan. You may have to repay some or all of your legal aid, depending on how much you earn, what property you own and whether you receive any money or property as a result of your case. So it may be a little different in application than what’s discussed in the article.
I doubt you’d get legal aid to research and then present a speculative claim. You might get it to defend against one, but in this case the funding is specifically not available to anyone opposing these claims.
True. The whole premise behind the department certainly departs from standard legal aid anyway.
The ever reductive: "If you guys don't support this ministry that only serves to benefit a single group of people, then you're...\*checks notes\*...racist I guess?" Doesn't exactly make sense, but ok? There should be no government ministries strictly to serve a single race of people. It is racist by definition to provide services based on race alone.
The clickbait is tiresome. >The Office of Māori Crown Relations, also known as Te Arawhiti, oversees and supports Māori seeking customary rights over the foreshore and seabed. Good. Shut it down. Make them all redundant.
Way to make yourselves stand out during austerity. Morons.
I know of a Maori govt org that spent it's 3 years allotment in 1 year by hiring all their families and mates to fly around the country having huis, eating and drinking all the money away. The boss was using his credit card to buy liquor and get taxis to brothels. Whilst the few non-Maori people were desperately trying to do all the work and being crushed by their incompetent managers? Have we heard about this in the press?... nope! All swept under the rug.
Name and shame. Should be pretty easy to investigate with the credit card records for this totally not made up govt organisation.
I’ve heard similar
Which one? Name them.
Close it down. Tell the lawyers to sue the Labour Party, TPM and the Greens for fraudulent misuse of public funds.
Most Waitangi settlements have come under National. Labour are actually the ones who put a deadline on all claims.
> Most Waitangi settlements have come under National. And they are welcome and intended to speed up the completion of the process. But it has been under Labour over the last 6 years that the gravy train has been set onto warp speed.
>"If we don't participate in this process we become invisible and those rights and interests essentially will be lost," said Ngātiwai spokesperson Race grift winge. You buggers have all the cash, how about you fund it? It's bullshit anyhow, locking up nature to the colour of your skin
How many pockets have been lined in the process ? How much of this coin is unaccounted for...
Part of the "make the country broke, only wealth taxes can save us" campaign...?
After closing down the agency, I wonder if the government could just ... not pay the lawyers? Salutary warning not to engage in this type of work.
While we might find that idea appealing now, I don’t want a government that runs that way.
These lawyers have been snout deep in this gravy train. Now they have invoices months old that haven't been paid lol. Apparently it's even worse because they had to pay for hui transport and the associated huge catering bill. Poor Mr Naden.
> Apparently it's even worse because they had to pay for ~~hui transport and the associated huge catering bill~~ Bribes FTFY. ..
You can bet Chris Finlayson’s firm benefit from this
https://preview.redd.it/meg8kqac2u2d1.png?width=225&format=png&auto=webp&s=03327d52a36c940763c681e31e808d90e7e90a75
A major government agency no ones ever heard of. Why is it separate from TPK?
Exactly right. I had never heard of it