The British Empire was a collectivists regime which displayed the same contempt for individual rights that we might associate with China, or sadly the modern state. Individuals were not called 'subjects' for no reason. Personal interests were subjugated to the collective interests. In the case of NZ, Maori land rights were not honoured; lands were seized. Some tracts of lands were given back in certain circumstances, but others missed out. The process for seizing lands was pragmatic; the process for compensation is arbitrary and as unfair as the process for seizing the land originally.
NZ really does need to step up and recognise the rights of Maori to those lands which are not privately owned. No one needs to gain at others expense. I must say however that 'occupation' is a rather loose concept of ownership. There is no reason for a group to be placed in a position to extort value from others for lands which they scarcely use, because they were there first. The notion of 'first occupant' sets the rules does not recognise the common nature and needs of humanity, and does not respect the healthy basis upon which relationships between people ought to be defined.
The problem however is that the existing legislation for dealing with Maori land right claims is inherently flawed. See this NZ Herald article for more information.