When Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil she learned a very simple, yet complex truth: “There must needs be an opposition in all things…” (2 Ne. 2:11). In order for her to fully experience one thing, she had to also experience its opposite – virtue and vice, health and sickness, pleasure and pain, light and darkness. When I was 26 I started on the path that became my life work and learned the same simple and complex truth about a number of things, among them money and marriage.
First, money. In 1986 the government split the trees from the land of the state forests, sold the cutting rights and kept the land available for future Treaty settlements. That included the Aupouri forest, a huge employer of our people here in Te Hiku. At the same time the owners of Northern Pulp’s triboard mill in Kaitaia, where most of Aupouri’s timber went, were going belly-up. So a group of five Maori Trusts and Incorporations from Te Hapua, Te Kao, Herekino, Motuti and Mitimiti who also supplied timber to the mill, cobbled together a bid of $1million for the Aupouri forest. Although we had assets, cash was kind of scarce. Still we were confident we could find a partner with the money in short order. But, to buy time, between us we scraped up the necessary 10% deposit. Then Matiu Rata and I were sent to Wellington with the bid and the cheque; I to observe and analyse, Matiu to speak and make our case. We were received very politely, given a nice platter of finger food and a glass of fruit juice, listened to. Matiu said, “The land is under claim and correctly belongs to the iwi of Muriwhenua, so it should not be sold at all. As Treaty partners we gifted the use of the land in the expectation that we would one day get a return from that use. For that reason neither should the trees be split from the land and sold. If, contrary to all principles of natural justice [a favourite phrase of Matiu’s], the government is determined to go ahead and sell anyway, you must give preference to our bid.” We were invited to place our paperwork in a ballot-type box, then shown the door. In the lift Matiu, bless his dear optimistic heart, grabbed my hand and danced us around shouting, “We’ve done it!” In my bones I knew we’d just been given the bum’s rush by the Crown and its officials. Why? Because, in their world view (as our bid proved), we had little money and less credibility. We did not succeed in buying the Aupouri forest. I filed the experience away.
Next, marriage. In the mid-80s a group of us talked with Dame Mira Szaszy about what we were experiencing as single women. In her time she’d run into the same thing – male resistance, even aggression towards us as leaders. She felt it was something that had come to New Zealand with Pakeha settlers – what she called a “Victorian assumption” where women, like property, marked a man’s status in society. Having married relatively late in life herself, Mira knew the feeling of being soiled by exchanges such as the late night call I once got from a contemporary who, when I politely declined to follow his chosen pathway to settlement of our claims, sneered down the phone in graphic detail what he thought I needed. I filed that away as well.
Money is never something I’ve worried about personally. Even in the poorest of times there’s always been enough to feed, clothe, clean and shelter us. Being single … well, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. The value both money and a good marriage have for me today, 26 years since I started on what is still my life’s work, is deepened by the fact that I know what it’s like to be without them.
And for that I can partially thank the moneyed, male, married majority whose opposition helped me be a better mother. You showed me that it's while doing ordinary things that extraordinary things are fashioned. Thank you.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
THE POWER PARADOX
It ain’t easy being a Maori leader engaged with the Crown. It can be likened to standing with a crowd of friends and whanau in an unmarked minefield, all of them needing medical help … urgently. But, unlike Western Generals, who generally lead from the rear, we must lead from the front or risk, literally, losing our followers.
Additionally, before we can lead the way out of the minefield, we have to first find where the front of the crowd is. Then, having established ourselves on the front, we have to keep a close eye on our backs for the hits from wannabes and once-weres, all while still keeping a sharp eye forward for those damned mines.
Should we be smart or lucky enough to get through without being blown to smithereens, we then find that we’re actually tied, by a very close and tight rein, to the last man behind us. So we can never totally relax or be completely free of danger until the last of us reaches safety.
The recent hikoi through Kaitaia protesting Te Runanga O Te Rarawa's decision to negotiate the foreshore and seabed has all the elements of the power paradox between Maori leaders and followers, as did an incident during the 2004 Hikoi over the same foreshore and seabed. A week before that hikoi ended, all eight Taitokerau iwi Chairs had agreed to sign and deliver a letter to the government condemning its decision to legislate away the right of Maori to have title to the foreshore and seabed investigated. Then one of the Chairs refused to sign. He felt the best protection for his iwi’s interests was to distance them from the ‘radical’ face of the Hikoi that was so infuriating Helen at the time. His people were not happy with him, BUT – they wanted to keep it hush-hush.
Both these hikoi illustrate the power paradox in a nutshell. On the one hand, how do leaders protect and advance their people’s interests without looking like a kupapa? And, on the other hand, how do people pull their leaders into line without turning it into a bloodbath inside a media circus? Mines everywhere!
My experience is that there is only one sure way through that minefield. It’s found in the example of the greatest leader ever who simply said, “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister … and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Then he said, “Follow me.” Of course at least one of his erstwhile followers proved more lethal than any mine. But the simple principle of leadership that serves arose triumphant with him and remains shiningly valid into eternity.
Being a Maori leader engaged with the Crown can also be that simple … but it’s never going to be any easier. Such a paradox!
Additionally, before we can lead the way out of the minefield, we have to first find where the front of the crowd is. Then, having established ourselves on the front, we have to keep a close eye on our backs for the hits from wannabes and once-weres, all while still keeping a sharp eye forward for those damned mines.
Should we be smart or lucky enough to get through without being blown to smithereens, we then find that we’re actually tied, by a very close and tight rein, to the last man behind us. So we can never totally relax or be completely free of danger until the last of us reaches safety.
The recent hikoi through Kaitaia protesting Te Runanga O Te Rarawa's decision to negotiate the foreshore and seabed has all the elements of the power paradox between Maori leaders and followers, as did an incident during the 2004 Hikoi over the same foreshore and seabed. A week before that hikoi ended, all eight Taitokerau iwi Chairs had agreed to sign and deliver a letter to the government condemning its decision to legislate away the right of Maori to have title to the foreshore and seabed investigated. Then one of the Chairs refused to sign. He felt the best protection for his iwi’s interests was to distance them from the ‘radical’ face of the Hikoi that was so infuriating Helen at the time. His people were not happy with him, BUT – they wanted to keep it hush-hush.
Both these hikoi illustrate the power paradox in a nutshell. On the one hand, how do leaders protect and advance their people’s interests without looking like a kupapa? And, on the other hand, how do people pull their leaders into line without turning it into a bloodbath inside a media circus? Mines everywhere!
My experience is that there is only one sure way through that minefield. It’s found in the example of the greatest leader ever who simply said, “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister … and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Then he said, “Follow me.” Of course at least one of his erstwhile followers proved more lethal than any mine. But the simple principle of leadership that serves arose triumphant with him and remains shiningly valid into eternity.
Being a Maori leader engaged with the Crown can also be that simple … but it’s never going to be any easier. Such a paradox!
Friday, May 30, 2008
THE MOST DANGEROUS PERSON
I know a little bubba who was born with cross eyes. Because his brain gets a different picture from each eye, it blocks out everything from the weaker one. If the problem isn’t fixed while he’s still young, his brain will eventually learn to simply ignore the pictures from his weaker eye; and that will be that.
A permanently blind eye is a problem. But worse still is the ethical blind spot that, here in this country and century, ignores the theft of land and resources and allows them to continue unchecked to the present day. These thefts happen on the back of a history where, after war proved too costly, the thieves simply changed their tools of trade to pen, paper, wig and gown – and konei! In their view, European superiority had beaten Maori inferiority and the Devil take the hindmost.This vexed history is further complicated by the fact that, nowadays, the thief and his employees are likely to be our rellies and are, often as not, quite likable people.
The thing to understand is that everyone in this country has had a world view beamed into us from birth that’s predicated on key messages such as – Customary title is toast, the Crown holds the Radical title for everything under the topsoil, the Government can issue Fee Simple title to everything above it.
The problem with those messages and world view is that they’re highly questionable, clash hugely with the dictates of good conscience and are totally at odds with the simple facts – Maori were never conquered, we never ceded sovereignty, and Customary title is not extinguished.
How on earth can we reconcile these opposing world views? We can’t. Instead, to stay sane, we have to either ignore the view from our weaker eye or forcefully over-ride the view from our stronger eye. We can choose either to be brave … or to be governed.
Since the original series of thefts took place, apart from discarding the wig and gown for anything other than ceremonial events, regularly updating the pen and paper, and occasionally shifting shape between local and national governing bodies – the thieves and their agents haven’t had to put too much energy into keeping power in New Zealand.
If we think about the legitimacy of any of this, it could me or you. It could even be a little bubba. Very dangerous.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Say, "Cheese!"
Last year, I wrote a column encouraging our people to plant gardens in back yards to help take the bite out of the cost of kai and gain some measure of self-sufficiency. Perhaps they should also get a cow. I ‘had a cow’ last week when I examined a bill from PAK ‘n SAVE after purchasing bread, milk, butter and cheese. Statistics show cheese up 45.5 per cent, milk up 21.1 per cent, bread up 13.1 per cent and butter up 86 per cent over the past year. And families are hurting.
The experts blame drought caused by global warming and the high costs of feed grain because corn and wheat are being sold to produce ethanol. But this shift didn’t happen overnight. The truth is that food is becoming “the new black” – as in oil. If OPEC taught the world anything it was that fortunes could be made if you can control world markets. Take cheese for example.
Every Friday at 10am, in Green Bay, Wisconson, half a dozen major producers set the price for American style cheeses like Cheddar, Monterey and Colby, most of it for export. Although there are approximately 40 members of the National Cheese Exchange, only a few show up for a meeting that typically lasts half an hour. So if the Yanks can get $12 for a kilogram of cheese on the world market, well, why shouldn’t we? All Fonterra had to do was take their cut and give farmers a massive raise so they would produce more.
Since cows become more valuable on the hoof instead of in the freezer, the price of mince increases. Sheep and pork producers follow suit because … well, because they can. And, here in Aotearoa, all of these prices are subject to GST. So the government wins too. Is it too large a stretch of imagination to picture food riots in Kaitaia, the same as are happening in the Third World?
In the short term, there is a lot families can do: Plant gardens. Begin baking your own bread. Cut down on the amount of meat and dairy products purchased and take your whanau fishing more often. One thing in our favour is that dairy and meat products have a limited shelf life. So, not buying cheese, milk, and butter one week should result in sale prices the following week.
In the long term, it is time our government eliminated GST on foodstuffs. Countries like Canada do not charge GST on food purchased in the supermarket. The government argues that it would be too difficult to parse food purchases from the list of taxable goods. But if the Saudis and Venezuelans can get away with charging their citizens 12 cents a litre for petrol, then why is it we are paying 12 dollars for a block of cheese?
The experts blame drought caused by global warming and the high costs of feed grain because corn and wheat are being sold to produce ethanol. But this shift didn’t happen overnight. The truth is that food is becoming “the new black” – as in oil. If OPEC taught the world anything it was that fortunes could be made if you can control world markets. Take cheese for example.
Every Friday at 10am, in Green Bay, Wisconson, half a dozen major producers set the price for American style cheeses like Cheddar, Monterey and Colby, most of it for export. Although there are approximately 40 members of the National Cheese Exchange, only a few show up for a meeting that typically lasts half an hour. So if the Yanks can get $12 for a kilogram of cheese on the world market, well, why shouldn’t we? All Fonterra had to do was take their cut and give farmers a massive raise so they would produce more.
Since cows become more valuable on the hoof instead of in the freezer, the price of mince increases. Sheep and pork producers follow suit because … well, because they can. And, here in Aotearoa, all of these prices are subject to GST. So the government wins too. Is it too large a stretch of imagination to picture food riots in Kaitaia, the same as are happening in the Third World?
In the short term, there is a lot families can do: Plant gardens. Begin baking your own bread. Cut down on the amount of meat and dairy products purchased and take your whanau fishing more often. One thing in our favour is that dairy and meat products have a limited shelf life. So, not buying cheese, milk, and butter one week should result in sale prices the following week.
In the long term, it is time our government eliminated GST on foodstuffs. Countries like Canada do not charge GST on food purchased in the supermarket. The government argues that it would be too difficult to parse food purchases from the list of taxable goods. But if the Saudis and Venezuelans can get away with charging their citizens 12 cents a litre for petrol, then why is it we are paying 12 dollars for a block of cheese?
Talking to Each Other
Contrary to the impression this column might give, my whanau definitely come before my hapu and iwi. Because, at the end of a hard day’s mahi, it’s they who put their arms around me and make it all worthwhile. So, regretfully, I had to decline going to a couple of hui this weekend – one out at Taipa resort, the other at Mangamuka marae.
Both were called by the Crown to give Iwi Maori in Te Hiku a chance to talk to each other about our shared land claim interests – you know, the land on the boundaries (like parts of Kaitaia) and the stuff that’s spread far and wide (like the forest, the mountain and the beach).
Now, you’d think that the last thing we need is for the Crown to hold hui so we can talk to each other. Isn’t that that what we do every chance we get? Think about it – kettle korero (over the teacups), church (behind the hymnal), sport (inside the ruck), school (on the blackboard jungle), Pak N’ Save (in the aisles), radio and TV (across the airwaves), print media (between the lines), hui (on the floor) – you name it and we’re talking. Hika! Even the basket cases amongst us get to be heard. Engari, it’s all good. We can use Crown hui as well. As long as we don’t think they’re the only game in town.
That’s why it puzzles me to hear someone turn up to a Crown hui and say, “Man, it took the Crown to get us together.” It did not! The main reason both Crown and Maori come to those hui is to keep an eye on each other and make sure the story doesn’t get changed in our absence. I think it’s called ‘healthy skepticism.’ For example, it sometimes seems the Crown would prefer that the different iwi only tell each other what it agrees we can tell. Well, well, well. If one iwi managed to get a better deal out of the Crown than anyone else, is it seriously expected to just sit on it? Kei hea te iti me te rahi?
Now, of course, the Crown want everyone to talk to each other – ka pai tena. But, instead of trying to script what we can and cannot say to each other, it’s going to have to trust us. Now, there’s a novel idea!
From my viewpoint as an iwi insider, we’re working things out. Not always nicely, no. But resolutely, yes. So I say to the mandated negotiators for each iwi – haere tonu atu. You’ve done the hard yards to get your people’s mandate to speak for them. Carry on getting their guidance. Carry on inviting them to the hui you have with the Crown and with each other. Carry on putting your cards on the table with each other. Send your ops people in to liberate some cash from the Crown to resource your talks, then let it know what you finally decide about our shared interests. But, above all else, carry on talking to each other.
That way I can stay home of a weekend and relax with my family each night knowing the story remains straight.
Both were called by the Crown to give Iwi Maori in Te Hiku a chance to talk to each other about our shared land claim interests – you know, the land on the boundaries (like parts of Kaitaia) and the stuff that’s spread far and wide (like the forest, the mountain and the beach).
Now, you’d think that the last thing we need is for the Crown to hold hui so we can talk to each other. Isn’t that that what we do every chance we get? Think about it – kettle korero (over the teacups), church (behind the hymnal), sport (inside the ruck), school (on the blackboard jungle), Pak N’ Save (in the aisles), radio and TV (across the airwaves), print media (between the lines), hui (on the floor) – you name it and we’re talking. Hika! Even the basket cases amongst us get to be heard. Engari, it’s all good. We can use Crown hui as well. As long as we don’t think they’re the only game in town.
That’s why it puzzles me to hear someone turn up to a Crown hui and say, “Man, it took the Crown to get us together.” It did not! The main reason both Crown and Maori come to those hui is to keep an eye on each other and make sure the story doesn’t get changed in our absence. I think it’s called ‘healthy skepticism.’ For example, it sometimes seems the Crown would prefer that the different iwi only tell each other what it agrees we can tell. Well, well, well. If one iwi managed to get a better deal out of the Crown than anyone else, is it seriously expected to just sit on it? Kei hea te iti me te rahi?
Now, of course, the Crown want everyone to talk to each other – ka pai tena. But, instead of trying to script what we can and cannot say to each other, it’s going to have to trust us. Now, there’s a novel idea!
From my viewpoint as an iwi insider, we’re working things out. Not always nicely, no. But resolutely, yes. So I say to the mandated negotiators for each iwi – haere tonu atu. You’ve done the hard yards to get your people’s mandate to speak for them. Carry on getting their guidance. Carry on inviting them to the hui you have with the Crown and with each other. Carry on putting your cards on the table with each other. Send your ops people in to liberate some cash from the Crown to resource your talks, then let it know what you finally decide about our shared interests. But, above all else, carry on talking to each other.
That way I can stay home of a weekend and relax with my family each night knowing the story remains straight.
Talking to the Crown
When dealing with matters that impact on our existence as Maori, the general rule of thumb is that we’d prefer to talk with another Maori because it saves us a lot of time not having to first explain ourselves. The exception that proves this rule is when it comes to Treaty Negotiations with the Crown.
I firmly believe that no Maori should ever front for the Crown in these negotiations. Not even the List MPs of Maori descent. Their world view and loyalties are always going to be ambiguous, even compromised. I tell you, it’s too awful watching them walk the tightrope between Claimants and Crown.
So, when Michael Cullen (Hon Dr, Dep. PM, MICOTOWN) walked into Tatai Hono marae last Friday for his first meeting with the Ngati Kahu Land Claim Negotiators, we were pretty pleased to see him. And I have to say that he seemed genuinely pleased to be there too – comfortable even.
His lineup included Parekura Horomia (Minister of Maori Affairs), Mita Ririnui (Deputy Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations), John Clark (Crown Kaumatua), Lewis Moeau (Te Puni Kokiri), Ben White (Office of Treaty Settlement Manager), Paul James (Office of Treaty Settlements Director), Maureen Hickey (Office of Treaty Settlements Researcher) and 3 others.
On the Ngati Kahu side were our Head Claimant, Ven Timoti Flavell, plus our Negotiators, Prof Margaret Mutu, Rev Lloyd Popata and Te Kani Williams. Best of all, there were more than two dozen of our own people who’d traveled from Kaitaia, Taupo and a few places in-between to keenly watch and listen.
Picture it. Mandated Negotiators on either side of a large table start to talk. Then, as the marae acoustics swallow the sound of their voices, Ngati Kahu people move quietly and respectfully to sit at the table beside Professor, Reverend, Venerable and Minister. Not a word is spoken by anyone other than the Negotiators. No-one is the least discomfited. Everyone hears and sees clearly what is said. With democracy, dignity and respect the business is concluded rapidly and efficiently. Within two hours positions are stated, next steps are negotiated and the meeting is closed.
When Waitangi Tribunal Judge, Carrie Wainwright, directed the Crown and Ngati Kahu to re-enter negotiations last month, she hoped for a positive outcome under this new Minister In Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Now that we have held our first meeting with him, my impression is that, for the first time ever, Ngati Kahu is talking directly to the Crown without the filter of third parties pushing themselves between the Minister’s ear and our mouthpieces.
That’s a good thing for us as Maori. How good? Only time will tell.
I firmly believe that no Maori should ever front for the Crown in these negotiations. Not even the List MPs of Maori descent. Their world view and loyalties are always going to be ambiguous, even compromised. I tell you, it’s too awful watching them walk the tightrope between Claimants and Crown.
So, when Michael Cullen (Hon Dr, Dep. PM, MICOTOWN) walked into Tatai Hono marae last Friday for his first meeting with the Ngati Kahu Land Claim Negotiators, we were pretty pleased to see him. And I have to say that he seemed genuinely pleased to be there too – comfortable even.
His lineup included Parekura Horomia (Minister of Maori Affairs), Mita Ririnui (Deputy Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations), John Clark (Crown Kaumatua), Lewis Moeau (Te Puni Kokiri), Ben White (Office of Treaty Settlement Manager), Paul James (Office of Treaty Settlements Director), Maureen Hickey (Office of Treaty Settlements Researcher) and 3 others.
On the Ngati Kahu side were our Head Claimant, Ven Timoti Flavell, plus our Negotiators, Prof Margaret Mutu, Rev Lloyd Popata and Te Kani Williams. Best of all, there were more than two dozen of our own people who’d traveled from Kaitaia, Taupo and a few places in-between to keenly watch and listen.
Picture it. Mandated Negotiators on either side of a large table start to talk. Then, as the marae acoustics swallow the sound of their voices, Ngati Kahu people move quietly and respectfully to sit at the table beside Professor, Reverend, Venerable and Minister. Not a word is spoken by anyone other than the Negotiators. No-one is the least discomfited. Everyone hears and sees clearly what is said. With democracy, dignity and respect the business is concluded rapidly and efficiently. Within two hours positions are stated, next steps are negotiated and the meeting is closed.
When Waitangi Tribunal Judge, Carrie Wainwright, directed the Crown and Ngati Kahu to re-enter negotiations last month, she hoped for a positive outcome under this new Minister In Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Now that we have held our first meeting with him, my impression is that, for the first time ever, Ngati Kahu is talking directly to the Crown without the filter of third parties pushing themselves between the Minister’s ear and our mouthpieces.
That’s a good thing for us as Maori. How good? Only time will tell.
Monday, April 28, 2008
KEEPING IT HONEST
The most fascinating thing about hui for me, especially those between opposing groups, is watching the faces and bodies of the people who sit and listen while others stand and talk. Because it’s the faces and bodies that tell me more about what’s likely to happen after a hui than anything the speakers might say during it. That’s why, after years of faithfully writing entire books of who said what at any number of hui, I gave it up and opted to sit back and quietly watch instead.
So what do the faces and bodies tell me? Well, a darned sight more honest stuff than the spoken word generally. Take one simple gesture, like a chin in hand, for example.
Now, I’ve noticed that when the supporters of a speaker put their chin in hand, they tend to lean forward – they nod, they smile, they even laugh. Their approval is easy to read. On the other hand when those who oppose a speaker put their chins in their hands, they tend to do it while leaning back and their language, although just as honest, is also a lot more subtle. Interestingly it often has prayer-like tones such as, “Oh God, do we have to hear this again?” As other parts of their bodies come into play, this language gets more fervent. Eyes slowly closed with a sigh while in this position say, “God give me strength to not scream.” Pushed out lips and a raised eyebrow signify a mutter of, “S’truth! I doubt it.” An added snort turns the mutter into a full-blooded shout of, “God smite them!” or something similar.
All in all, after hearing this kind of body language at a hui, I can accurately predict that afterwards it will be business as usual. And, depending on whether they think their side’s view carried the day or not, the listeners will say the hui was either another missed opportunity or a another lucky escape.
So, if no-one is clearly knocked out or beaten, what value is there in holding hui between opposing sides at all? Heaps actually. Quite apart from the theatre put on, hui give newbies and observers a chance to witness, maybe even understand, the dynamics between the sides. They also make incremental progress one way or the other as hearts and minds are won or lost. And, although there will likely be some undisciplined shouters there, hui are generally a much more civilized way of airing differences than most other ethnicities have come up with to date.
To read a hui accurately it helps to know the people and their views, but it’s not essential. The most important thing is to be honest in your own body language. Because if what you are feeling is out of synch with what your body is saying, you will just make yourself sick and any outcomes of that hui will not be true.
And if you’re lucky you’ll get to hear a priceless piece of wisdom like this one I heard just last week courtesy of Ted Jones of Ngaitakoto, “To have strength you need Unity. To have Unity you need Trust. To have Trust you need Honesty.”
Honesty. Can’t be beaten really.
So what do the faces and bodies tell me? Well, a darned sight more honest stuff than the spoken word generally. Take one simple gesture, like a chin in hand, for example.
Now, I’ve noticed that when the supporters of a speaker put their chin in hand, they tend to lean forward – they nod, they smile, they even laugh. Their approval is easy to read. On the other hand when those who oppose a speaker put their chins in their hands, they tend to do it while leaning back and their language, although just as honest, is also a lot more subtle. Interestingly it often has prayer-like tones such as, “Oh God, do we have to hear this again?” As other parts of their bodies come into play, this language gets more fervent. Eyes slowly closed with a sigh while in this position say, “God give me strength to not scream.” Pushed out lips and a raised eyebrow signify a mutter of, “S’truth! I doubt it.” An added snort turns the mutter into a full-blooded shout of, “God smite them!” or something similar.
All in all, after hearing this kind of body language at a hui, I can accurately predict that afterwards it will be business as usual. And, depending on whether they think their side’s view carried the day or not, the listeners will say the hui was either another missed opportunity or a another lucky escape.
So, if no-one is clearly knocked out or beaten, what value is there in holding hui between opposing sides at all? Heaps actually. Quite apart from the theatre put on, hui give newbies and observers a chance to witness, maybe even understand, the dynamics between the sides. They also make incremental progress one way or the other as hearts and minds are won or lost. And, although there will likely be some undisciplined shouters there, hui are generally a much more civilized way of airing differences than most other ethnicities have come up with to date.
To read a hui accurately it helps to know the people and their views, but it’s not essential. The most important thing is to be honest in your own body language. Because if what you are feeling is out of synch with what your body is saying, you will just make yourself sick and any outcomes of that hui will not be true.
And if you’re lucky you’ll get to hear a priceless piece of wisdom like this one I heard just last week courtesy of Ted Jones of Ngaitakoto, “To have strength you need Unity. To have Unity you need Trust. To have Trust you need Honesty.”
Honesty. Can’t be beaten really.
WISDOM AND ORDER
Most of you will know that Ngati Kahu has had claims lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal since 1984 and that these claims have been partially heard and were reported on by the Tribunal in the Muriwhenua Land Report of 1997. You may also know that in 2003 Ngati Kahu and the Crown opened direct negotiations, and that those talks broke down in 2006 after the Crown tried to sell claim lands at Rangiputa. What you may not know is that, in November 2006, Ngati Kahu applied to the Waitangi Tribunal for Remedies Hearings on its claims, and that two weeks ago, on April 10th, the Tribunal held an interlocutory conference to help it decide if it could and should hold those hearings. The written direction of Judge Carrie Wainwright dated 11th April 2008 is reproduced below.
Having heard submissions today, I adjourn this application until Thursday 10th July 2008 to allow parties to progress further negotiations. At the judicial conference on 10 July, the applicant and the Crown will update me on what has occurred in the intervening three months. The applicant will indicate at that stage whether it wishes its application to be further adjourned or withdrawn, or whether it wishes the Tribunal to issue a substantive decision on its application that was the subject of today’s hearing. Meanwhile, if for any reason the Crown is not in a position to focus on negotiating a settlement with Ngati Kahu in the next three months, it should inform the Tribunal as soon as possible. Otherwise the judicial conference will reconvene on Level 2 of the Tribunal’s offices at 10 am on 10 July 2008. The Registrar is directed to send a copy of this direction to all those on the notification list for Wai 45, the combined record of inquiry for the Muriwhenua inquiry.
Following on from this direction Ngati Kahu has initiated a meeting with Minister Cullen for the 2nd May. Interestingly and concurrently, his officials in the Office of Treaty Settlements have been very persistent in trying to get Ngati Kahu involved in a Crown-initiated Muriwhenua regional forum. Why these officials would think it was in Ngati Kahu’s interests to be dragged back into a time-warped morass of non-mandated and divided interests is a mystery. Ngati Kahu is already talking with its neighbouring hapu and iwi. It doesn’t want or need the Crown to impose itself into those discussions, especially before they have even met with Minister Cullen. As Judge Wainwright said in her oral decision on the 10th, “Ngati Kahu is clearly a very well organised and capable group who are wanting resolution.” She is right. If Ngati Kahu think the Crown may be able to assist, it will ask. But until then the Crown would be well-advised to exercise some wisdom and order.
The Tribunal direction of 11th April gave Ngati Kahu and the Crown exactly 90 (ninety) days to progress negotiations. There are now 80 (eighty) days left. The options for both parties are really quite simple and crystal clear. Either focus on progressing negotiations – or not.
Having heard submissions today, I adjourn this application until Thursday 10th July 2008 to allow parties to progress further negotiations. At the judicial conference on 10 July, the applicant and the Crown will update me on what has occurred in the intervening three months. The applicant will indicate at that stage whether it wishes its application to be further adjourned or withdrawn, or whether it wishes the Tribunal to issue a substantive decision on its application that was the subject of today’s hearing. Meanwhile, if for any reason the Crown is not in a position to focus on negotiating a settlement with Ngati Kahu in the next three months, it should inform the Tribunal as soon as possible. Otherwise the judicial conference will reconvene on Level 2 of the Tribunal’s offices at 10 am on 10 July 2008. The Registrar is directed to send a copy of this direction to all those on the notification list for Wai 45, the combined record of inquiry for the Muriwhenua inquiry.
Following on from this direction Ngati Kahu has initiated a meeting with Minister Cullen for the 2nd May. Interestingly and concurrently, his officials in the Office of Treaty Settlements have been very persistent in trying to get Ngati Kahu involved in a Crown-initiated Muriwhenua regional forum. Why these officials would think it was in Ngati Kahu’s interests to be dragged back into a time-warped morass of non-mandated and divided interests is a mystery. Ngati Kahu is already talking with its neighbouring hapu and iwi. It doesn’t want or need the Crown to impose itself into those discussions, especially before they have even met with Minister Cullen. As Judge Wainwright said in her oral decision on the 10th, “Ngati Kahu is clearly a very well organised and capable group who are wanting resolution.” She is right. If Ngati Kahu think the Crown may be able to assist, it will ask. But until then the Crown would be well-advised to exercise some wisdom and order.
The Tribunal direction of 11th April gave Ngati Kahu and the Crown exactly 90 (ninety) days to progress negotiations. There are now 80 (eighty) days left. The options for both parties are really quite simple and crystal clear. Either focus on progressing negotiations – or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)