Every columnist and commentator seems to have an opinion about where they think Hone Harawira should go from here and what he should do. All of them have one thing in common; they expect him to remain in Parliament. I don’t. There’s far more important work to be done outside Parliament than in, so I say he should finish this term representing Te Taitokerau then turn his back on the place.
The conventional wisdom is that central government represents the height of power in a country and is the only way for a modern state to be run. But there is another school of thought that views it as little more than a mutated and monstrous committee into which all good ideas are lured and either ruined or quietly strangled. I can picture that. I actually believe the highest human power is that found in the smallest unit of society, the whanau.
Māori society is based on whānau, hapū and iwi. So why are we sending our best into a system that bears no resemblance to our society? Our whānau, hapū and iwi are the launching pads for all our physical, emotional and spiritual aspirations. Why have we replaced them with parties and movements when it comes to our political aspirations? The wellspring of tino-rangatiratanga is found solely within the whanau. Does it not make more sense to come back and work within that rather then stay within Parliament?
Although our tikanga provides all we need to be self-governing at every level of our society, it’s no longer true that every whānau knows how to live or teach it. So there’s work to be done showing them how to organise, govern and provide for themselves.
There are also hapū who no longer function well. There’s more work to be done there to ensure that, when whānau come up against something that’s beyond their skill and knowledge, they can combine with their related whānau and act as a hapū to push their cause. Then, if they can’t get what they want as a hapū, they need to have the confidence that they can combine with other hapū and work as an iwi to progress it. Should they still fail, they may need to aggregate further and combine with their waka grouping to finish it off. But most of all, each smaller unit has to be confident that their take won’t get hijacked by the bigger units, and each bigger unit has to be willing to accept the smaller units’ right to accept or reject what they achieve. More work to be done.
Why am I shoulder-tapping Hone for the job? Because it’s all preparatory for an idea whose time is surely coming; the national Māori political forum. The current constitutional review being lead by Moana Jackson is bound to progress its development. Before it’s established though, we must ready the whānau, hapū, iwi and waka to instruct it. What better preparation then to reinforce in them the tikanga of self-government? And who better to lead that mahi then the guy with the most political nouse and experience outside Parliament?
Whina Cooper said it in her karanga on the Herbs album – “Na te whanau, tangata ora e.’ How’s that for a post-political manifesto Hone?
Might be easier to stay in Parliament ne?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
CHARITY IS NOT EASY
I had a couple of lessons in charity this weekend.
The first came from one of my church leaders, a quietly unassuming but brilliant man, who said, “We find it easy to show charity towards others in their times of need. Can we also show charity to them in their times of weakness?”
They reckon one of the sure signs you’ve given a good kauhau is when the congregation is left wondering how you knew so much about their peccadillos. That was a good sermon President.
The second lesson came from my dad who said, “I see you gave poor old Mate hell.” He was referring to a letter I wrote to the editor of this paper last week over the way Council had mishandled (or more accurately, not handled) my complaint of misconduct against Councillor Radich.
Anyway, it struck me that what Dad wasn’t saying was that I may have been uncharitable in some of the things I’d written.
The truth is that that there is a fine line between turning the other cheek and being a doormat. The first is charitable, the second is merely masochistic. However, upon personal introspection, I can see that some of what I wrote was not necessary. I should not have used the word ‘Nazi’ in reference to Mr Radich. That was uncharitable.
That got me thinking about the balance between charity and masochism in recent events on the national scene.
A protest Hikoi against the Crown’s latest planned theft from Maori of the takutaimona left Te Rerenga Wairua 5a.m. yesterday. Originally scheduled to leave last Thursday, it was delayed because the kaumatua of Te Hiku o Te Ika had asked the rangatahi organisers to be sensitive to the Crown’s need to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake in Otautahi. Charitable of them.
They also wrote to the Prime Minister asking for the readings of the Marine and Coastal Bill to cease while grieving families mourned, and while Ngai Tahu, who are strongly opposed to the Bill, were preoccupied with taking care of its own people as well as nga iwi ke within its rohe. Charitable again.
Their letter was ignored, and on Tuesday 8th March the second reading of the Bill was passed by 62 votes to 56. Instead of hanging their heads in shame, the Crown and its supporters in and out of the House, puffed up their chests, stretched their throats and crowed that Hone had failed to vote against it. Gee, call Hone dumb, but his vote wouldn’t have defeated the second reading anyway, right? What price charity huh?
Clearly it was not good form of Hone to have messed with the protocols of Parliament like that. However keeping Parliamentary rules is not why Taitokerau sent him into that den in the first place. Rather it was to accurately and strongly represent what his constituents think, say and feel. He did that when he stood up, faced the thieves, bullies and cowards in the House and said in effect, “My constituents are never going to be doormats for you lot on this one.” To do otherwise would have been merely masochistic.
Indeed there is a charitable balance to be struck when dealing with the bully, the thief, the abuser or anyone who has let us down and shown weakness. The time will come when, unless they repent and humble themselves, they will get dealt to. But until then, we have to struggle as best we can to turn the other cheek without being doormats. Not easy.
The first came from one of my church leaders, a quietly unassuming but brilliant man, who said, “We find it easy to show charity towards others in their times of need. Can we also show charity to them in their times of weakness?”
They reckon one of the sure signs you’ve given a good kauhau is when the congregation is left wondering how you knew so much about their peccadillos. That was a good sermon President.
The second lesson came from my dad who said, “I see you gave poor old Mate hell.” He was referring to a letter I wrote to the editor of this paper last week over the way Council had mishandled (or more accurately, not handled) my complaint of misconduct against Councillor Radich.
Anyway, it struck me that what Dad wasn’t saying was that I may have been uncharitable in some of the things I’d written.
The truth is that that there is a fine line between turning the other cheek and being a doormat. The first is charitable, the second is merely masochistic. However, upon personal introspection, I can see that some of what I wrote was not necessary. I should not have used the word ‘Nazi’ in reference to Mr Radich. That was uncharitable.
That got me thinking about the balance between charity and masochism in recent events on the national scene.
A protest Hikoi against the Crown’s latest planned theft from Maori of the takutaimona left Te Rerenga Wairua 5a.m. yesterday. Originally scheduled to leave last Thursday, it was delayed because the kaumatua of Te Hiku o Te Ika had asked the rangatahi organisers to be sensitive to the Crown’s need to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake in Otautahi. Charitable of them.
They also wrote to the Prime Minister asking for the readings of the Marine and Coastal Bill to cease while grieving families mourned, and while Ngai Tahu, who are strongly opposed to the Bill, were preoccupied with taking care of its own people as well as nga iwi ke within its rohe. Charitable again.
Their letter was ignored, and on Tuesday 8th March the second reading of the Bill was passed by 62 votes to 56. Instead of hanging their heads in shame, the Crown and its supporters in and out of the House, puffed up their chests, stretched their throats and crowed that Hone had failed to vote against it. Gee, call Hone dumb, but his vote wouldn’t have defeated the second reading anyway, right? What price charity huh?
Clearly it was not good form of Hone to have messed with the protocols of Parliament like that. However keeping Parliamentary rules is not why Taitokerau sent him into that den in the first place. Rather it was to accurately and strongly represent what his constituents think, say and feel. He did that when he stood up, faced the thieves, bullies and cowards in the House and said in effect, “My constituents are never going to be doormats for you lot on this one.” To do otherwise would have been merely masochistic.
Indeed there is a charitable balance to be struck when dealing with the bully, the thief, the abuser or anyone who has let us down and shown weakness. The time will come when, unless they repent and humble themselves, they will get dealt to. But until then, we have to struggle as best we can to turn the other cheek without being doormats. Not easy.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
TECTONIC TALES
One of the most enduring relationships I know of is that between my 83 year old dad and his 85 year old sister. For years she used to come home every holiday and set up camp on our lawn until dad built her a bach right where she used to put up her tent. No legal paperwork was signed, and no cash exchanged.
Things went well until aunty stopped coming and her mokopuna started turning up instead with their Pakeha mates and their different ways. That was OK too, until the Pakeha mates arrived one day by themselves and began treating the whole place, not just the bach, like it was theirs.
The time had come to cancel the gift. Aunty understood but didn’t want the hassle of dismantling camp that one last time. So to satisfy any claims her mokopuna or their Pakeha mates might make, dad paid her for the bach and its contents, and that was that. Gift cancelled.
It all went smoothly because both dad and his sister understood that the gift and its cancellation were expressions of Tuku Whenua under Tikanga Maori. The only right attached to the gift was that of use. When the use ended, so did the gift; but not the relationship which continues happily to this day.
I thought of this Tuku Whenua Tikanga while reading two recently released publications. The first is the report by United Nations Special Rapporteur, Dr James Anaya, titled “The Situation of Maori People in New Zealand.”
Several key issues are addressed by Dr Anaya, but his main focus is the settlement process for historical and contemporary claims based on the Treaty of Waitangi. He reports that, while there has been progress since 2005 when the last UN Special Rapporteur was here, there is still a long way to go “to achieve the increased social and economic parity that is necessary for Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders to move forward as true partners in the future, as contemplated under the Treaty of Waitangi.”
The second publication is a book titled “The State of Maori Rights” by Professor Margaret Mutu which brings together a set of articles she wrote between 1994 and 2009. In it she places on record the Maori view of events and issues that have been more typically reported to the general public from a 'mainstream' media perspective. Having lived through all of the events reviewed and taken part in many of them, even I was astonished at how clearly the threads of racism are there for the world to see. Actually, what with the footnotes and cross-references, they are more like whopping great ropes.
Both these publications stand as stark counterpoints to the Tuku Whenua transaction between my dad and his sister. They reveal the racist rubbishing of most things Maori and the tension arising out of that, while the Tuku Whenua transaction shows Maori unselfconsciously practicing Tikanga, and the relaxed ease of that.
Both Dr Anaya’s report and Professor Mutu’s book have understandably been overshadowed by the most recent tectonic shifts in and around Christchurch and the push to rebuild that city. But it is their messages that will contribute more to shifting the tectonics between races and rebuilding this country.
However the key message for Maori lies in the Tuku Whenua transaction. It shows that while others can either support or oppose Tikanga, Maori must do it. Why? Because, if we don’t, race relationships are going to get a whole lot worse in this country; and Papatuanuku will let us know about it for sure.
Things went well until aunty stopped coming and her mokopuna started turning up instead with their Pakeha mates and their different ways. That was OK too, until the Pakeha mates arrived one day by themselves and began treating the whole place, not just the bach, like it was theirs.
The time had come to cancel the gift. Aunty understood but didn’t want the hassle of dismantling camp that one last time. So to satisfy any claims her mokopuna or their Pakeha mates might make, dad paid her for the bach and its contents, and that was that. Gift cancelled.
It all went smoothly because both dad and his sister understood that the gift and its cancellation were expressions of Tuku Whenua under Tikanga Maori. The only right attached to the gift was that of use. When the use ended, so did the gift; but not the relationship which continues happily to this day.
I thought of this Tuku Whenua Tikanga while reading two recently released publications. The first is the report by United Nations Special Rapporteur, Dr James Anaya, titled “The Situation of Maori People in New Zealand.”
Several key issues are addressed by Dr Anaya, but his main focus is the settlement process for historical and contemporary claims based on the Treaty of Waitangi. He reports that, while there has been progress since 2005 when the last UN Special Rapporteur was here, there is still a long way to go “to achieve the increased social and economic parity that is necessary for Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders to move forward as true partners in the future, as contemplated under the Treaty of Waitangi.”
The second publication is a book titled “The State of Maori Rights” by Professor Margaret Mutu which brings together a set of articles she wrote between 1994 and 2009. In it she places on record the Maori view of events and issues that have been more typically reported to the general public from a 'mainstream' media perspective. Having lived through all of the events reviewed and taken part in many of them, even I was astonished at how clearly the threads of racism are there for the world to see. Actually, what with the footnotes and cross-references, they are more like whopping great ropes.
Both these publications stand as stark counterpoints to the Tuku Whenua transaction between my dad and his sister. They reveal the racist rubbishing of most things Maori and the tension arising out of that, while the Tuku Whenua transaction shows Maori unselfconsciously practicing Tikanga, and the relaxed ease of that.
Both Dr Anaya’s report and Professor Mutu’s book have understandably been overshadowed by the most recent tectonic shifts in and around Christchurch and the push to rebuild that city. But it is their messages that will contribute more to shifting the tectonics between races and rebuilding this country.
However the key message for Maori lies in the Tuku Whenua transaction. It shows that while others can either support or oppose Tikanga, Maori must do it. Why? Because, if we don’t, race relationships are going to get a whole lot worse in this country; and Papatuanuku will let us know about it for sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)