As the provisional results of the Taitokerau by-election emerged on Saturday night, a question was posted to the yahoo newsfeed site from a chap calling himself Bruce. “As a relative newcomer to these fair islands can someone please explain why in a supposed first world civilised country there is a political party called Mana based on race??!!!” The punctuation is his.
Bruce is confused because he doesn’t know that, as a political party, Te Mana is not race-based. But his confusion is understandable because, while Te Mana is not race-based, the Māori seats are. However the racism that gave rise to them was and is entirely that of the Crown and its supporters who, in 1867, created the original four Māori seats in a parliament of 74 at a time when the majority of the population were clearly Māori.
The relevant Act was passed only after lengthy debate. Most conservative MPs considered Māori "unfit" to participate in government, and opposed Māori representation in Parliament, while some MPs from the other end of the spectrum (such as James FitzGerald, who had proposed allocating a third of Parliament to Māori) regarded the concessions given to Māori as insufficient. In the end the setting up of separate Māori electorates assuaged conservative opposition to the bill; they had previously feared that Māori would gain the right to vote in general electorates, thereby forcing all MPs (rather than just four Māori MPs) to take notice of Māori opinion.
Before this law came into effect, no direct prohibition on Māori voting existed, but other indirect prohibitions, like the property qualification, made it extremely difficult for Māori to exercise their theoretical electoral rights. In order to vote, one needed to possess a certain value of land. Māori owned heaps of land, but held it in common, not under individual title, and under the law that disqualified them from voting. Donald McLean explicitly intended his bill as a temporary measure to give specific representation to Māori until they adopted European customs of land ownership. In effect, the Māori seats were the Crown’s way of dressing up as enlightened and benign, its racist marginalisation of Māori and their customs. The Māori electorates remain in place today, despite the property qualification for voting being removed in 1879.
Racism is illogical and it breeds irrational consequences. Currently Māori refuse to relinquish these race-based seats, not because we see them as the best option for our political representation in the future, but because they are the only option. However there is an opposite (hopefully stronger) force working against the racism behind them, which is currently manifesting in an emerging movement composed of a younger, poorer, hungrier and smarter demographic across all races.
If, as I expect, Hone takes the special votes and reclaims the Taitokerau seat, then that movement will have a place on the front bench of parliament as well as more resources with which to unite its constituency before the general election.
Regardless of the final by-election result, Te Mana had to hit the ground still running the moment the polls closed on Saturday night because, as long as racism remains entrenched in the institutions and systems of government, the race has not ended.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
FRANKLY FASCINATING
On Radio Live last Friday morning, Hillary Barry who is arguably the first lady of mainstream news, had a fit of giggles so bad that she had to stop and hand over to the sports reporter. She’d introduced a story in which New York Congressman Anthony Wiener was resigning after having been exposed for sending images of a certain body part to women who weren’t his wife. Cut to Wiener solemnly making his announcement to a handpicked hometown audience. But, instead of politely clapping as one would expect, they cheered loudly and then started chanting, “Leave, you per-vert!” Frankness in politics is as rare as a redneck with all his teeth, so this unexpected frankness completely undid Hillary. Unprofessional? Totally. Forgiveable? Completely.
This time next week we will have a result in the Taitokerau byelection. Like no other, this election is for and about Māori. Its result is also fascinating like never before, not because of the individuals standing, but because of the very different implications that a win for any one of them holds for us.
As a voter in this byelection, my job has been to figure out what each of the candidates’ parties stands for, which one stands closest to where I am, and which is heading where I want to go. It’s become clear to me that although there are three serious contenders in this byelection, there are really only two positions; government by and for the rich and powerful, or government by and for everyone else. So what are the voting options for Māori? I’ve boiled them down to what I call the satellite, the landing craft or the planet.
In my frank opinion, a vote for Kelvin will maintain the Māori satellite that orbits the potential Labour government of the future, while a vote for Solomon involves replacing a crew member on the manned Māori Party landing craft within the current National government. Alternatively a vote for Hone is a stake in the planet itself. As for the other two candidates who are standing, in my opinion a vote for them is a wasted one – pardon the pun.
If my political frankness causes the majority of eligible Māori voters to fall about laughing, then my candidate of choice may be in trouble. But if that same majority share my view, they won’t be clapping politely when the result is announced next week, but will be cheering and shouting, “Go, you bea-u-ty!”
P.S. News has just reached me that Cathy Crene (nee Semenoff) has passed away. She hailed from Te Rarawa, Te Paatu and Ngāti Kahu, and if ever there was a frank lady it was Cath, or Giddy-Gas as some of us affectionately knew her. Moe mai ra e te whaea Cath. I know one thing, if she’d have been in Congressman Wiener’s crowd she wouldn’t have clapped politely either.
This time next week we will have a result in the Taitokerau byelection. Like no other, this election is for and about Māori. Its result is also fascinating like never before, not because of the individuals standing, but because of the very different implications that a win for any one of them holds for us.
As a voter in this byelection, my job has been to figure out what each of the candidates’ parties stands for, which one stands closest to where I am, and which is heading where I want to go. It’s become clear to me that although there are three serious contenders in this byelection, there are really only two positions; government by and for the rich and powerful, or government by and for everyone else. So what are the voting options for Māori? I’ve boiled them down to what I call the satellite, the landing craft or the planet.
In my frank opinion, a vote for Kelvin will maintain the Māori satellite that orbits the potential Labour government of the future, while a vote for Solomon involves replacing a crew member on the manned Māori Party landing craft within the current National government. Alternatively a vote for Hone is a stake in the planet itself. As for the other two candidates who are standing, in my opinion a vote for them is a wasted one – pardon the pun.
If my political frankness causes the majority of eligible Māori voters to fall about laughing, then my candidate of choice may be in trouble. But if that same majority share my view, they won’t be clapping politely when the result is announced next week, but will be cheering and shouting, “Go, you bea-u-ty!”
P.S. News has just reached me that Cathy Crene (nee Semenoff) has passed away. She hailed from Te Rarawa, Te Paatu and Ngāti Kahu, and if ever there was a frank lady it was Cath, or Giddy-Gas as some of us affectionately knew her. Moe mai ra e te whaea Cath. I know one thing, if she’d have been in Congressman Wiener’s crowd she wouldn’t have clapped politely either.
Monday, June 13, 2011
AN IMPORTANT RULING
Late last month the Supreme Court released a majority ruling (4 to 1) in favour of a man named Allan Haronga. Mr Haronga had fought his case all the way up from the Waitangi Tribunal, through the Māori Appellate Court, the High Court, and then the Court of Appeal, before finally winning a ruling from the highest Court in New Zealand. And what was that ruling? Simply that the Waitangi Tribunal must do its job and hold an urgent hearing into Mr Haronga’s application for a binding recommendation that the Crown return 8626 acres of the Mangatu State Forest to Mangatu Incorporation.
In 1893 Mangatu Incorporation was established by Te Aitanga a Māhaki, an iwi based in Turanganui a Kiwa (the Bay of Plenty), to protect them and their lands from the pressure to sell to Europeans. It is a matter of great pride to them that they have managed to hold the bulk of their lands since 1893. However in 1961 the Crown acquired some of their land for ‘erosion control purposes.’ Although the Incorporation was reluctant to sell, as it planned to afforest the land, it was prevailed upon to believe that there was no option other than Crown ownership. But it turned out that the Crown had never intended to use their land for erosion control at all. Instead it planted a commercial forest on it from which it has profited ever since.
In 1992 Eric Ruru, a member of the Incorporation, lodged two claims with the Waitangi Tribunal seeking the return of the land from the Crown. Later, his claims were grouped by the Tribunal into a district-wide inquiry. In 2004 the Tribunal ruled his claims were well-founded, but recommended that all claimants within the district enter direct negotiations with the Crown together. In 2008 a draft Agreement in Principle emerged which showed that the key redress item for the entire district was to be the Mangatu lands. In short, Te Aitanga a Māhaki and their claims had been subsumed, and their lands were to be used by the Crown to settle everyone’s claims.
As soon as he saw where negotiations were headed Allan Haronga returned to the Tribunal and asked it to complete its inquiry by ordering the Crown to return the Mangatu lands to the Mangatu Incorporation, but the Tribunal declined to even hold a hearing on the grounds that its power to hear an application for binding orders against the Crown was a discretionary one. Now it has been plainly told by the Supreme Court that it is not a discretionary power and it needs to do its job; i.e. hold a hearing and make a ruling based on law for or against Mr Haronga’s application.
In 2008 Ngāti Kahu also applied to the Tribunal for binding orders against the Crown and also got rebuffed, but we didn’t have the wherewithal to appeal. Combined with the fact that Supreme Court rulings set case law that can be used by others in the future, this makes Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal and Others a very important ruling for us. We are now considering our options very carefully.
In 1893 Mangatu Incorporation was established by Te Aitanga a Māhaki, an iwi based in Turanganui a Kiwa (the Bay of Plenty), to protect them and their lands from the pressure to sell to Europeans. It is a matter of great pride to them that they have managed to hold the bulk of their lands since 1893. However in 1961 the Crown acquired some of their land for ‘erosion control purposes.’ Although the Incorporation was reluctant to sell, as it planned to afforest the land, it was prevailed upon to believe that there was no option other than Crown ownership. But it turned out that the Crown had never intended to use their land for erosion control at all. Instead it planted a commercial forest on it from which it has profited ever since.
In 1992 Eric Ruru, a member of the Incorporation, lodged two claims with the Waitangi Tribunal seeking the return of the land from the Crown. Later, his claims were grouped by the Tribunal into a district-wide inquiry. In 2004 the Tribunal ruled his claims were well-founded, but recommended that all claimants within the district enter direct negotiations with the Crown together. In 2008 a draft Agreement in Principle emerged which showed that the key redress item for the entire district was to be the Mangatu lands. In short, Te Aitanga a Māhaki and their claims had been subsumed, and their lands were to be used by the Crown to settle everyone’s claims.
As soon as he saw where negotiations were headed Allan Haronga returned to the Tribunal and asked it to complete its inquiry by ordering the Crown to return the Mangatu lands to the Mangatu Incorporation, but the Tribunal declined to even hold a hearing on the grounds that its power to hear an application for binding orders against the Crown was a discretionary one. Now it has been plainly told by the Supreme Court that it is not a discretionary power and it needs to do its job; i.e. hold a hearing and make a ruling based on law for or against Mr Haronga’s application.
In 2008 Ngāti Kahu also applied to the Tribunal for binding orders against the Crown and also got rebuffed, but we didn’t have the wherewithal to appeal. Combined with the fact that Supreme Court rulings set case law that can be used by others in the future, this makes Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal and Others a very important ruling for us. We are now considering our options very carefully.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
I AM
I was asked recently how I can work year in and year out on the fault line between Māori and the Crown without getting bitter and twisted. Some years ago, during the worse series of tragedies I have ever experienced, I received a great yet simple insight – the knowledge that whatever happens to me, I am always OK. At the time I thought I was desperately unhappy, exhausted, frightened, and furious. But today I know that, while all those feelings have been felt by me at different times, none of them actually defines who I am. Neither do their opposites for that matter.
The late Anthony de Mello describes this knowledge in his book “Awareness.” Using the sky as a metaphor for who “I am” and the clouds as a metaphor for the things that happen to “me,” he explains how when a cloud appears and then disappears it may affect the look of the sky, but the sky itself remains essentially unchanged by the cloud’s coming or going, or by what type of cloud it is. In the same way, he continues, I am essentially unchanged by whatever happens to me or whoever comes and goes in my life. They may appear to make me look or feel sad, but in reality I am neither.
However, knowing who I am (or am not) does not automatically exempt me from suffering. De Mello defines suffering as what happens when my will comes up against immutable reality. Although reality does not cause suffering in itself, any more than it causes joy, it’s clear that if I try to bend it to my will, then that will cause me to suffer alright.
But if I am not visibly suffering will those who did me wrong ever be held accountable? Am I supposed to just forgive and do nothing to them? Surprisingly the answers are yes and yes. Other people and their actions are not mine to control. If I have an expectancy that they will be honest but they turn out to be lying thieves, I either accept that fact and work to resolve any hurt caused, or I try to force them to be honest and suffer when that inevitably doesn’t happen. There is nothing wrong with having expectancy, but I don’t need to get bitter and twisted when or if it doesn’t match with reality. As for wrongdoers being held accountable, there is a God to take care of that. And guess what? It’s not me. Thank God!
In the past I would crack a fit over the fact that the Crown has yet to right any of the wrongs it has done to me and my people. Now, I simply observe and accept the reality that the Crown currently remains without honour or integrity. Then I cheerfully carry on seeking after a day when that changes.
And the key to doing that year in and year out is to simply know I am.
The late Anthony de Mello describes this knowledge in his book “Awareness.” Using the sky as a metaphor for who “I am” and the clouds as a metaphor for the things that happen to “me,” he explains how when a cloud appears and then disappears it may affect the look of the sky, but the sky itself remains essentially unchanged by the cloud’s coming or going, or by what type of cloud it is. In the same way, he continues, I am essentially unchanged by whatever happens to me or whoever comes and goes in my life. They may appear to make me look or feel sad, but in reality I am neither.
However, knowing who I am (or am not) does not automatically exempt me from suffering. De Mello defines suffering as what happens when my will comes up against immutable reality. Although reality does not cause suffering in itself, any more than it causes joy, it’s clear that if I try to bend it to my will, then that will cause me to suffer alright.
But if I am not visibly suffering will those who did me wrong ever be held accountable? Am I supposed to just forgive and do nothing to them? Surprisingly the answers are yes and yes. Other people and their actions are not mine to control. If I have an expectancy that they will be honest but they turn out to be lying thieves, I either accept that fact and work to resolve any hurt caused, or I try to force them to be honest and suffer when that inevitably doesn’t happen. There is nothing wrong with having expectancy, but I don’t need to get bitter and twisted when or if it doesn’t match with reality. As for wrongdoers being held accountable, there is a God to take care of that. And guess what? It’s not me. Thank God!
In the past I would crack a fit over the fact that the Crown has yet to right any of the wrongs it has done to me and my people. Now, I simply observe and accept the reality that the Crown currently remains without honour or integrity. Then I cheerfully carry on seeking after a day when that changes.
And the key to doing that year in and year out is to simply know I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)