Around 2,254,681 people took part in election 2011. But a further 1,000,000 eligible voters did not bother, producing the lowest percentage of voter turnout in 120 years. This continues a downward trend that’s been going on since 1987, the year in which Andrew Krieger, John Key’s colleague at Bankers Trust in New York, made a raid on the New Zealand dollar. Now John Key has a second term of office as Prime Minister.
Over the next three years there are specific indicators in a wide range of areas to watch out for that will tell us whether Key is the saviour that the slim majority of those who voted hope he is, or the sell-out that the slimmer minority believe he is.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA]; the United States will continue its drive to take what is currently a small-ish free trade agreement, and transform it into a European Union-styled entity.
Signs of a Key sell-out on this issue will include any support he gives for the creation of a separate TPPA governing body of unelected officials. Keep a close eye on who, under the TPPA, will have the ability to commandeer and deploy our military and police forces. Watch also for TPPA directives forcing us to buy our pharmaceuticals, arms, energy, agriculture supplies and such from specific suppliers. Look out for any moves to create a unified currency, or to channel our currency through a private banking authority like the Federal Reserve in the US. And look out also for a rise in numbers of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), particularly if they have anything to do with military training centres and water.
Asset Sales; it’s a foregone conclusion that Key will now push forward with asset sales. In the final debate he said that although he can’t guarantee it, he wants the majority and controlling share of our assets to remain in New Zealand hands. Keep a close eye on the detail around asset sales and measure it against this question: who or what will determine the majority ownership and control of our assets? If it’s not New Zealanders or New Zealand law, then it’s a sell-out.
Covert Surveillance and War on Terrorism; now that it is legal for Police to secretly record any private citizen of this country, watch out for expansion of the definition of the word “terrorist” to include activists of every kind, because that too is a sell-out sign.
Settlement of Treaty of Waitangi land claims; the settlement of claims will escalate rapidly between now and 2014. Take care to read each Deed of Settlement with one question in mind: who or what has final control over the resources attached to the land included in those settlements? Particularly look out for who controls any minerals, petroleum and freshwater found on those lands. Again, if it’s not New Zealanders, we’re being sold out.
Three years will go very quickly. Whether the downward trend of voter participation will continue in the 2014 general election is yet to be seen. But before then we will know for sure whether Key is a saviour or a sell-out.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
BEHOLD YOUR LITTLE ONES
Have you ever looked into the eyes of a very new infant and seen them see you, then watched as they shifted their gaze to somewhere just beyond you and smiled in delighted recognition?
When that happens I always ask, “Are you talking to the corner-angels darling?” By that I mean those flickers seen from the corner of adult eyes, but which our little ones see square on and clearly until earth life claims them fully.
I thought of the ‘corner angels’ after watching this week’s Inside New Zealand documentary on child poverty in our country, and I wondered where they were, not just for the children but for their parents.
In the mid-1980s my mother wrote an essay titled “Starving in Paradise” in which she talked about the craziness of living in a country with enough land, water, food, health, housing and education services to meet everyone’s needs, but not enough paid work to give families at the bottom the wherewithal to provide those things adequately to their little ones.
The Prime Minister of that time, Rob Muldoon (for all his well-deserved reputation as an often nasty man) saw what people needed was meaningful, paid work. In Pawarenga the six month PEP schemes with two week stand-downs between each that he established were heaven-sent. Crime rates dropped, health stats rose, and the kainga was abuzz with happy, active, engaged whānau.
Unfortunately not one government since Muldoon’s has shown any common sense about those at the bottom. Instead they’ve clung to the hopelessly failed ‘trickle-down’ theory of enriching the 1% at the top, believing that will lift the earning power of everyone else.
It’s not working for our little ones, because it’s not working for their parents.
I’ve seen good parents break under the stress of not being able to pay for what their little ones need. Some have simply walked away, some have struggled on, some have gone half or wholly mad. Most make it through somehow, a few turn bad. But many, many more are simply choosing to take themselves and their families out of the country entirely.
My brother left for Australia last week to work in the mines. He’s a registered nurse and a qualified teacher with reasonable earning power. But he’s had enough. So he’s gone, and his wife and kids will join him in the New Year.
We’re expecting two new mokopuna in the next few months. When they arrive I want to be able to say to them, “Say hi to me, I’m your corner angel and always will be.”
Then I want to be able to turn and say to their parents, “Behold your little ones, they have a happy, healthy future here in Aotearoa, and so do you.”
When that happens I always ask, “Are you talking to the corner-angels darling?” By that I mean those flickers seen from the corner of adult eyes, but which our little ones see square on and clearly until earth life claims them fully.
I thought of the ‘corner angels’ after watching this week’s Inside New Zealand documentary on child poverty in our country, and I wondered where they were, not just for the children but for their parents.
In the mid-1980s my mother wrote an essay titled “Starving in Paradise” in which she talked about the craziness of living in a country with enough land, water, food, health, housing and education services to meet everyone’s needs, but not enough paid work to give families at the bottom the wherewithal to provide those things adequately to their little ones.
The Prime Minister of that time, Rob Muldoon (for all his well-deserved reputation as an often nasty man) saw what people needed was meaningful, paid work. In Pawarenga the six month PEP schemes with two week stand-downs between each that he established were heaven-sent. Crime rates dropped, health stats rose, and the kainga was abuzz with happy, active, engaged whānau.
Unfortunately not one government since Muldoon’s has shown any common sense about those at the bottom. Instead they’ve clung to the hopelessly failed ‘trickle-down’ theory of enriching the 1% at the top, believing that will lift the earning power of everyone else.
It’s not working for our little ones, because it’s not working for their parents.
I’ve seen good parents break under the stress of not being able to pay for what their little ones need. Some have simply walked away, some have struggled on, some have gone half or wholly mad. Most make it through somehow, a few turn bad. But many, many more are simply choosing to take themselves and their families out of the country entirely.
My brother left for Australia last week to work in the mines. He’s a registered nurse and a qualified teacher with reasonable earning power. But he’s had enough. So he’s gone, and his wife and kids will join him in the New Year.
We’re expecting two new mokopuna in the next few months. When they arrive I want to be able to say to them, “Say hi to me, I’m your corner angel and always will be.”
Then I want to be able to turn and say to their parents, “Behold your little ones, they have a happy, healthy future here in Aotearoa, and so do you.”
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
MMP - MORE MANA IN POLITICS
In this last week before we go to the polls I have been thinking a lot about Naomi Wolf’s 2007 book, “The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot,” in which she lays out the rise of world-wide fascism in this century and the one before it.
Many people may think they don’t know what fascism is, but if you’re old enough to vote, you actually know it better than you may realise.
In simple terms, fascism is a political ideology based on strong leadership, stable government and the removal of human rights and personal freedoms from the citizenry.
Mussolini invented fascism in Italy during the 1920s. Ever since then, fascist leaders from Hitler to Bush have all followed the same ten steps he used to shift their free, open societies into closed fascist states; and all with the consent of their citizens.
Naomi Wolf identifies those ten steps as follows:
1. Invoke a terrifying enemy; it doesn’t matter whether it’s internal or external, as long as it’s terrifying.
2. Create or support secret prisons where torture takes place; preferably outside your borders.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to your citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release; again, preferably outside your borders.
7. Target key individuals; academics, students, investigative journalists, activists.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors; recast dissent as treason and protest as terrorism.
10. Suspend the rule of law; remove habeus corpus (innocent until proven guilty) and due process (notice and opportunity to defend oneself).
Do you recognise these steps? You should, because New Zealand governments have advanced quite far down the checklist. We are not yet at the stage that the United States is with regard to human rights violations and suspension of the rule of law, but we’re getting there.
Fascist shifts don’t happen in a straight line of progression. Instead they happen as a series of tipping points (Malcolm Gladwell); here a little, there a little. And, as Wolf says, "When it reaches the point of no return – when democrcy can no longer heal itself – collapse happens real fast. When these tipping points start to come thick and fast, free societies close down very quickly."
As they prepare to go to the polls this Saturday, a number of people are asking me for advice about why they should vote for this person or that party.
In answer I give them the above checklist and tell them to ask themselves one simple question. Which party and which candidate is not following this check list?
Then vote for that party, their candidate and their policies.
And vote yes to keep MMP because it means More Mana in Politics.
Many people may think they don’t know what fascism is, but if you’re old enough to vote, you actually know it better than you may realise.
In simple terms, fascism is a political ideology based on strong leadership, stable government and the removal of human rights and personal freedoms from the citizenry.
Mussolini invented fascism in Italy during the 1920s. Ever since then, fascist leaders from Hitler to Bush have all followed the same ten steps he used to shift their free, open societies into closed fascist states; and all with the consent of their citizens.
Naomi Wolf identifies those ten steps as follows:
1. Invoke a terrifying enemy; it doesn’t matter whether it’s internal or external, as long as it’s terrifying.
2. Create or support secret prisons where torture takes place; preferably outside your borders.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to your citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release; again, preferably outside your borders.
7. Target key individuals; academics, students, investigative journalists, activists.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors; recast dissent as treason and protest as terrorism.
10. Suspend the rule of law; remove habeus corpus (innocent until proven guilty) and due process (notice and opportunity to defend oneself).
Do you recognise these steps? You should, because New Zealand governments have advanced quite far down the checklist. We are not yet at the stage that the United States is with regard to human rights violations and suspension of the rule of law, but we’re getting there.
Fascist shifts don’t happen in a straight line of progression. Instead they happen as a series of tipping points (Malcolm Gladwell); here a little, there a little. And, as Wolf says, "When it reaches the point of no return – when democrcy can no longer heal itself – collapse happens real fast. When these tipping points start to come thick and fast, free societies close down very quickly."
As they prepare to go to the polls this Saturday, a number of people are asking me for advice about why they should vote for this person or that party.
In answer I give them the above checklist and tell them to ask themselves one simple question. Which party and which candidate is not following this check list?
Then vote for that party, their candidate and their policies.
And vote yes to keep MMP because it means More Mana in Politics.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
SHOW US THE DEEDS
While an American visitor was shocked at the racism against Māori that he witnessed from a policewoman in Kerikeri during his recent visit here [Lance O’Sullivan’s column in the Northland Age 10 Nov 2011], most New Zealanders would have found it unremarkable, in the same way that they find the Crown’s Treaty settlement dealings with Māori unremarkable.
In fact, of all the letter writers to the Northland Age, only a handful can be relied upon to remark at all about the insitutitional racism which is endemic in this country against Māori and, of those, most blame Māori for it.
Anyway, rather than rage ineffectively against the machine I prefer to target its power source, or as close to it as I can get. With that in mind I have written today to Chris Finlayson, Crown Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, as follows:
Dear Chris,
Last week we asked your staff at the Office of Treaty Settlements for copies of the deeds they had drafted to settle our claims against the Crown for breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The reply was that the documents were too large to email and would be uploaded to the OTS website on Monday just gone. They haven’t been.
Given that we are expected to ratify your Te Aupōuri deed in less than 6 weeks and your Te Rarawa deed not long after that, we want to see the actual deeds. In this age of electronic scanners and high speed broadband, we had expected them to have been made available to us by now. In fact we would have preferred to have seen them before they were intialed by our self-proclaimed chiefs; a courtesy your Pākehā constituents take for granted when agreements are being made in their behalf. But we know that is not how you deal with Māori.
It is not up to Te Runanga o Te Rarawa or Te Runanga Nui o Te Aupōuri to give us access to these documents. They are already very busy posting us explanatory booklets about them, and preparing to hold hui to explain those explanatory booklets to us. So these chiefly persons cannot be expected to also send or give us access to the actual documents. That’s your job.
Please instruct your staff to upload the Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa deeds of settlement to the OTS website pronto; preferably before the chiefly ones hold their first explanatory hui.
In closing, I shall be in Wellington on the 25th of this month at the Waitangi Tribunal where these deeds will be part of the evidence presented to show why the Tribunal should make binding recommendations on the Crown to return all Ngāti Kahu lands (currently occupied and used by State-owned Enterprises or leased as Crown Forest Licenses) to Ngāti Kahu - plus compensation.
Na,
Anahera Herbert-Graves (Inside an Iwi)
In fact, of all the letter writers to the Northland Age, only a handful can be relied upon to remark at all about the insitutitional racism which is endemic in this country against Māori and, of those, most blame Māori for it.
Anyway, rather than rage ineffectively against the machine I prefer to target its power source, or as close to it as I can get. With that in mind I have written today to Chris Finlayson, Crown Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, as follows:
Dear Chris,
Last week we asked your staff at the Office of Treaty Settlements for copies of the deeds they had drafted to settle our claims against the Crown for breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The reply was that the documents were too large to email and would be uploaded to the OTS website on Monday just gone. They haven’t been.
Given that we are expected to ratify your Te Aupōuri deed in less than 6 weeks and your Te Rarawa deed not long after that, we want to see the actual deeds. In this age of electronic scanners and high speed broadband, we had expected them to have been made available to us by now. In fact we would have preferred to have seen them before they were intialed by our self-proclaimed chiefs; a courtesy your Pākehā constituents take for granted when agreements are being made in their behalf. But we know that is not how you deal with Māori.
It is not up to Te Runanga o Te Rarawa or Te Runanga Nui o Te Aupōuri to give us access to these documents. They are already very busy posting us explanatory booklets about them, and preparing to hold hui to explain those explanatory booklets to us. So these chiefly persons cannot be expected to also send or give us access to the actual documents. That’s your job.
Please instruct your staff to upload the Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa deeds of settlement to the OTS website pronto; preferably before the chiefly ones hold their first explanatory hui.
In closing, I shall be in Wellington on the 25th of this month at the Waitangi Tribunal where these deeds will be part of the evidence presented to show why the Tribunal should make binding recommendations on the Crown to return all Ngāti Kahu lands (currently occupied and used by State-owned Enterprises or leased as Crown Forest Licenses) to Ngāti Kahu - plus compensation.
Na,
Anahera Herbert-Graves (Inside an Iwi)
Friday, November 18, 2011
SHOW US THE MONEY
“Show us the money! Show us the money!”
In the first of two televised debates held in early November for election 2011, that was the repeated one-liner that National’s John Key used to pressure Phil Goff over Labour’s election promises.
Disappointingly Goff failed to respond with any conviction whatsoever. Even more disappointing both Key and Goff completely ignored the obvious answer. In these globalised times, to fund our social and economic recovery, tax the banks on every speculative transaction they make in our territories.
How would that work?
In England it’s being promoted as the Robin Hood bank tax. Of course the banks are screaming blue murder that it would be horribly complex, unfair to individual rich members of the public, terribly tough on the banking sector, and would be of minimal benefit to the poor. But let’s unpack these objections and see whether they hold water or not.
First, how tough has this recession been on the banking sector? This is the same sector that has over the past four years received trillions of dollars worth of taxpayers moneys from across the globe to keep it going, and is still paying itself billions of dollars in bonuses. Sound like tough times to you?
Second, how unfair would this be on rich members of the public? The taxes proposed would be charged on all bank transactions that do not include members of the public; bonds, derivatives, currencies, speculative stuff. The bankers would give something like 0.05% on each deal that they did, sometimes even less. Does that does sound unfair to you?
Third, how minimal would these benefits be? Even the most conservative estimates suggest that this tiny tax on the banks would raise hundreds of billions of dollars every year across the globe, Not only would that help save lives and fund vital environmental action around the world, it would help avoid cuts to crucial public services here in this country and fund improved outcomes for us all.
Every one standing in this election says they care, and are going to do something about our falling standards of living and rising poverty. So, in the debate between the two who are most likely to form some kind of government after the election, that’s what I was listening for. What are they going to do? How are we going to pay for it?
What I heard Key say was that National would sell assets to fund education, housing and health, while Goff said Labour would rejig taxes to do the same. But neither gave me a clear vision of what that would look like.
The answer is as plain as the nose on Goff’s face; don’t sell our assets and don’t just take GST off fruit and veges; tax the banks.
The MANA movement has renamed it the Hone Heke tax, and it’s the only sensible answer to John Key’s challenge to, “Show us the money!”
In the first of two televised debates held in early November for election 2011, that was the repeated one-liner that National’s John Key used to pressure Phil Goff over Labour’s election promises.
Disappointingly Goff failed to respond with any conviction whatsoever. Even more disappointing both Key and Goff completely ignored the obvious answer. In these globalised times, to fund our social and economic recovery, tax the banks on every speculative transaction they make in our territories.
How would that work?
In England it’s being promoted as the Robin Hood bank tax. Of course the banks are screaming blue murder that it would be horribly complex, unfair to individual rich members of the public, terribly tough on the banking sector, and would be of minimal benefit to the poor. But let’s unpack these objections and see whether they hold water or not.
First, how tough has this recession been on the banking sector? This is the same sector that has over the past four years received trillions of dollars worth of taxpayers moneys from across the globe to keep it going, and is still paying itself billions of dollars in bonuses. Sound like tough times to you?
Second, how unfair would this be on rich members of the public? The taxes proposed would be charged on all bank transactions that do not include members of the public; bonds, derivatives, currencies, speculative stuff. The bankers would give something like 0.05% on each deal that they did, sometimes even less. Does that does sound unfair to you?
Third, how minimal would these benefits be? Even the most conservative estimates suggest that this tiny tax on the banks would raise hundreds of billions of dollars every year across the globe, Not only would that help save lives and fund vital environmental action around the world, it would help avoid cuts to crucial public services here in this country and fund improved outcomes for us all.
Every one standing in this election says they care, and are going to do something about our falling standards of living and rising poverty. So, in the debate between the two who are most likely to form some kind of government after the election, that’s what I was listening for. What are they going to do? How are we going to pay for it?
What I heard Key say was that National would sell assets to fund education, housing and health, while Goff said Labour would rejig taxes to do the same. But neither gave me a clear vision of what that would look like.
The answer is as plain as the nose on Goff’s face; don’t sell our assets and don’t just take GST off fruit and veges; tax the banks.
The MANA movement has renamed it the Hone Heke tax, and it’s the only sensible answer to John Key’s challenge to, “Show us the money!”
Monday, November 14, 2011
WHAT PRICE SOVEREIGNTY?
The clear trend across the world is to concentrate decision making and resources in fewer hands by over-riding the sovereignty of nations. Just look at Greece and Italy where elected leaders, unable to govern as a result of having joined the European Union and done a deal with the devil itself (Goldman Sachs) have been replaced by EU appointed bureaucrats who weren’t elected by their citizens and aren’t accountable to them. Instead both men (Mario Monti in Italy and Lucas Papademos in Greece) have very strong ties to Goldman Sachs and banking.
The same devil is now behind moves to change the membership and rules of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was originally set up in 2006 between Chile, Brunei, New Zealand and Singapore. Now Australia, Peru, the United States and Viet Nam also want to join it.
It’s the US interest in joining which has made it a hot topic, because America represents seventh heaven to free trade marketeers and hell on wheels to everyone else.
Right now the TPP has no enforcement provisions, no common currency, and no common governing body. But last year Ian Ferguson (international finance specialist) and Bruce Vaughan (Asian affairs specialist) wrote a paper for Congress identifying the changes that must be made to the TPP if it is to “serve the security and trade interests” of the US.
First, it must have a common governing body made up of non-elected bureaucrats appointed by participating governments. Second, it must have the power to enforce its decisions by force of arms if necessary. Third, it must be able to sue governments, but must itself be exempt from being sued.
Just last week, Secretary of State Clinton said, now that US engagement in the middle east (Iraq and Afghanistan) is winding down, it ‘vows’ to expand its ‘engagement in the Asia-Pacific...’
For us, America’s entry into the TPP will almost certainly mean the end of Pharmac which buys our pharmaceutical and medical supplies from whoever gives us the best price. It will also be the end of the private online auction facility that Fonterra had created to allow us to get better prices than other countries for our dairy products. It will tie us irrevocably to serving the ‘security and trade interests’ of America. And it will destroy what little is left of our already taretare sovereignty.
Already we know that under John Key US Marines will be housed somewhere in New Zealand. Under him, government will have a public-private partnership with some unknown entity to build an SAS training base somewhere in New Zealand. He has shown himself willing to use our navy and police forces to arrest us in favour of foreign commerce. And his government has made laws to prosecute us for taking action against foreign spy activities in our country.
If the steward of our sovereignty is John Key, how buttressed do you feel knowing that he has a home in Honolulu and all his money in US banks? Who is he really speaking for when he has his bolt hole elsewhere and his money safely offshore?
The same devil is now behind moves to change the membership and rules of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was originally set up in 2006 between Chile, Brunei, New Zealand and Singapore. Now Australia, Peru, the United States and Viet Nam also want to join it.
It’s the US interest in joining which has made it a hot topic, because America represents seventh heaven to free trade marketeers and hell on wheels to everyone else.
Right now the TPP has no enforcement provisions, no common currency, and no common governing body. But last year Ian Ferguson (international finance specialist) and Bruce Vaughan (Asian affairs specialist) wrote a paper for Congress identifying the changes that must be made to the TPP if it is to “serve the security and trade interests” of the US.
First, it must have a common governing body made up of non-elected bureaucrats appointed by participating governments. Second, it must have the power to enforce its decisions by force of arms if necessary. Third, it must be able to sue governments, but must itself be exempt from being sued.
Just last week, Secretary of State Clinton said, now that US engagement in the middle east (Iraq and Afghanistan) is winding down, it ‘vows’ to expand its ‘engagement in the Asia-Pacific...’
For us, America’s entry into the TPP will almost certainly mean the end of Pharmac which buys our pharmaceutical and medical supplies from whoever gives us the best price. It will also be the end of the private online auction facility that Fonterra had created to allow us to get better prices than other countries for our dairy products. It will tie us irrevocably to serving the ‘security and trade interests’ of America. And it will destroy what little is left of our already taretare sovereignty.
Already we know that under John Key US Marines will be housed somewhere in New Zealand. Under him, government will have a public-private partnership with some unknown entity to build an SAS training base somewhere in New Zealand. He has shown himself willing to use our navy and police forces to arrest us in favour of foreign commerce. And his government has made laws to prosecute us for taking action against foreign spy activities in our country.
If the steward of our sovereignty is John Key, how buttressed do you feel knowing that he has a home in Honolulu and all his money in US banks? Who is he really speaking for when he has his bolt hole elsewhere and his money safely offshore?
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
POISONED FRUIT
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is as well.
Last week Māori TV showed the documentary, “Operation Eight” about the illegal and racist terror raids carried out by the New Zealand Police for and on behalf of the Crown on the Tūhoe settlement of Ruatoki in 2007.
I say illegal because, in August this year, the video surveillance which comprised much of the Police’s raison d’etre for the raids was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Cue mad scramble by the Crown to pass retrospective legislation to make the video footage legal. It went through as law just last month after a lot of cross-party dealing and wheeling.
But, as the documentary lays out with precision, even if the video surveillance had been obtained legally, how it was edited and presented by the police in order to get authority to make the raids on Tūhoe is a black joke and an example of ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’
You can watch the documentary on Māori TV’s website for free and see it for yourself.
Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, who shepherded the Covert Police Surveillance Bill through the house, is also the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and he’s been a very busy little bee.
First, he was in the Far North again early last week, trying to convince Ngāti Kuri to drop its bottom lines regarding its lands and initial a deed of settlement with the Crown. Another poisoned fruit metaphor comes to mind here; the one that Snow White ate. To their eternal credit, Ngāti Kuri rejected what the Crown was offering and refused to swallow. Poof! Crown plan one up in smoke.
Then last Friday Finlayson hosted what was supposed to be a four-iwi initialing ceremony of four deeds of settlement (full, final and fair ones) with the Crown. But the negotiators for Ngāitakoto changed their minds when it became clear they too were being asked to drop their bottom lines on a key piece of land (Te Make aka Sweetwater) in which Te Paatu also has an interest. To their credit, Ngāitakoto also refused to swallow. Poof! Another Crown plan up in smoke.
On the same day the annual hikoi to commemorate the 1881 invasion of Parihaka by Crown troops (shades of Tūhoe terror raids) happened. And, as the marchers stood outside the barrier between them and the steps of Parliament, they spotted our Te Rarawa and Te Aupōuri whānau standing on the steps with fresh ink on their hands.
At the end of this month Ngāti Kahu has a judicial conference on our Waitangi Tribunal claim for binding recommendations against the Crown coming up. That means any deed initialed last week is somewhat moot; poisoned fruit even.
Why would anyone swallow that?
Last week Māori TV showed the documentary, “Operation Eight” about the illegal and racist terror raids carried out by the New Zealand Police for and on behalf of the Crown on the Tūhoe settlement of Ruatoki in 2007.
I say illegal because, in August this year, the video surveillance which comprised much of the Police’s raison d’etre for the raids was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Cue mad scramble by the Crown to pass retrospective legislation to make the video footage legal. It went through as law just last month after a lot of cross-party dealing and wheeling.
But, as the documentary lays out with precision, even if the video surveillance had been obtained legally, how it was edited and presented by the police in order to get authority to make the raids on Tūhoe is a black joke and an example of ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’
You can watch the documentary on Māori TV’s website for free and see it for yourself.
Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, who shepherded the Covert Police Surveillance Bill through the house, is also the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and he’s been a very busy little bee.
First, he was in the Far North again early last week, trying to convince Ngāti Kuri to drop its bottom lines regarding its lands and initial a deed of settlement with the Crown. Another poisoned fruit metaphor comes to mind here; the one that Snow White ate. To their eternal credit, Ngāti Kuri rejected what the Crown was offering and refused to swallow. Poof! Crown plan one up in smoke.
Then last Friday Finlayson hosted what was supposed to be a four-iwi initialing ceremony of four deeds of settlement (full, final and fair ones) with the Crown. But the negotiators for Ngāitakoto changed their minds when it became clear they too were being asked to drop their bottom lines on a key piece of land (Te Make aka Sweetwater) in which Te Paatu also has an interest. To their credit, Ngāitakoto also refused to swallow. Poof! Another Crown plan up in smoke.
On the same day the annual hikoi to commemorate the 1881 invasion of Parihaka by Crown troops (shades of Tūhoe terror raids) happened. And, as the marchers stood outside the barrier between them and the steps of Parliament, they spotted our Te Rarawa and Te Aupōuri whānau standing on the steps with fresh ink on their hands.
At the end of this month Ngāti Kahu has a judicial conference on our Waitangi Tribunal claim for binding recommendations against the Crown coming up. That means any deed initialed last week is somewhat moot; poisoned fruit even.
Why would anyone swallow that?
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
The theory of social contract is based on the notion that governments only exist by consent of the people; we the people agree to be governed if, in exchange, government agrees to protect us.
But here in this country, instead of protecting us, governments of left and right have spent the last thirty years deregulating all sorts of laws that have made us easy pickings for Big Banking, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Energy, Big Farming and Big Industry.
To illustrate, after the Great Depression (1929 – 1945), laws were passed across the world, including here, to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. But in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher took the gloves off in Great Britain, New Zealand governments rapidly followed suit.
Laws that had stopped banks from gambling investors’ money were repealed. Strict separations between bankers, brokers and insurers were removed. Laws that protected workers from unfair employment practices were put aside or weakened. Laws that protected the environment were amended or watered down. And more recent laws that recognised Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the special relationship of Māori with their whenua have been changed to diminish that relationship.
So, what has all that deregulation gained us? Our economy is now in a state of collapse (Hanover Finance, Southern Finance and triple credit rating downgrades), our infrastructure is a basket case (Pike River, the Taranaki gas line), and our environment is under pressure (Raukumara Basin, the Rena). On top of that, people are working harder for less, students are leaving university burdened with mortgage-sized debt, our housing bubble has burst, and our health and education statistics are tumbling down the OECD scale.
The only recent bright spot has been six weeks of RWC and an All Black victory. But even that’s beginning to dim as the spotlight turns on the state of the nation before the election. If you were looking for a metaphor for that state, then look no further than a ship called Rena.
“The government didn’t ground the Rena on that reef,” John Key said. True. But neither did it protect against or prepare adequately for such an event. Instead, it allowed a poorly serviced ship, under-manned by an under-paid and over-worked crew, to sail under a flag of convenience around our coastline and harbours until it fetched up on that reef.
Imagine a revolver with four chambers. First chamber represents our environment, second is our economy, third are our labour laws, and the fourth represents us the people. Well, the Rena is the bullet that fits all four chambers, while governmental negligence is the fire power.
It will take some time before the black oil works its way out of the seafood, sands and aquifers of Tauranga Moana and Te Tairāwhiti. But as each blob sinks downward or drifts shoreward, it becomes more and more clear; our government has smashed its social contract with us all.
And in its place looms a social nightmare called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA].
But here in this country, instead of protecting us, governments of left and right have spent the last thirty years deregulating all sorts of laws that have made us easy pickings for Big Banking, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Energy, Big Farming and Big Industry.
To illustrate, after the Great Depression (1929 – 1945), laws were passed across the world, including here, to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. But in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher took the gloves off in Great Britain, New Zealand governments rapidly followed suit.
Laws that had stopped banks from gambling investors’ money were repealed. Strict separations between bankers, brokers and insurers were removed. Laws that protected workers from unfair employment practices were put aside or weakened. Laws that protected the environment were amended or watered down. And more recent laws that recognised Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the special relationship of Māori with their whenua have been changed to diminish that relationship.
So, what has all that deregulation gained us? Our economy is now in a state of collapse (Hanover Finance, Southern Finance and triple credit rating downgrades), our infrastructure is a basket case (Pike River, the Taranaki gas line), and our environment is under pressure (Raukumara Basin, the Rena). On top of that, people are working harder for less, students are leaving university burdened with mortgage-sized debt, our housing bubble has burst, and our health and education statistics are tumbling down the OECD scale.
The only recent bright spot has been six weeks of RWC and an All Black victory. But even that’s beginning to dim as the spotlight turns on the state of the nation before the election. If you were looking for a metaphor for that state, then look no further than a ship called Rena.
“The government didn’t ground the Rena on that reef,” John Key said. True. But neither did it protect against or prepare adequately for such an event. Instead, it allowed a poorly serviced ship, under-manned by an under-paid and over-worked crew, to sail under a flag of convenience around our coastline and harbours until it fetched up on that reef.
Imagine a revolver with four chambers. First chamber represents our environment, second is our economy, third are our labour laws, and the fourth represents us the people. Well, the Rena is the bullet that fits all four chambers, while governmental negligence is the fire power.
It will take some time before the black oil works its way out of the seafood, sands and aquifers of Tauranga Moana and Te Tairāwhiti. But as each blob sinks downward or drifts shoreward, it becomes more and more clear; our government has smashed its social contract with us all.
And in its place looms a social nightmare called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)