FLEECING THE SHORN SHEEP

A US couple were recently found guilty of fraud.  Over a period of six years Alan and Reena Slominski made 132 successful applications for wool loans from their government.  The problem was that the sheep they claimed to have shorn simply did not exist.  So not only had they not shorn the sheep, they had instead fleeced the US government.

As scams go this was small-scale, nickel and dime stuff.  A true scammer would have not only managed to shear the non-existent sheep, they would have then been able to fleece those shorn sheep over and over again.  To learn how to do that the Slominskis should come and take lessons from the New Zealand government.

Last week it took the next step towards extinguishing the mana whenua and rangatiratanga of Te Aupouri, Ngati Kuri, Ngai Takoto and Te Rarawa when it introduced the Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill into its House. 

This Bill contains the standard fleecing clauses contained in every land claim settlement Act since 1995.  Under it, less than 3.5% of the four iwi’s original land base will be returned, and most of that will be “sold” to them and has to be paid for (ransomed) before the Crown will release it.  The remainder will be “given” to them with encumbrances on it that ensure the Crown keeps control of it.

In exchange for less than 3.5% of their land and some cash, the four iwi will give up their native title over the remaining 96.5% that even the Waitangi Tribunal said they still have, and Crown sovereignty will replace their hapū rangatiratanga.   

After the Bill becomes law, the four iwi will become advisors to the Crown, Northland Regional Council and Far North District Council on the management of Te Oneroa-a-Tohe (90 mile beach); the Crown refuses to acknowledge the beach is still owned by the five iwi.  Their hapū will get to nominate advisors to the Minister of Conservation on the remaining conservation lands in their rohe.  But it’s the Minister who will decide whether the iwi advisors will be appointed and when they will be removed.  The department, Minister and New Zealand Conservation Authority can then amend any plans made by the iwi advisors; the Crown refuses to acknowledge the lands belong to hapū.

The Crown has reserved the right to allow prospecting and mining anywhere it sees fit in the rohe of the four iwi – including in the Warawara forest.  It has also reserved the right in the future to sell any land it retains control over, and the four iwi will have right of first refusal.  They will then become advisors to various government departments on matters of social welfare; the Crown refuses to allow the iwi to control their own social welfare.

Those are the standard tricks contained in the Bill.  Next week we will consider the new tricks the Crown has devised to fleece the shorn sheep.

OUT OF THE DEPTHS

One of my earliest childhood memories is of sitting on the floor of our marae in Pawarenga with the angelic harmonies of the de profundis being woven in the air above me.    

As soon as the cantor began the two note opening call (Nō te hōhonutanga o ōku hara i karanga ai ahau ki a Koe e te – out of the depths I have cried to thee), my soul would soar in anticipation of the three note response (A-ri-ki – O Lord.)

As a child it was the sound of the chant which enchanted me.  But now, as an adult who has experienced many things, it is the meaning within the sound by which I am uplifted.  (E te Ariki kia rongo koe ki tōku reo – Lord hear my voice.)    

As a child I loved this time of year because it meant a four day holiday from school (Kia whakarongo ōu taringa – let thine ears be attentive), but now I know that for many families it also means death and grief (ki te reo o tāku inoinga – to the voice of my supplication).

As a child I understood that there were bad things, like adults getting drunk or angry, over which I had little or no control (ki te mea e titiro koe ki ngā hara e te Ariki – if thou O Lord shalt observe iniquities); now I know that I can choose whether or not to let those bad things into my life and the lives of my uri (e te Ariki ko wai e tū ki tōu aroaro? – Lord who shall endure it?)

As a child I learned that wrong actions could hurt and that the words “I’m sorry” could heal (Nā te mea he atawhai kei a koe – For with thee); now I understand why that is so (nā te mea hoki hei aroha kei āu ture, koia ahau i whakawhirinaki ai a koe e te Ariki – there is merciful forgiveness, and by reason of thy Law I have waited for Thee O Lord). 

Who is this Lord?

He is the immortal God who consented to become mortal.  The one who lived a perfect life before submitting to the agonies of Gethsemane and Golgotha.  The one who willingly died and descended below all things for three days before rising triumphant as the resurrected, glorified and living God.  The one who took the sting out of death and won victory over the grave for everyone, whether they believe in Him or not.  The one whose work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

He is hated and reviled by many and ignored by most, but through the Wairua Tapū I know he loves and watches over us all.  He will never be Prime Minister or President, but I know he does preside and he is prime.  He does not reside in the White House or Beehive, but I know he is right at home in sacred places, including that marae floor on which I sat all those many years ago. 

Kua ora tōku wairua ki tana kupu, kua whakawhirinaki tōku wairua ki te Ariki, from the morning watch even until night.   

LEARN FROM THE PAST

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”  So said the Spanish-American philosopher, essayist and poet, George Santayana.  But long before he coined this piece of wisdom, the whakataukī, e kore te pātiki e hoki ki tōna puehu, warned against making the same mistake twice. 

With just under 24 weeks to go to Saturday 20th September, there are many lessons from the past to consider regards the big election issues that impact on our ability to live well in our own country. 

In 1971, double Victoria Cross winner, Charles Upham, said to the British people, “Your politicians have made money into their God, but what they are buying is disaster.”  Nine years earlier Britain had joined the then European Economic Community, a fore-runner to the European Union. 

As we prepare to go to the polls in September, keep his words in mind with regard to the current Trans-Pacific partnership negotiations, and remember what has happened to British sovereignty since 1962. 

During a radio 1ZB interview in July 2003 of Māori lawyer and activist, Annette Sykes, the late Paul Holmes asked her why Māori so vehemently opposed the government’s moves to pass the Foreshore and Seabed Bill.  

“Māori belong to the foreshore, the foreshore belong to Māori, and we are not mean-spirited,” was her reply. 

In the lead up to the election, there are clear lessons in these words, as well as in what has happened to our foreshore and seabed, particularly with regard to our  water and food sovereignty.  

In 1988, Ngāti Te Ata claimant, Nganeko Minhinnick, made this statement to the 6th session of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations: “The government claims that setting up the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal to hear the people’s grievances is a way of honouring the Treaty.  In fact, it is simply recognition that the Treaty has not been honoured.”

Keep that in mind as Treaty settlements continue being signed at a great rate in the lead up to election 2014.

At the end of the first programme of the ground-breaking 1974 documentary series, Tangata Whenua, the late Eva Rickard said in that strident and strong voice of hers, “The spirits and the times will teach.  Not men; not the books; but the times and the spirits of the past.”

As you prepare to vote in September, keep those words in mind and watch out for politicians who continue to use education reform as a battleground, Treaty settlements as a means of extinguishing sovereignty, and free trade agreements as an inducement to to let them cede New Zealand's sovereignty.  

Above all else, instead of making the same mistakes twice, learn from the past.

LOST IN TRANSLATION

A computer was programmed to translate languages and given the English phrase “Out of sight, out of mind” to translate into Russian.  Then its programmer asked it to translate the Russian translation back into English and was surprised when the result came out as “Invisible idiot.” 

I was reminded of that computer recently when a proud “fifth gen NZ’er” (his own words) with no hapū whakapapa emailed me to say he is offended to be called manuhiri in Aotearoa.  When I asked him why, he replied, “I’m not a guest in my own country.” 

He’s right.  He’s not a guest.  He’s manuhiri of the hapū in whose rohe he resides.  His offense is rooted in his ignorance of what that means.

Using the English concept of guest as a translation for the Māori concept of manuhiri is, like the English-to-Russian-English translation above, technically right but culturally wrong.

A guest has very limited rights which do not last beyond a well-defined endpoint, after which the guest is expected and may even be forced to leave. In fact, if they behave badly, a guest can be booted out even before that endpoint.

Manuhiri, on the other hand, can stay in a hapū rohe forever.   Whether they are good mannered or gross mongrels while they are there doesn’t affect their status as manuhiri, only their standing amongst the hapū who manaaki them.

Manuhiri are those who arrive after or marry into the hapū with mana whenua. Māori of other hapū are manuhiri when they are living in an area where they have no whakapapa as mana whenua. Everyone who is not mana whenua is manuhiri.

Manuhiri have very real rights and responsibilities over the resources and assets allocated to them, either via tuku whenua by the hapū or through purchase under the Crown. They can live according to their protocols, laws and cultures. They can trade, transact, exchange, export, import, travel overseas, play, live, die, be buried.  In fact they can do almost anything they want to do.

They do not however have the right to deprive the mana whenua hapū of what rightfully belongs to them.

After I explained all this to the offended ‘fifth gen NZ’er’ he went on to deny he lived in a hapū rohe and reckoned such a world view was archaic and unhelpful.  I was again reminded of the language-translating computer. 

When its programmer gave it another English phrase to translate into Russian then back into English, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” came out as, “The booze is OK, but the meat is rotten.” 

Something is clearly getting lost in translation.