DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY

Ngāti Kahu is a member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Although they do not attend every session of the Forum, they did so in 2004, 2009 and again this year. While there they contribute to what are known as ‘interventions’, which is a way to seek UN involvement in the internal affairs of a state by various means.

In 2004 the hot issue was the theft by the crown of Te Takutaimoana with the Foreshore and Seabed Act.  As a result the UN sent Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen in 2005 to report on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Māori. His report was damning of the government. You can read it online at http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/srnzmarch06.pdf

In 2009 Ngāti Kahu again sent a representative to join with other Māori to  counter the Crown's spin regards the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which New Zealand finally signed in June 2010. A month later the UN sent Special Rapporteur James Anaya to do a follow up report on the situation of Māori people in New Zealand. His report can he read online at http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/country-reports/the-situation-of-maori-people-in-new-zealand-2011. Although he noted some improvements, he also noted more needed to be done by the government.

This year the issues range across almost every political and legislative activity.  Resource exploitation, asset sales, charter schools, birth control for beneficiaries, union lockouts and many more issues are problems for everyone.  And increasingly everyone is seeing that the solutions hinge on a written constitution. 

That is why Ngāti Kahu was asked by Te Whakaminenga o Ngā Hapū o Nu Tireni to go to the Permanent Forum this year and seek UN support for a written constitution in this country based on the mana whenua and tikanga of each hapū, Te Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  While specific to New Zealand, the intervention also fit with the Forum’s theme for its 2012 session; the Doctrine of Discovery.

This Doctrine is what European nations, particularly Spain, Holland, France and England, used to justify the wholesale theft of the lands and resources of indigenous peoples throughout the world and the subsequent genocide as millions were murdered and many nations entirely wiped out.

It is based on the false notion or myth that white Christians are somehow superior to all other people and must always dominate the world. It is the basis for the current legal and government systems we have in New Zealand and is what underlies the deeply ingrained racism we are constantly subjected to.

Over the next few weeks I will share reports on what happened at the Forum as this Doctrine and its modern day consequences were discussed.

WHAT NOW?

Quid nunc (what now) is a Latin term for someone who is a busybody and a gossip.  I first heard it in 1984 when the late Tā Hemi Henare used it in a speech he made to the newly elected Lange government with reference to those who are always ready to seek, spread and expand on any bad news about Māori. 

Quid nunc came to mind on Sunday just gone with an email from a Herald reporter who wrote, “I’m working on a financial accountability project for the paper in the wake of the recent sad news that Ngati Tama has lost virtually all of its treaty settlement funds… The purpose is to find out how many iwi keep their tribal members informed and whether the information is easily accessible… Respectfully, would your organization kindly provide your annual report and tell me if it is available to your iwi members? If so, how is it available?”

I have not responded to this request because, respectfully, I don’t need to; Ngāti Kahu know where to come if they want to know anything.  But the request itself made me think.

deListed NewZealand is an independent service that provides updated information on companies that have changed their name, failed or been delisted from the NewZealand Stock Exchange.  After getting the Herald’s request, I went online and checked the stats for 2011, and here is what I found.

Last year 663 non-Iwi companies went into receivership, 4767 more went into liquidation and a further 24 were placed into administration; that’s 5,454 failed non-Iwi companies.  To get an idea of what that figure means, during the same year the New Zealand Companies Register recorded the incorporation of 43,927 new companies.  Even allowing for the fact that there are almost 570,000 registered companies in the country, the failure rate of non-Iwi companies was more than 10% of the rate of all new companies registered during 2011. 

That was news to me.  So I emailed some Chief Executives of non-Iwi companies and asked if any of them had received a similar request from the Herald.  They had not.  I then emailed some Chief Executives of Iwi entities and asked if the Herald had contacted any of them with the same request?  It had. 

Apparently, based on the losses of a single Iwi, the Herald feels compelled to do a series on the financial accountability of all Iwi.  And yet, in spite of the failure of more than five and a half thousand  non-Iwi companies during 2011, it has yet to investigate the financial accountability of all non-Iwi.  And how do I know these were non-Iwi companies that failed? Because if they were Iwi, the media would have named them individually.

Apart from being inherently racist and unhelpful, this is lazy, lazy journalism; pure quid nuncery. 

WRITING OUR CONSTITUTION

This week I'm sharing a brief constitutional fact sheet put out by AotearoaMatike Mai (the Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation).

Every day Parliament passes laws that impact on Māori people but Māori never have any effective say over what those laws might be. There have been Māori MP’s of course, and now there is “consultation,” but in nearly every case Māori views are ignored. For example during the recent consultation on Section 9 of the SOE Act most Māori opposed the selling of State Assets but the government is going ahead with its policy.

The asset sales example is part of a history from the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863 which confiscated thousands of acres of whenua to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 which was passed in spite of the largest hikoi the country has ever seen.

The passing of all these laws in spite of Māori views and rights is part of a Crown constitutional process.

Ever since 1840 Māori people have argued that a process which operates in this way is contrary to Te Tiriti oWaitangi because the retention of Tino Rangatiratanga reaffirmed the constitutional authority or the right to make our own decisions that Iwi and Hapū had exercised for centuries.

As a result Māori history since 1840 has been an attempt to retain and exercise the authority to make our own decisions – it has been an attempt to adapt yet hold fast to what have always been Iwi and Hapū-based constitutional processes.   The Māori Parliament and Kotahitanga are just two examples, as was He Whakaputanga in 1835.

The Crown has never recognised the constitutional legitimacy of such attempts although it is clear that Māori people never signed Te Tiriti to be powerless in our own land. Instead it was signed to maintain an independent constitutional authority.

In more recent years Iwi and Hapū have couched these arguments in the language of “constitutional change” because of the need to change the way the Crown continues to exercise its authority by effectively reducing Māori People to just another “minority interest”.

The Working Group on Constitutional Transformation was formed at a National Hui in 2009 to further this discussion by actually transforming the whole process of government in a way that is based more honestly upon the relationship envisaged in Te Tiriti.  As Sir Archie Taiaroa stated at the three hui called by Sir Hepi Te HeuHeu in 1995-96 any attempt to change the way government works must be a “transformative process that restores authority to Iwi and Hapū while recognising the place of others”.

The Working Group is convened by Moana Jackson (Ngāti Kahungunu) and chaired by Margaret Mutu (Ngāti Kahu). Over the next year they are travelling around the motu to hui with whānau, hapū and roopu katoa, asking people to imagine what this transformative process might be like.

NGĀTI KAHU BOXES ON

When it comes to land claims, noone would call Ngāti Kahu a Goliath, and most would say it’s boxing way above its weight. In fact Haami Piripi has said it is "on a hiding to nothing." However the little iwi has recently had another win against the Crown.

On 18th April, the Waitangi Tribunal issued a memorandum saying it will now hold hearings for both binding recommendations and ordinary recommendations for Ngāti Kahu’s claims. It is satisfied that the claims the Tribunal upheld did include two general claims for Ngāti Kahu, both lodged by McCully Matiu, and it will make recommendations based on those. However it has declined to include the three Te Paatu claims because they were not lodged in time to be heard in the 1990-4 hearings, and as such were not reported on in the 1997 Muriwhenua Land Report. It has also declined to include Te Paatu’s territories on Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē, up to Hukatere and across to Rangaunu for consideration. Te Paatu do not agree with this and have now asked Ngāti Kahu to seek urgent hearings to stop the Crown vesting those lands in other iwi. Ngāti Kahu will do that.

In preparation for hearings the Tribunal has asked that Ngāti Kahu advise what principles it should take into account in determining the recommendations it will make. Ngāti Kahu will take those principles from their Deed of Partial Settlement, which the Crown rejected last year. They will also be asking for the total package of recommendations to be what they have listed in their Deed.

Once the Crown and other parties have responded to Ngāti Kahu, another judicial conference will be held, probably in the week beginning June 4th.

This decision from the Tribunal is very historic. Ngāti Kahu and others had been denied hearings in the past. But thanks to the Mangatū Incorporation who had the resources to take the Tribunal through all the courts and get a decision from the Supreme Court saying the Tribunal had to hear their application for binding recommendations, Ngāti Kahu have now succeeded where many said they would not. Now they just have to get the binding recommendations over all State-owned Enterprise and Crown Forest lands in their rohe.

That will be an extremely bitter fight because the Tribunal has long been under threat from successive governments that if it used its powers of binding recommendations, they would be removed.

Ngāti Kahu should be under no illusion; the Crown will do whatever it takes to stop them succeeding, legal or otherwise. In addition it seems the leaders of at least two other iwi in Te Hiku will side with the Crown against them.

In the end though, neither the Crown nor its allies can ever change the facts. The lands concerned are not going anywhere, they still belong to the hapū of Ngāti Kahu, and Ngāti Kahu will box on.

LIKE IT OR LUMP IT

In April 2008 Lombard Finance went into receivership owing $125 million to 4400 investors and former Cabinet ministers Sir Douglas Graham and Bill Jeffries as well as fellow Directors Lawrence Bryant and Michael Reeves were all charged with making false statements and misleading investors. This year, in spite of their fierce defence against the charges, they were all found guilty. Graham and Jeffries were sentenced to 300 hours community work and a $100,000 fine each, while Bryant and Reeves got 400 hours community service each. Secured creditors are expected to be repaid less than 24 cents in the dollar while investors will get nothing. Some of them spoke in court of shattered lives.

Meanwhile, in April 2010 Darcy Te Kiri and Boudene Mahiawere were arrested for the aggravated robbery of a Superette in Rotorua. They’d pretended to have a gun and had demanded cigarettes and cash from the owner's son. When he refused and pushed an alarm they took off with a $2.90 packet of pineapple lumps instead. Te Kiri is now serving 20 months in jail for this crime, and Mahiawere two years and four months. Their victim lives in fear of the next attempted robbery.

There is something wrong with this picture, and it’s not just the criminality of the offenders in both cases or the lack of justice for their victims. Rather it is the difference in the sentences for the criminals who are in high places and have friends there, and those who aren’t and don’t.

It’s a difference that should be carefully noted by all New Zealanders as this country continues its slide towards fascism; particularly those of us without friends in high places. We may never rob or mislead anyone, but if we are involved in protest or activism of any kind whatsoever, under recently passed law changes we are at risk of being arrested and charged with terrorism, and, unlike Doug Graham, if convicted our punishment would likely include jail time.

As she left court after his sentencing, Graham’s wife told waiting reporters he had nothing to say. But the haughty patrician couldn’t keep his mouth shut. “Well,” he smirked to her, “last time we ran over them,” a clear reference to an incident during the trial when his car had seemed to be deliberately swerved at a cameraman. Hardly the look of remorse his lawyer had earlier claimed his client felt. And the statement of his fellow criminal Bill Jeffries that he is considering appealing the conviction is, in the words of the Crown prosecutor, “The antithesis of remorse.”

Like it or lump it, Graham and Jeffries, who once dished out justice to the likes of Te Kiri and Mahiawere, should just be quiet and get on with paying for their own wrong doings; especially when their punishment is more comparable to a packet of pineapple lumps rather than the harder lumps they deserve, and others get, in prison.

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL UPDATE

On March 22nd 2012 the Waitangi Tribunal held its second judicial conference on the Ngāti Kahu application for binding recommendations against the Crown which, if granted, would see the Crown forced to return certain lands to Ngāti Kahu, plus compensation.

Before reporting on this second conference, a brief background on the first one held in November 2011 is in order.

At that first conference the Crown opposed Ngāti Kahu’s application. It argued that (a) the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to hear the application, and (b) that even if it did have jurisdiction, Ngāti Kahu should not be allowed to benefit from the Tribunal’s 1997 Muriwhenua report through binding recommendations, because none of the other iwi had chosen that pathway.

At that first conference, Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa had supported the Crown against Ngāti Kahu, while Ngāti Kuri attended in an observer capacity.

After hearing from all the parties in November, the Tribunal asked Ngāti Kahu for more information on a number of matters.

First, they were to list the properties over which they were seeking resumption orders, including ‘private lands.’ Second, they were to identify which of their claims the Tribunal had found to be well-founded in its 1997 Muriwhenua report. Third, they had to identify the prejudice they had suffered in relation to those well-founded claims. Fourth, they had to identify their relationship with the properties in those well-founded claims. Fifth, they were to show evidence in the Muriwhenua report of their rohe. Sixth, they were to show the location (with maps linked to legal descriptions) of all properties over which they were seeking resumption orders, in that rohe. Seventh, they had to show the location (again with maps linked to legal descriptions) of all properties over which they were seeking resumption orders, outside that rohe. Finally, they were to tell the Tribunal whether the binding recommendations they sought would “represent a final determination in respect of all matters that those claims cover.”

Ngāti Kahu provided this information to the Tribunal in the middle of February 2012, and the second judicial conference was held. It made interesting listening.

The Crown, Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa continue to oppose Ngāti Kahu. Additionally they have been joined by the Harrison whānau of Ngāti Tara who appear to want the Tribunal to decline Ngāti Kahu’s application so that they can apply for binding recommendations instead. Their lawyer told the Tribunal that the Rangiputa station belonged to Ngāti Tara and made no mention of the fact that Te Whānau Moana/Te Rorohuri and Patukōraha are mana whenua there also, or that those hapū have agreed to share Rangiputa with all Ngāti Kahu hapū.

Graham Latimer has also joined the proceedings claiming to represent Te Paatu descendants of Te Parata (and others) and that he has a claim for the return of most of the lands included in Ngāti Kahu’s application.

All parties are now waiting for the Tribunal’s decision on the matter of jurisdiction.

DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE

“It started with a bang, and that was all,” so said a supporter of the Urewera Four during the five week trial of Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Emily Bailey and Urs Signer.

The trial ended last week with guilty verdicts on some firearms charges, not guilty verdicts on others, a hung jury on the lead charge of participating in an organised criminal group, and the Crown saying it will opt for a retrial on that lead charge.

For us the taxpayer who funded both sides of the trial, what has been achieved? Has justice been served. Has the Crown fulfilled its duty to us? Do we feel safer?

Difficult though it may be to face it, face it we must; the only thing that has been achieved by the most expensive criminal prosecution in the history of this country has been a widening of the divisions in our society. But we should not be surprised at that. The whole operation from beginning to end was symptomatic of how the Crown treats any people with a world view that is not based on it being sovereign in this country.

No people in Aotearoa (even Ngāti Kahu) have as long or staunch a history of independence as do Ngāi Tuhoe of the Urewera ranges. And amongst Ngāi Tuhoe, no individual has represented that independence more consistently and effectively then Tame Iti. So, again, we should not be surprised at the ferocity with which the Crown pursued his conviction. But neither should we be silent witnesses to it.

Even Paul Holmes, hardly an advocate for Māori sovereignty, roundly criticised the Crown’s action with regard to Ngāi Tuhoe specifically, and other world views generally. “The New Zealand government,” he wrote in the NZ Herald, “has always displayed a capacity for savagery and vindictiveness in their dealings with Tuhoe.”

Like Holmes, I too detect a level of spite in the Crown’s willingness to seek a retrial. If they (i.e. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet) had to pay for any of this out of their own pockets and not the pockets of us taxpayers, not only would there be no retrial, there would have been no trial period.

Sadly, there are plenty of local examples of that same savagery and vindictivenes. We see it in the way the Crown , the local Council and some developers treat anyone in the Far North who stands between them and what they want. Using our money, they buy, bully or bash any opposition into submission all the way up through the Courts. To what end? The same end as that achieved in the trial of the Urewera 4, deepened divisions.

It seems the rabbit hole down which common sense, goodwill and common cause in this country are rapidly disappearing is also getting deeper. But some people just want to keep digging.

A GOOD THING

One of the most destructive trends of the last fifty years on whānau has been the increasing dependence on outside institutions to take care of what is rightly whānau business.

About the same time as this trend got its start, my grandparents and their adult children started a kaupapa. They set up a kōmiti whānau to pool their skills, experiences, ideas, money, time and other resources, so they could take care of their own business.

Time went by and the adult grandchildren joined the mix, then the great-grands and great-great-grands as well. In fact, everyone born, married or adopted into the whānau was included in the kōmiti; as long as they contributed something.

They have never gone to outside funders and have never legalised themselves. But they do get their accounts audited annually and independently, and they do hold annual meetings where they review the past, plan for the future, and pick their chair, secretary and treasurer.

There’s been many chairs, secretaries and treasurers over the years. All have had two things in common; they are known to be kind of tight with their own resources, and they can be relied upon to be even tighter with those of the kōmiti whānau.

Initially the whānau, specially the bulk who were living in Auckland, ran housies, raffles and batons-up to raise funds. These were as much about getting together for fun and good times, as to make money. Eventually they set an annual subscription that was affordable even on the lowest incomes.

To date the money has been used to support all sorts of whānau events or causes. There’s only one condition; before anyone can take out, they first have to have put in.

That initial kōmiti has now multiplied by division, because there are hundreds of living descendants, and many of the adults have started their own kōmiti whānau. These are run along the same lines as the original one, but each have their own focus on how and why they use their resources. That may change over the years, depending on circumstances. At one time it may be education (textbooks, fees, uniforms, etc). At another time it may be recreation (travel, equipment, accommodation, etc). Later it may be health (eyes, teeth, hips, etc).

The concept of kōmiti whānau is universally applicable, and its value is far wider than just the money raised and used under it. In fact its true value is that it reduces dependence on outside institutions, like the state or iwi corporates, and increases love and trust in whānau.

In my view, anything that does that is a good thing.

NOT FOR SALE

I don’t know who it was who first said, “Everyone has their price,” but I don’t believe it, at least not in terms of money.

Neither do the kāhui kaumātua o Ngāti Kuri who have agreed to the launch of a national hikoi from Te Rerenga Wairua on the 24th of April against privatisation and for everyone who is concerned about the government’s blitzkrieg on the sovereignty and human rights of the citizens of this country; specifically, the watering down of section 9 of the State-owned Enterprises Act, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) legislation currently before parliament, the proposed sale of further state assets, and the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.

This is in addition to concern over the government’s drive to axe funding in the public sector, while at the same time ramping up a widespread and aggressive natural resource privatization programme that allows fracking, prospecting, drilling, mining, and extraction over huge tracts of our seas and lands (much of those private).

Over the last 20 years there have been many calls by Māori leaders for the constitutional entrenchment of human rights to prevent their erosion by government, most notably from the Hirangi series of national leadership hui hosted by the late Sir Hepi Te Heuheu in the 1990’s.

As part of the confidence and supply agreement between the Māori Party and the present government it was agreed that a constitutional review group would be established to consider, amongst others things, the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in any new constitution. Belatedly this group was set up just before the last election. Before then an independent constitutional working group had already been established by the National Iwi Chairs Group to collate and report on how to entrench and protect mana mauri motuhake and Māori as tangata whenua.

But while both these groups are still designing the mechanisms to protect all our rights, those rights, along with the economic sovereignty of our nation, are being eroded by the government.

“Aotearoa Is Not For Sale” is the leading statement of the hikoi that will kick off in six weeks time. Is that right? Well, we shall see. Either concerned citizens of all races and political affiliations will unite and mobilise against the erosion of their rights, the sale of their assets and the cession of their sovereignty; or they won’t.

At the moment, other than the commitment of a few activists, the main protection we all have for our rights, sovereignty and assets is Te Tiriti o Waitangi; which is why the government has also sped up its long-term strategy to extinguish Te Tiriti with the help of iwi corporate leaders eager to settle and then be “first cab off the rank” to buy our assets.

These are testing times for those who believe that not everyone has a price and that Aotearoa is not for sale.

LOVE ONE ANOTHER

All my life I have heard two very strong and clear messages from the kuia kaumātua of my whānau and hapū.

First, love one another even, or especially, when we are at odds with each other. As one of our kuia said at a recent hui, “The good thing about us is, even if we have a big whawhai yesterday, we’re all here today to awhi.”

Second, stand up and fight for what we know to be right. The same kuia asked at the recent hui, “Are we koretake? No. We must fight. I ki ai te korero e kore kitea te aroha te ngakau, engari kei kona tetahi te aroha. Ki te konei tātou te aroha.”

In the midst of the call to arms and battle, is the call to love one another? How is that possible? Aren’t those mixed messages?

No. Because the key to doing both is to always remember that our hoariri are also our whānau and that, while we may sometimes hate the things some of our whānau do, we never stop loving them. As the saying goes, hate the sin but love the sinner.

We know this is true because if one of those we are fighting with dies or has something bad happen in their whānau, we are there working the hui, paying respects, helping in the clean up, giving our koha of mahi, manaaki or money.

Whether by blood, marriage or adoption, we are all related to each other in this world. Whether we believe in God the Father or some other higher power, or in no God at all, we all have a sense of love and kinship, especially with the very young and the very old. With these two extremes of human life we seem to be able to put aside all other considerations and just enjoy their company, regardless of their or our politics, beliefs or histories. There’s no agenda with babies and kaumātua kuia. Or at least there shouldn’t be. Just love.

As I move into the kaumātua kuia dimension myself, I see more clearly the wisdom of the call to fight for what is right and to love one another. These two practices are self-supporting and, when we do them over and over together, they become a self-renewing drive in us and lead to a state of peace regardless of what hell may be breaking loose around you. That is a priceless gift in a world of turmoil.

As our kuia said, “Mahia ngā mahi ki runga i te tika, me te pono, me te aroha.” Neat.

FIELD OF DREAMS

“If you build it, he will come.” That line from the 1983 movie Field of Dreams has been like an inner drive over the past few months for us ones who organised the first wananga of 2012 of Te Uri o Tai hapū in Pawarenga.

Wananga is an ancient concept and system of gathering to impart the knowledge and wisdom which upholds and sustains the very foundations of our being. It is the university for both the practice and theory of life. As such, in the old days wananga was not open to any and everybody. Today the concept has been broadened and is nowhere near as select or exclusive as it once was. That has its pros and cons.

Anyway, last year one of our men (Tamati Rudolph) dreamed a dream. He called a hui at his home to see who might join him to revive wananga in Pawarenga. Those who turned up to that first hui, we were all of one mind; let’s wananga to further strengthen our sense of belonging to our whenua and to each other, and let’s do it for and by ourselves without outside funding. Nou te rourou noku te rourou, ka ora te iwi.

Things were going along fine, then disaster struck. The originator of the idea, the one who had inspired us all to push it along, our Tommy, died suddenly on New Year’s Eve just gone. At our next planning hui we all looked at each other and wondered, “Can we really do this?”

Well, this weekend just gone by, we did it. Boy oh boy, did we do it! Today I have little voice left (to the delight of some in my household), so my fingers are speaking for me and for all us ones who gathered for our wananga tuatahi 2012.

The sun shone, the marae overflowed, the days were filled with movement and learning, the nights with stillness and more learning. Kuia kaumātua who started the wananga looking tired (Mavis Dick's tangihanga had just finished the day before) got fresher as time went by. Tamariki and taitamariki who arrived full of energy and noise got quieter and deeper. Aroha, matauranga, whakaaronui, mahi, tautohetohe, whakangahau; all things flowed seamlessly and we all learned and grew from it.

Who is making this happen in Pawarenga? We, the whānau and hapū of Pawarenga, that’s who; hand in hand with te Atua, our kuia kaumātua, the young and old, the ahikāroa and the whānau whānui. We are doing it by ourselves, for our descendants, and in remembrance of our tūpuna.
The dream is now reality. We built it, and they did come.

Wananga tuarua 2012 is set for 20th – 22nd April at Ōhaki marae, Pawarenga.

Kia tau ngā manaakitanga a te Atua kia tātou katoa a kia kite ano tātou ia tātou a te wā.

GRIEF AND MOURNING

Since the beginning of life on this earth, death has been seen as the enemy, the “as yet unsolved problem.” But really death is not the problem. Rather it is our inability or unwillingness to accept the reality of life on its own terms, one of which is death; that’s the problem.

In her book The Year of Magical Thinking, written after the death of her husband of forty years, Joan Didion wrote, “Life changes in an instant; an ordinary instant … Grief turns out to be a place none of us know until we reach it.” That is a fact. When I arrived in that place, it wasn’t just sad, it was as wild and unpredictable as a roller-coaster.

I had expected to feel inconsolable and to appear insane at times. But I had not anticipated actually being inconsolable, as manifested in blind fury at anyone who dared to offer me any comfort at all. Nor was I prepared for actually going insane, the only possible description for my refusing to go home for a long time. But eventually the roller-coaster slowed, grief morphed into mourning and I returned to living with the hard-won knowledge that there are no norms to either.

I remember how, when the 10 year old son of a friend died, after the tangihanga she returned home and wrote of his last day and last moments with her. Then she published her account in the local newsletter as a tribute to her boy. That Māori mother upset some of her kuia hugely, because, for them, her writing fell outside the norms of tangihanga. But for her, there were no norms – she had never lost a son before.

I also remember how, in 1966, the collier Kaitawa left Westport loaded with coal for the Portland cement works and, as she rounded the North Cape in heavy seas she broke up and sank with the loss of all 29 crew. A few months later, some of our whānau happened to be at the Cape when the mother of one of those drowned souls arrived to see for herself where her boy had died. Upon hearing her keening grief, our kaumātua and his whānau went to her and started the call and response of Te Hohonutanga. Then they all put their arms around that Pākehā mother and wept. They knew that there were no norms; that death and life happen on their own terms.

The thought of my own death has never perplexed or worried me much. But that of those close to me; ahhh, those are another matter. Even though I believe in life after death, I have learned that it does not come with set rules, a certain script, known way stations or a sure endpoint.

I have also learned that in order to be comforted when someone I love dies, or to bring comfort to someone else, it helps me to remember that there are no norms to grief and mourning, and that the best thing to do is share loving words and acts of service with those who have arrived in that place.

“.. e tau iho te tangi i te ahiahi, a i te ata he hari. [Psalms 30:5]

THE UNBROKEN CHAIN

Our three year old grand-daughter has started negotiating and debating with the adults in her life, and we love it. Almost all her sentences start with simple questions like, “How come?” “What if?” “Why-ee?” She genuinely does want to know and understand everything, and why not?

Sometimes her constant questions just make the adults in her life hoha. Other times there either is no ready answer, or the answer is more baffling than the original question. But she never stops asking anyway, and that’s awesome. Her inquiring mind, coupled with a good heart and clean hands will stand her in good stead in a world that is getting madder by the hour.

I remember doing the same with my adults when I was a kid and meeting the same mixed reception. But the ones who were most patient with me were my grandparents, both Māori and Pākehā. I’ve taken note that my parents have been similarly kind with our kids, and now it’s our turn. There truly is no such thing as a generation gap between grandparents and grandchildren.

I believe that our whānau is the root and the wellspring of our society and if it is poisoned or twisted, so too will our children be, and society will become less and less safe for us or anyone else. Hence the importance of constantly asking and being asked simple questions whose power lies in the fact that they signal a desire to understand and a willingness to listen. But at the same time they challenge the one being asked the question to confront their own attitudes, positions, thoughts, words and actions.

My husband and I keep all our mokopuna in mind in everything we think, say and do because already we hear them saying with absolute conviction, “My nanna said,” or “My papa and me did...” This reminds us daily how incredibly important it is for us to give them a consistent pattern of being, not perfect, but very honest in our imperfections as we move towards perfection. It reminds us that most of what we do and say is actually done and spoken to these mokopuna, both the born and the unborn. And that’s awesome too.

As every grandparent who survives their own parenting years knows, watching that same process stretch their adult children provides great delight. But always I try to remember to regularly ask simple questions of myself as well. That way I can better strengthen my part of the unbroken chain that makes up the human family. Mauri ora!

POLITICAL PROBLEMS, SOVEREIGN SOLUTIONS

Poly-poly-poly-politician,
Can you make the right decision?
For all of us?

During the holidays this 2002 song by Kora was a question I asked almost everyone I met, and the vast majority answered, “Nah. They can and should, but they won’t.”

Their pessimism is borne out by the current government’s push on all fronts to make it easier for our natural resources and the “state-owned assets” that we have built together over the past 172 years to be sold, bought, used and exploited.

Yet, in spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders see our infrastructure as important to our sovereignty and are against selling any part of it, we still voted National in knowing they would do exactly what they are now doing; sell the power companies. And that’s just for starters.

How is this government getting away with it? By distraction.


In the week leading up to the annual flashpoint that marks Waitangi Day, without consulting its partners in the Māori Party, SoE Minister Tony Ryall publicly confirmed government’s intention to fool around with section 9 of the State-owned Enterprise Act (aka the Treaty clause).

In its entirety, section 9 reads: “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” But, said Ryall, that “might not apply to the companies under the mixed ownership model” that government intends to sell our assets to.

The resultant backlash saw the Māori Party threaten to walk out on its relationship with National, and the Mana Party grab the issue as a stick with which to bash them both. It also drew the public ire of “big hitters” on the New Zealand Māori Council and the national Iwi Leaders Forum (whose “constituencies” include some of the strongest voices of activism in the country).

While it’s true that the clause might put off some potential buyers, why would National choose to deal with it in that way and at that time? The answer is, in order to provoke exactly the response it has gotten. Loud, angry protest is offputting to most of our conservative natures; we don’t hear the message because we don’t like the messenger or his means.

But the real victory for National is that the actual sale of our assets is largely going ahead unnoticed and unchallenged. Even the Māori Party, able to deny culpability because it wasn’t consulted by National, is playing its part perfectly by focusing on section 9. So too are the protest movement, the NZMC and the ILF.

If New Zealanders are to retain sovereignty in any shape or form over this country, we cannot rely on political solutions to sovereign issues. Instead, the reverse will be shown to be true.

THE 10 WORST THINGS

At almost 700 pages long the Te Rarawa Deed of Settlement was written mostly by the Crown, but is interspersed with some nicely presented Te Rarawa history. Between the Crown core and the Te Rarawa wrapping, it's easy to get confused about what it all means.

I read it with two simple questions in mind; at the end of the day, who controls what happens? and how do those with rangatiratanga benefit? The answers are so comprehensively bad it’s not possible to cover them all; so here are just the 10 worst things about it:

NO CHANGE ALLOWED:
The Crown has stipulated that no change to the deed is allowed.

LITTLE LAND RETURNED:
Less than 3.5% of Te Rarawa's original land base will be returned.

LAND RANSOMED:
Most of that <3.5% will be “sold” to Te Rarawa, and has to be paid for (ransomed) before the Crown will release it. LAND ENCUMBERED:
The rest of that <3.5% will be “given” to Te Rarawa with encumbrances on it that ensure the Crown keeps control of it. RANGATIRATANGA REPLACED:
In exchange for less than 3.5% of its land and some cash, Te Rarawa gives up its native title that even the Waitangi Tribunal said it still has; Crown sovereignty will replace hapū rangatiratanga.

CROWN CONTROLS 90 MILE BEACH:
Te Rarawa 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.

CROWN CONTROLS THE WARAWARA AND OTHER ‘CONSERVATION’ LANDS:
Hapū will get to nominate advisors to the Minister of Conservation on the management of the Warawara, and iwi will get to nominate advisors 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.

CROWN CAN ALLOW MINING ON OUR LAND:
The Crown has reserved the right to allow prospecting and mining anywhere it sees fit in Te Rarawa – including in the Warawara forest.

CROWN CAN SELL OUR LAND:
The Crown has also reserved the right in the future to sell any land it retains control over – including the Warawara; Te Rarawa will have right of first refusal.

CROWN CONTROLS SOCIAL WELFARE:
Te Rarawa will become advisors to 11 government departments on matters of social welfare; the Crown refuses to allow the iwi to control its own social welfare.

On the facebook page, Te Whenua i te Whakaaria Mai – the promised land, I have described the deed as: one ugly piece of Crown crap being sold to you as fertiliser.

You see, besides the Crown itself and those who get shoulder-tapped as its ‘advisors’, I cannot see how one single rangatira in Pawarenga, Panguru, Ahipara or elsewhere will benefit from this deal.

HOPE IS THE THE THING

“Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul,
and sings the tune without the words, and never stops at all.”

Last Wednesday (30 November 2011), listening to Margaret Mutu being interviewed on the Ngāti Kahu radio show, we heard the sound of a text message being received and her tone change as she finished responding to the host’s question. “Something has distracted her,” I said to my husband. Then we heard her ask the host, “Have you heard anything about a fire up home?” He had not.

The text Margaret received that night was how many of us first learnt of the fire at Karikari that contributed to the deaths of two men later that night.

I never met John “Prickles” de Ridder but I know his name and it is held for good. I did meet Willy MacRae and he is a good man. As I think of them both flying through that night over our burning whenua, dipping down to the waters of Rangaunu, seeking to find and help our distressed people who had run there to escape death; I recall Emily Dickinson’s poem about the bird of hope.

“And sweetest in the gale is heard; and sore must be the storm
that could abash the little bird that kept so many warm.”

The next day, as messages and questions poured in from all over the world, the extent and nature of the losses were becoming horribly clear. Property and acres of land with all its fauna and flora were burnt. Fanned by strong winds, the fires were threatening more destruction. But the worst news of all was the deaths of John and Willy beneath the waters of Rangaunu. Traumatised and bewildered, the people all gathered in one home.

By the end of that day both men had been recovered from the sea and Te Taumata Kaumātua o Ngāti Kahu had placed a rahui from Wairahoraho Stream on the Rangaunu side, around Whakapouaka and down to Matai Bay on the Tokerau side.

Ever since then, it is upon the bereaved families of Willy MacRae and John de Ridder that the aroha and karakia of Te Whānau Moana, the hapū of Karikari have remained focused. Because they know that, while they can and will rebuild their homes, only God can and will resurrect these men from death.

The fire is being treated as suspicious by the police and a very few people have tried to use that to push their own causes and prejudices. But the vast majority have simply offered Christlike charity and comforting hope.

In the midst of this shared tragedy, may we will all listen for the song of that sweet bird.

“I've heard it in the chillest land, and on the strangest sea;
yet never, in extremity, it asked a crumb of me.”

Haere atu ra e rua nga tangata hautoa ki to mātou Matua i te rangi. Haere haere haere atu ra.

BRAVE NEW WORLD

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world!
That has such people in it!

Miranda’s speech, taken from Shakespeare’s The Tempest, aptly describes the mood of the nation, as the Prime Minister John Key assembles a new government.

Earlier in the week, the PM told Radio New Zealand he would continue the model used during the last parliament. He said that Peter Dunne, Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples had been very effective ministers for his government and they would likely retain their portfolios. And he mused (perhaps mischievously) that John Banks might suit the corrections portfolio.

This mixed bag cabinet is more to Key’s liking than a clear majority of blue ties around the table because the Māori Party, United Future and ACT leaders, once they’ve signed confidence and supply warrants in return for their portfolios, will be far less trouble than his own people.

Minor disciplinary infractions and infighting will be “their” problem, and giving them freedom to publicly disagree with his Government, without fear of non-confidence, takes some of the heat out of question time for him.

These small party partners will also act as a buffer for Key and National against the backlash over the coming austerity programme. If the European nations fail to meet the challenges they face, our debt crisis will evolve into a credit crisis and foreign lending will stop completely. When that happens, asset sales here will be accelerated against a backdrop of massive programme cuts.

The resultant carnage will be like that scene from Murder on the Orient Express where Inspector Poirot and Doctor Bianchi examine the scene of Mr. Ratchett’s murder. The body has twelve stab wounds of varying depth; some inflicted by a left-handed person and some by a right handed person. Handkerchiefs, buttons, a pipe cleaner and other things litter the scene, each pointing to a different suspect. Finally Poirot turns to Bianchi, and asks, “Has it occurred to you that there are too many clues in this room?”

As it turns out, twelve different people have stabbed the victim at least once with the same blade.

Well, the New Zealand we knew as children is about to experience a similar death of many cuts. Why?

Will the gap between rich and poor narrow? Will the outflow of New Zealanders stop? Will Papatūānuku be better cared for? Will our children be healthier? Will our country still be ours?

Whatever the outcomes of this ‘brave new world’, in three years time, John Key will simply point to his partners and remind the electorate that there were many hands on the blade.

SAVIOUR OR SELL-OUT?

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.

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.”

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.

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)