INTELLIGENCE VERSUS IGNORANCE

Whaowhia te kete matauranga – fill the basket of knowledge; that was the motto of Rotokākahī Māori School where I began my formal education in 1960.  I think of it whenever I see or hear someone preaching a particularly dumb message.  I also think of Benjamin Franklin who said, “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” 

One of the most persistent pieces of ignorance that regularly comes out in any discourse about race relations in this country are long-debunked theories devised by long dead European observors as to how Māori populated these islands.

The two main means of transmission of history within the European world are by documentation (written history) and by word of mouth (oral history). Both means are well-established, true-tested, interwoven and time-honoured. 

For anyone capable of reading and writing there are screeds of written history compiled by those who "were there" during the first years of European colonisation.  These include the recording of a significant number of oral histories showing that tūpuna Māori came searching for these lands because their science and theory told them they existed exactly where they were discovered. 

But later European commentators, especially 20^th century ones, struggled to accept that evidence. They just could not believe Māori had traversed the largest ocean in the world in anything other than a haphazard fashion. So they developed the drift theory, made up scenarios in which Māori had gone fishing and gotten lost then accidentally washed ashore here, and painted portrayals showing waka filled with emaciated and desperate occupants running aground.

The simple truth is that second millennium Māori, and in fact all Polynesians, had a far more sophisticated marine and astrological knowledge (science) and practice (theoretical application) than their European counterparts.  In short, they were very intelligent.

As further evidence of their intelligence, Dr Evelyn Stokes’ 1996 research paper, Muriwhenua: Review of the Evidence, draws on missionary diaries to show that literacy amongst Māori in Muriwhenua, as elsewhere, spread rapidly during the early years of European colonisation. 

To this day, literacy is treasured by Māori as a means to enhance the teaching, learning and recording of their history.  Most European cultures also hold literacy in high regard.  Which is why it is amazing to see this level of ignorance about Māori still around in the 21^st century.

The knowledge exists.  What seems to be lacking amongst the ignorant is the intelligence to fill their basket with it.

JUST MY IMAGINATION

Is it just my imagination, or is politics becoming ever more about perception and less and less about reality? For example National’s John Key went off to China yesterday saying, "We are going to use the hiccup of a false [botulism] reading in 2013 and turn that into an attempt to demonstrate it actually shows how clear, transparent and responsive our [food safety] system is."

That’s like Union Carbide attempting to demonstrate to India how clear, transparent and responsive  their gas production safety system is - in the United States. 

If I were a Chinese mother I’d be less interested in the perception of what happened in New Zealand in 2013 and more influenced by the reality of what happened in China in 2008. 

Meanwhile back here inside the New Zealand bubble the line between political perception and reality continues to stretch and blur into a credibility gap which gives rise to odd questions like, is Labour’s David Cunliffe really a master of the Vulcan mind meld?  And if he is, why on earth would he want to be of one mind with his main rival Shane Jones? as he claimed to be last Friday regards refusing to be lectured by an Australian. 

That’s like Mowgli gazing dazedly into the eyes of Kaa.  However, if I were a gambler, I would hedge any bets on who was playing the role of the innocent boy and which the cunning snake.  Perception and reality might actually match in either case. 

As for the offending Australian in question, Russel Norman of the Greens, he is being threatened with legal action by the Conservatives' Colin Craig for giving the perception at the Big Gay Out that Mr Craig wanted to keep women in the kitchen and homosexuals in the closet.  Apparently the reality is that Mr Craig doesn’t just deny the perception, he also wants to raise the level of debate involved. 

To achieve that, all Colin Craig need do is make sure any perception matches the reality of his actions.  It would cost him a lot less than suing and would also deny the Australian a podium from which to lecture further.

The 2011 general election saw a record low voter turnout, and here we are now less than six month’s out from election 2014.  What is the aggregate affect of all these mismatched political perceptions and realities likely to be on the voting public? 

One potential affect is that even less of us will take part in election 2014 than took part in election 2011.  If that happens, then it won’t matter whether it’s Key or Cunliffe who forms the next government because, other than the poor getting poorer and the rich richer, nothing will change anyway. 

And that is reality, not just my imagination.

DESCRIBED AS MĀORI

If you’ve been in this country long enough you know that when a media item contains the words described as Māori, then it’s not going to be a good news story.  

Admittedly the phrase described as European / Pākehā doesn’t presage a good news story either, but neither is it seen nor heard anywhere near as often as its Māori counterpart. 

To illustrate, if you enter described as Māori in the New Zealand Herald’s online search engine there are eight bad news stories this year alone; three of which are reported on twice with sensational headlines like Armed men in home invasion hammer attack, House stormed in bid to find man on run and Brazen scammer offered victims non-existent job.

Conversely, so far this year there has only been one item about a person  described as European under the non-threatening headline Online casanova sought by police, and there have been no stories about people described as Pākehā since 2011. 

One look at me and my siblings confirms that descriptions of our gender, height, age, colour of eyes, skin and hair, and our outstanding features might help you find us.  But described as Māori?  What does that look like? and why is it even relevant to anyone but a racist?

In a 2012 study, The Pacific Media Centre identified a number of media patterns that contribute to racist views of Māori.  The first and most powerful is that in which Pākeha, although rarely named as a group, are routinely constructed as natural and normal, while Māori are largely invisible except when measured against that norm.

This pattern produces stories and comments that reinforce Pākehā culture as the natural, normal foundation of the New Zealand nation.  Even when an inspirational story involves Māori, this pattern invariably sees them credited as New Zealanders or Kiwis while any Māori connection is portrayed as a deficit they have, or are still trying to, overcome.  

Ultimately, this pattern has produced stories and comments that normalize the ongoing theft of land and resources from Māori as a natural process.    

For recent examples of this, read Chris Finlayson’s Waitangi Day article, Treaty settlements working for the betterment of us, and the online responses to Matt McCarten’s opinion piece last month, Iwi leaders risk losing touch. 

It’s highly probable that this pattern has contributed significantly to the list of derogatory terms in Google’s predictive search function which says Kiwis are dumb, racist, stupid and rude.  

There was an even worse and longer list for the inquiry Māori are until last Saturday when Google disabled the function and removed the racist insults.  If only changing the underlying and causative attitudes were as easy.

And that is the real challenge to media producers and audiences in this country – if you don’t want to reap the whirlwind of race hatred, then either uniformly report bad news stories to also identify those described as European / Pākehā, or find ways to tell and read such stories without the irrelevant, racist identifier, described as Māori.

FEEDING FRENZY

 

In an election year any hint of Māori gaining an advantage is blood in the water to a number of political sharks who can be relied upon to go into a feeding frenzy over it. 

Generally it’s Winston Peters who takes the first and choicest chunk.  But on the issue of Cultural Impact Assessments by Māori on resource consent applications, Winatana’s been beaten to the bite this year by Labour’s Shane Jones who is quoted as saying, “As someone who was involved in the core group which wrote the Resource Management Act in 1988-1989 never in our wildest dreams did we imagine it would lead to 19 new consent authorities over the Tamaki Makaurau area.” 

No.  I don’t suppose he did.  Nor do I suppose his tūpuna dreamed that their signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi would lead to one unitary authority over the same area, let alone one whare nui over the entire country.  Such are the ironies of the law of unintended consequences.

But back to the actual issue currently exciting media attention – what the New Zealand Herald calls the Māori veto on water.  Here are the facts.

Under laws passed by Parliament, not Māori, resource consent applicants must have approval from one or more local authorities.  Since 1991, in order to get through the red tape involved, applicants have had to provide two kinds of assessments; an assessment of environmental effects (AEE), and a cultural impact assessment (CIA). 

For more than three decades consultant planners, surveyors, architects, lawyers, arbourists, landscapers, etc, have been successfully selling their skills to applicants as consultant.  You name the AEE mahi needed and there will be a consultant willing and able to do it for you - for a price.  

Makes sense.  If you don’t know how to do what’s legally required, then you pay someone who does know, and they do it for you. 

For the same length of time that all these AEE consultants have been doing their thing, whānau hapū and iwi consultants have been carrying out CIAs for applicants.  

Makes sense.  They are the rangatira with mana whenua who kaitiaki in their rohe.  If you don’t know what’s where, and why and how it all inter-relates, then you pay those who know to do it for you.    

On the face of it there should be little difference between the consultants working on AEEs and those working on CIAs.  However there is a difference and it’s not a little one.  It centres on payment for services.  

Since 1991, Ngāti Kahu hapū have done literally thousands of CIAs for various applicants.  Until recently they would provide applicants with their schedule of very modest fees, and then send them an account after the CIA had been produced.  Yet in three decades, while AEE consultants have been minting it with nary a murmur from applicants, media or politicians, Ngāti Kahu hapū and iwi have collectively received less than $1000 in payment between them for all their CIA mahi.  

How about getting into a frenzy over that rort Shane?

SPIRITUAL HALF-CASTES

When I read the headline, ‘Kaumatua driven from his home,’ I thought to myself, the only winner here is the Crown.  How could it not be when the settlement of Ngāti Kuri’s claims was achieved under Crown rules, processes, timeframes and terms? 

Could this all have been avoided?  To answer that I turn to a time in history when males ruled the world and race was worked out in fractions of blood.  At that time, my father and his siblings were raised as half-castes but were legally classed in all official records as Māori.  And yet their half-caste first cousins were classed as Pākehā.  The reason for this difference was that one family had a Māori father, while the other had a Pākehā one, and under Crown rules at that time, your father’s race determined yours.  Crazy I know, but that is the nature of racism.

Besides this classification of ‘half-caste’ Māori and ‘half-caste’ Pākehā, there were many other signs of racist craziness at that time.  These included the fact that the Native (later Māori) Land Court was still blatantly overseeing the unjust transfer of huge chunks of land from Māori into Pākehā hands, and banks were openly refusing to lend Māori the capital needed to develop our land.  Additionally pubs refused to serve us, landlords refused to rent to us, and schools punished us for speaking te reo.  And to this day, police stop and question Māori more readily than Pākehā for the same behaviours, while the criminal courts punish us more severely than Pākehā for the same crimes.

Today, it’s hard to imagine the impact all this had on our parents and their cousins.  After all, their two sets of parents got on well enough, and their descendants are all either proud to be Māori, or to have Māori whānau.  But it was a bad thing then, and it still is today.  At times our two cultures can seem to be at total odds with each other.  But under tikanga, regardless of our differences, we can be reconciled through tika, pono and aroha.

I turn back now to Ngāti Kuri where my whanaunga are the only losers in this latest tragedy.  How could they not be?  Regardless of whether they support or oppose it, they know the settlement was a Crown process without tikanga.  One only has to look at the faces of the negotiators to see that.

Yes, all this could have been avoided, but it wasn’t.  And now that it’s done, the choice is clearer than ever for all of us; either learn and live our tikanga and be wholly human, or become spiritual half-castes forever defined, divided and ruled by Crown processes. 

Aue! E koutou, e ngā mea ataahua, nā te aha i ahei i a koutou te kōtiti kē atu i ngā huarahi a te tikanga!

FAST TRACK TPPA

At Waitangi on 5^th March, the Iwi Chairs Forum put a number of questions to John Key on a range of issues they are all dealing with; specifically oil and minerals, Whānau Ora, climate change, freshwater, education, Treaty claims, E Tuu Whānau, housing, and constitutional change. 

When it came time to answer, Key deferred all issues to a relevant Minister, except for two questions put to him by Professor Margaret Mutu; “Will the detailed content of the TPPA [Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement] be made available to the public, before it is signed by the National government?” and “Will the National government insist on an exit clause in the TPPA which does not require the approval of any other parties to the agreement?”

Essentially Key’s  answer was that his government would never sign the agreement before it had been released ... to Parliament. 

Although typically quick, confident and vague, the very fact that it was he who answered the questions showed that John Key is the lead man on the TPPA negotiations, and not Tim Groser, nominal Minister of Trade.  So what Key has to say on it is, pardon the pun, key.

Last Friday, speaking in Parliament, Key claimed that the consultation processes undertaken on TPP by his government were amongst the most extensive undertaken by any New Zealand government for any trade negotiation.  “Public comment for the TPP was first sought in 2008 and has been invited since,” he said.  I must have blinked, because I never saw the pānui asking for public comment.  Did you?

Key also claimed that TPP negotiators had conducted a proactive consultation process, including “… regular meetings with business groups, local councils, the health sector and other representatives, Unions and other NGOs, and other individuals and academics [and] opposition parties ...” 

Good golly, how did I miss all that consultation?  Does that mean I can catch up on all things TPP if I call on the Kaitaia Chamber of Commerce, or local representatives on the Far North District Council, Northland Regional Council, and Northland District Health Board?  Does anyone have Toss Kitchen’s phone number?

Starting yesterday and ending this Friday, TPP negotiators are meeting in Singapore.  That will be followed by a meeting of TPP Trade Ministers next week on February 22-23, where the US administration hopes to finish the deal. 

The TPP is far more than a trade agreement.  It will give foreign corporates the same rights as humans and put the right of those corporates to make a profit above human rights, as well as above government responsibilities to make and pass laws that protect their human citizens. 

New Zealanders cannot rely on John Key to protect them under the TPP.  Ironically their main hope lies in the US itself, where Obama’s push to ‘fast track’ the TPP through Congress, has seen public pressure against it go through the roof.  And where the US goes, Key and co will follow – on the fast track.

WAITANGI WEEK

Whether we’re on the annual Hikoi to Waitangi or on Te Tii marae, at the Iwi Chairs Forum or inside the Forum Tent, out on the road or inside any of the numerous stalls, the week leading up to Waitangi Day in Waitangi has its own unique stress points and release mechanisms. 

For decades the stress points were generated by a relatively straightforward clash between pro-colonists (generally Pākehā privileged by being part of the majority colonising race) and anti-colonists (mostly Māori credited as part of the indigenous minority colonised race). 

However in recent years the line between these two camps has blurred as more Pākehā have shifted to the anti-side, and more Māori have settled on the pro-side.  But the facts are that most Pākehā protestors haven’t been able to shake off their majority privileges or claim minority cred, while most Māori settlers haven’t been able to keep their minority cred or claim majority privileges.

Two examples from this year’s Waitangi Week illustrate the difficulty.  First, the way the government swanned into the Iwi Chairs Forum without any real threat of getting staunched into tears showed that even the most powerful collective of Māori leaders in 2014, most of whom have settled, has less influence and power on the leaders of the majority race than one aging Māori matriarch had in 1998. 

Second, the misunderstandings in the Forum Tent between a few Pākehā presenters and a number of Māori listeners showed that, regardless of how much the state may have smashed them over or how worthy their cause may be, unless they’ve paid lifetime dues like John Minto, and even he has to tread carefully, by and large Pākehā protestors have yet to gain the trust of their Māori counterparts.

Added to this mix is the phenomenon of minority amplification in which any change in an already imbalanced relationship always hits the minority more than the majority, thus ramping up the imbalances.  An example of this is the way Crown settlement policies divide whānau, hapū and iwi. 

It should be clear by now that, unless we want to leave a legacy of discord, we must find and provide a lasting release mechanism from the growing stresses between us all.  Whatever that mechanism turns out to be, education will be the vehicle, the will of the people will be the key, political will must provide the fuel, and a sense of tikanga must provide the spark.  Let us pray for it to come sooner than later.

Until then, for most New Zealanders who have never been taught about the relationship between the signatories to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the causes of the imbalances in that relationship, Waitangi Day is just that, a single day off.  But for those inside an iwi, it’s a Waitangi Week in which we get to stir the Crown up to remembrance of its duty to us all.  

MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE

The first political red herring in this election year has been floated with a tentative proposal to change the national flag.  This is a classic bait-and-switch tactic in which a relatively minor political change (the bait) is introduced to the public in order to try and smooth the passage of a vastly more controversial and major change (the switch). In this case a changed flag is the bait, but the ultimate objective is the signing and passing into law of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA].  

If the New Zealand public falls for this switch, then they may as well also change the national anthem; at which point I will nominate Sting’s Message in A Bottle for their consideration.

Just a castaway, an island lost at sea
Another lonely day, with no one here but me
More loneliness than any man could bear
Rescue me before I fall into despair

That’s what happens to those who fall for red herrings – kua ngaro rātou ki roto i te whare miere – they go pōrangi with bees in their bonnets. 

Meanwhile i te ao taiao, the whānau hapū iwi of Ngāti Kahu are just getting on with the mahi of supporting Papātūānuku to deal to the corrupt politicians (including some of our own) who pimp her to various corporates.  These are the ones  who commodify and muck up her freshwaters and fisheries, deny and do nothing about climate change, and water down the laws meant to protect her.  

At the same time, te take pāpori for Ngāti Kahu hapū is their health, housing, education, work and language.  And as always, their bedrock remains te Whakapono (their faith), He Hakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (the 1835 declaration of sovereignty), Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840), and the principle of Mana Motuhake.  In 2014 that will see them focus on constitutional transformation.

We are about to commemorate the 174th year since the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which is not the same as the fraudulent Treaty of Waitangi.  That’s 174 years of broken Crown promises and atrocities against them.  Yet most of Ngāti Kahu seem to have survived with an unbroken and undeterred spirit. 

Well, they are going to need every bit of that spirit shortly, because they are about to come under huge pressure to sign a settlement this year, and join the other iwi corporates who have already ceded their sovereignty. 

But Ngāti Kahu also know that the biggest threat of all, the one ring that  binds all other threats to the environment, wellbeing and sovereignty of all New Zealanders, and not just Ngāti Kahu, is the TPPA. 

Wake up.  Wise up.  Rise up.  Resist.  That is the message. 

Walked out this morning, don't believe what I saw
A hundred billion bottles washed up on the shore
Seems I'm not alone at being alone
A hundred billion castaways looking for a home

WHAT DO THEY KNOW?

“It's Christmas time, there's no need to be afraid.  At Christmas time we let in light and we banish shade.”

These are the opening lines to the song Do They Know It’s Christmas written by Bob Geldof and recorded by the supergroup Band Aid just before Christmas 1984 to raise money for famine hit Ethiopia.  With its saccharine lyrics and stellar lineup (including Geldof, Bono, Sting, Boy George, Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson) it went the 1984 equivalent of viral. 

Since then it’s become a Christmas anthem, and at this time of year you’re guaranteed to hear it many times over. 

Apparently Sir Bob, as he has since become, now says it is the worst song ever written and that it ruined his life.  May all his problems be so small.  Because the gloomy truth is that for a very large number of the world’s children, life is indeed a “world of dreaded fear, where the only water flowing is a bitter sting of tears.”

Here in New Zealand that has just been borne out by a report released on Monday 9^th December 2013 on child poverty in this country.  Written by Childrens Commissioner, Dr Russell Wills, the Child Poverty Monitor confirms that indicators like childhood illnesses are all on the rise, and one in four New Zealand children are now living in poverty.

This should not come as a surprise when read in the context of other recent studies such as the 2010 report, Comparative Child Well-being across the OECD which found that, out of 30 OECD countries, New Zealand was the 21^st lowest when it came to the material wellbeing of our children, and the 29^th lowest in terms of their health and safety.  On the up side, we had the fifth highest teen pregnancy rate and the highest youth suicide rate.  Additionally we were the 24^th highest in terms of risk behaviours, but the 21^st lowest in terms of average incomes.  And finally we had the 20^th highest infant mortality rates.

“And the Christmas bells that ring there are the clanging chimes of doom.  Well tonight, thank God, it's them instead of you.”

The Child Poverty Monitor confirms these trends have all worsened in our country, and yet John Key was on air immediately after it was released denying its findings and talking up what his government had done to reduce childhood poverty. 

Given that the report comes from his own appointed Childrens Commissioner, his denial is startlingly hollow.  Especially when measured against the reality of our own lived experiences in the Far North, where food banks cannot keep up with demand, and annual Christmas Tree appeals cannot meet the need.

“And in our world of plenty we can spread a smile of joy,
Throw your arms around the world at Christmastime.
But say a prayer to pray for the other ones,
At Christmastime.

Here's to you, raise your glass for everyone. 

Here's to them underneath that burning sun.

Do they know it's Christmas time at all?" 

IWI CHAIRS FORUM

Last week the Iwi Chairs Forum met at Te Poho o Rāwiri marae in Gisborne with a large attendance of iwi chairs and observers.  Ngāti Kahu’s chair, Professor Margaret Mutu, has provided a summary report of proceedings at the two day hui as follows.

The first day was entirely taken up with various presentations from Crown and other agencies.  As a result, reporting back from the Forum’s own Working Groups was restricted to the morning of the second day.  This drew some criticism. 

The Climate Change group reported a major dispute between the government and iwi who have settled claims to forestry lands. Because the government allowed cheap Emissions Trading Units from Europe to flood the market here, their value has dropped from about $30 to about $2. That has created a substantial loss for many iwi. They have referred the argument to the Prime Minister and have put forward a case for the value of Emissions Trading Units to have a minimum value of $15.

The Freshwater group reported that they have made some progress on ensuring the hapū have input into the management of water. However they are experiencing major difficulties with trying to get the government to talk to them about Māori rights and interests (ownership) of water.

The Whānau Ora group reported that Te Puni Kōkiri had rejected the North Island iwi bid to be the commissioning agency for Te Whānau Ora but had accepted the South Island iwi bid. The North Island one appears to have gone to National Urban Māori Authorities. North Island iwi resolved to meet with the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Whānau Ora to have that decision revisited.

The Housing group reported that Housing New Zealand is looking to iwi to buy up their housing stocks as part of their settlements.

The Mātauranga (Education) group came in for some criticism for laying the blame for Māori children not succeeding in Pākehā schools with the parents and whānau. Research has repeatedly shown that Māori children are marginalized in Pākehā schools and that teacher attitudes are the main cause. The hui identified racism as the main barrier for Māori children succeeding. The group was reminded that making te reo compulsory in all schools was key to improving the position of Māori.

The Constitutional group reported that they have completed 200 hui and will be presenting a draft model for a constitution to the February hui of the Forum (and at the Forum tent at Te Tii marae, Waitangi on 6 February).

The Iwi Collective is looking at purchasing as many of the properties landbanked for settlements prior to settlements. Ngāti Kahu has asked that properties in our area be excluded until we have pursued legal avenues in respect of our claims.