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.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, April 09, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, March 19, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
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]
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]
Monday, February 20, 2012
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!
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
BEHOLD YOUR LITTLE ONES
Have you ever looked into the eyes of a very new infant and seen them see you, then watched as they shifted their gaze to somewhere just beyond you and smiled in delighted recognition?
When that happens I always ask, “Are you talking to the corner-angels darling?” By that I mean those flickers seen from the corner of adult eyes, but which our little ones see square on and clearly until earth life claims them fully.
I thought of the ‘corner angels’ after watching this week’s Inside New Zealand documentary on child poverty in our country, and I wondered where they were, not just for the children but for their parents.
In the mid-1980s my mother wrote an essay titled “Starving in Paradise” in which she talked about the craziness of living in a country with enough land, water, food, health, housing and education services to meet everyone’s needs, but not enough paid work to give families at the bottom the wherewithal to provide those things adequately to their little ones.
The Prime Minister of that time, Rob Muldoon (for all his well-deserved reputation as an often nasty man) saw what people needed was meaningful, paid work. In Pawarenga the six month PEP schemes with two week stand-downs between each that he established were heaven-sent. Crime rates dropped, health stats rose, and the kainga was abuzz with happy, active, engaged whānau.
Unfortunately not one government since Muldoon’s has shown any common sense about those at the bottom. Instead they’ve clung to the hopelessly failed ‘trickle-down’ theory of enriching the 1% at the top, believing that will lift the earning power of everyone else.
It’s not working for our little ones, because it’s not working for their parents.
I’ve seen good parents break under the stress of not being able to pay for what their little ones need. Some have simply walked away, some have struggled on, some have gone half or wholly mad. Most make it through somehow, a few turn bad. But many, many more are simply choosing to take themselves and their families out of the country entirely.
My brother left for Australia last week to work in the mines. He’s a registered nurse and a qualified teacher with reasonable earning power. But he’s had enough. So he’s gone, and his wife and kids will join him in the New Year.
We’re expecting two new mokopuna in the next few months. When they arrive I want to be able to say to them, “Say hi to me, I’m your corner angel and always will be.”
Then I want to be able to turn and say to their parents, “Behold your little ones, they have a happy, healthy future here in Aotearoa, and so do you.”
When that happens I always ask, “Are you talking to the corner-angels darling?” By that I mean those flickers seen from the corner of adult eyes, but which our little ones see square on and clearly until earth life claims them fully.
I thought of the ‘corner angels’ after watching this week’s Inside New Zealand documentary on child poverty in our country, and I wondered where they were, not just for the children but for their parents.
In the mid-1980s my mother wrote an essay titled “Starving in Paradise” in which she talked about the craziness of living in a country with enough land, water, food, health, housing and education services to meet everyone’s needs, but not enough paid work to give families at the bottom the wherewithal to provide those things adequately to their little ones.
The Prime Minister of that time, Rob Muldoon (for all his well-deserved reputation as an often nasty man) saw what people needed was meaningful, paid work. In Pawarenga the six month PEP schemes with two week stand-downs between each that he established were heaven-sent. Crime rates dropped, health stats rose, and the kainga was abuzz with happy, active, engaged whānau.
Unfortunately not one government since Muldoon’s has shown any common sense about those at the bottom. Instead they’ve clung to the hopelessly failed ‘trickle-down’ theory of enriching the 1% at the top, believing that will lift the earning power of everyone else.
It’s not working for our little ones, because it’s not working for their parents.
I’ve seen good parents break under the stress of not being able to pay for what their little ones need. Some have simply walked away, some have struggled on, some have gone half or wholly mad. Most make it through somehow, a few turn bad. But many, many more are simply choosing to take themselves and their families out of the country entirely.
My brother left for Australia last week to work in the mines. He’s a registered nurse and a qualified teacher with reasonable earning power. But he’s had enough. So he’s gone, and his wife and kids will join him in the New Year.
We’re expecting two new mokopuna in the next few months. When they arrive I want to be able to say to them, “Say hi to me, I’m your corner angel and always will be.”
Then I want to be able to turn and say to their parents, “Behold your little ones, they have a happy, healthy future here in Aotearoa, and so do you.”
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
MMP - MORE MANA IN POLITICS
In this last week before we go to the polls I have been thinking a lot about Naomi Wolf’s 2007 book, “The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot,” in which she lays out the rise of world-wide fascism in this century and the one before it.
Many people may think they don’t know what fascism is, but if you’re old enough to vote, you actually know it better than you may realise.
In simple terms, fascism is a political ideology based on strong leadership, stable government and the removal of human rights and personal freedoms from the citizenry.
Mussolini invented fascism in Italy during the 1920s. Ever since then, fascist leaders from Hitler to Bush have all followed the same ten steps he used to shift their free, open societies into closed fascist states; and all with the consent of their citizens.
Naomi Wolf identifies those ten steps as follows:
1. Invoke a terrifying enemy; it doesn’t matter whether it’s internal or external, as long as it’s terrifying.
2. Create or support secret prisons where torture takes place; preferably outside your borders.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to your citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release; again, preferably outside your borders.
7. Target key individuals; academics, students, investigative journalists, activists.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors; recast dissent as treason and protest as terrorism.
10. Suspend the rule of law; remove habeus corpus (innocent until proven guilty) and due process (notice and opportunity to defend oneself).
Do you recognise these steps? You should, because New Zealand governments have advanced quite far down the checklist. We are not yet at the stage that the United States is with regard to human rights violations and suspension of the rule of law, but we’re getting there.
Fascist shifts don’t happen in a straight line of progression. Instead they happen as a series of tipping points (Malcolm Gladwell); here a little, there a little. And, as Wolf says, "When it reaches the point of no return – when democrcy can no longer heal itself – collapse happens real fast. When these tipping points start to come thick and fast, free societies close down very quickly."
As they prepare to go to the polls this Saturday, a number of people are asking me for advice about why they should vote for this person or that party.
In answer I give them the above checklist and tell them to ask themselves one simple question. Which party and which candidate is not following this check list?
Then vote for that party, their candidate and their policies.
And vote yes to keep MMP because it means More Mana in Politics.
Many people may think they don’t know what fascism is, but if you’re old enough to vote, you actually know it better than you may realise.
In simple terms, fascism is a political ideology based on strong leadership, stable government and the removal of human rights and personal freedoms from the citizenry.
Mussolini invented fascism in Italy during the 1920s. Ever since then, fascist leaders from Hitler to Bush have all followed the same ten steps he used to shift their free, open societies into closed fascist states; and all with the consent of their citizens.
Naomi Wolf identifies those ten steps as follows:
1. Invoke a terrifying enemy; it doesn’t matter whether it’s internal or external, as long as it’s terrifying.
2. Create or support secret prisons where torture takes place; preferably outside your borders.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to your citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release; again, preferably outside your borders.
7. Target key individuals; academics, students, investigative journalists, activists.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors; recast dissent as treason and protest as terrorism.
10. Suspend the rule of law; remove habeus corpus (innocent until proven guilty) and due process (notice and opportunity to defend oneself).
Do you recognise these steps? You should, because New Zealand governments have advanced quite far down the checklist. We are not yet at the stage that the United States is with regard to human rights violations and suspension of the rule of law, but we’re getting there.
Fascist shifts don’t happen in a straight line of progression. Instead they happen as a series of tipping points (Malcolm Gladwell); here a little, there a little. And, as Wolf says, "When it reaches the point of no return – when democrcy can no longer heal itself – collapse happens real fast. When these tipping points start to come thick and fast, free societies close down very quickly."
As they prepare to go to the polls this Saturday, a number of people are asking me for advice about why they should vote for this person or that party.
In answer I give them the above checklist and tell them to ask themselves one simple question. Which party and which candidate is not following this check list?
Then vote for that party, their candidate and their policies.
And vote yes to keep MMP because it means More Mana in Politics.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
SHOW US THE DEEDS
While an American visitor was shocked at the racism against Māori that he witnessed from a policewoman in Kerikeri during his recent visit here [Lance O’Sullivan’s column in the Northland Age 10 Nov 2011], most New Zealanders would have found it unremarkable, in the same way that they find the Crown’s Treaty settlement dealings with Māori unremarkable.
In fact, of all the letter writers to the Northland Age, only a handful can be relied upon to remark at all about the insitutitional racism which is endemic in this country against Māori and, of those, most blame Māori for it.
Anyway, rather than rage ineffectively against the machine I prefer to target its power source, or as close to it as I can get. With that in mind I have written today to Chris Finlayson, Crown Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, as follows:
Dear Chris,
Last week we asked your staff at the Office of Treaty Settlements for copies of the deeds they had drafted to settle our claims against the Crown for breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The reply was that the documents were too large to email and would be uploaded to the OTS website on Monday just gone. They haven’t been.
Given that we are expected to ratify your Te Aupōuri deed in less than 6 weeks and your Te Rarawa deed not long after that, we want to see the actual deeds. In this age of electronic scanners and high speed broadband, we had expected them to have been made available to us by now. In fact we would have preferred to have seen them before they were intialed by our self-proclaimed chiefs; a courtesy your Pākehā constituents take for granted when agreements are being made in their behalf. But we know that is not how you deal with Māori.
It is not up to Te Runanga o Te Rarawa or Te Runanga Nui o Te Aupōuri to give us access to these documents. They are already very busy posting us explanatory booklets about them, and preparing to hold hui to explain those explanatory booklets to us. So these chiefly persons cannot be expected to also send or give us access to the actual documents. That’s your job.
Please instruct your staff to upload the Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa deeds of settlement to the OTS website pronto; preferably before the chiefly ones hold their first explanatory hui.
In closing, I shall be in Wellington on the 25th of this month at the Waitangi Tribunal where these deeds will be part of the evidence presented to show why the Tribunal should make binding recommendations on the Crown to return all Ngāti Kahu lands (currently occupied and used by State-owned Enterprises or leased as Crown Forest Licenses) to Ngāti Kahu - plus compensation.
Na,
Anahera Herbert-Graves (Inside an Iwi)
In fact, of all the letter writers to the Northland Age, only a handful can be relied upon to remark at all about the insitutitional racism which is endemic in this country against Māori and, of those, most blame Māori for it.
Anyway, rather than rage ineffectively against the machine I prefer to target its power source, or as close to it as I can get. With that in mind I have written today to Chris Finlayson, Crown Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, as follows:
Dear Chris,
Last week we asked your staff at the Office of Treaty Settlements for copies of the deeds they had drafted to settle our claims against the Crown for breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The reply was that the documents were too large to email and would be uploaded to the OTS website on Monday just gone. They haven’t been.
Given that we are expected to ratify your Te Aupōuri deed in less than 6 weeks and your Te Rarawa deed not long after that, we want to see the actual deeds. In this age of electronic scanners and high speed broadband, we had expected them to have been made available to us by now. In fact we would have preferred to have seen them before they were intialed by our self-proclaimed chiefs; a courtesy your Pākehā constituents take for granted when agreements are being made in their behalf. But we know that is not how you deal with Māori.
It is not up to Te Runanga o Te Rarawa or Te Runanga Nui o Te Aupōuri to give us access to these documents. They are already very busy posting us explanatory booklets about them, and preparing to hold hui to explain those explanatory booklets to us. So these chiefly persons cannot be expected to also send or give us access to the actual documents. That’s your job.
Please instruct your staff to upload the Te Aupōuri and Te Rarawa deeds of settlement to the OTS website pronto; preferably before the chiefly ones hold their first explanatory hui.
In closing, I shall be in Wellington on the 25th of this month at the Waitangi Tribunal where these deeds will be part of the evidence presented to show why the Tribunal should make binding recommendations on the Crown to return all Ngāti Kahu lands (currently occupied and used by State-owned Enterprises or leased as Crown Forest Licenses) to Ngāti Kahu - plus compensation.
Na,
Anahera Herbert-Graves (Inside an Iwi)
Friday, November 18, 2011
SHOW US THE MONEY
“Show us the money! Show us the money!”
In the first of two televised debates held in early November for election 2011, that was the repeated one-liner that National’s John Key used to pressure Phil Goff over Labour’s election promises.
Disappointingly Goff failed to respond with any conviction whatsoever. Even more disappointing both Key and Goff completely ignored the obvious answer. In these globalised times, to fund our social and economic recovery, tax the banks on every speculative transaction they make in our territories.
How would that work?
In England it’s being promoted as the Robin Hood bank tax. Of course the banks are screaming blue murder that it would be horribly complex, unfair to individual rich members of the public, terribly tough on the banking sector, and would be of minimal benefit to the poor. But let’s unpack these objections and see whether they hold water or not.
First, how tough has this recession been on the banking sector? This is the same sector that has over the past four years received trillions of dollars worth of taxpayers moneys from across the globe to keep it going, and is still paying itself billions of dollars in bonuses. Sound like tough times to you?
Second, how unfair would this be on rich members of the public? The taxes proposed would be charged on all bank transactions that do not include members of the public; bonds, derivatives, currencies, speculative stuff. The bankers would give something like 0.05% on each deal that they did, sometimes even less. Does that does sound unfair to you?
Third, how minimal would these benefits be? Even the most conservative estimates suggest that this tiny tax on the banks would raise hundreds of billions of dollars every year across the globe, Not only would that help save lives and fund vital environmental action around the world, it would help avoid cuts to crucial public services here in this country and fund improved outcomes for us all.
Every one standing in this election says they care, and are going to do something about our falling standards of living and rising poverty. So, in the debate between the two who are most likely to form some kind of government after the election, that’s what I was listening for. What are they going to do? How are we going to pay for it?
What I heard Key say was that National would sell assets to fund education, housing and health, while Goff said Labour would rejig taxes to do the same. But neither gave me a clear vision of what that would look like.
The answer is as plain as the nose on Goff’s face; don’t sell our assets and don’t just take GST off fruit and veges; tax the banks.
The MANA movement has renamed it the Hone Heke tax, and it’s the only sensible answer to John Key’s challenge to, “Show us the money!”
In the first of two televised debates held in early November for election 2011, that was the repeated one-liner that National’s John Key used to pressure Phil Goff over Labour’s election promises.
Disappointingly Goff failed to respond with any conviction whatsoever. Even more disappointing both Key and Goff completely ignored the obvious answer. In these globalised times, to fund our social and economic recovery, tax the banks on every speculative transaction they make in our territories.
How would that work?
In England it’s being promoted as the Robin Hood bank tax. Of course the banks are screaming blue murder that it would be horribly complex, unfair to individual rich members of the public, terribly tough on the banking sector, and would be of minimal benefit to the poor. But let’s unpack these objections and see whether they hold water or not.
First, how tough has this recession been on the banking sector? This is the same sector that has over the past four years received trillions of dollars worth of taxpayers moneys from across the globe to keep it going, and is still paying itself billions of dollars in bonuses. Sound like tough times to you?
Second, how unfair would this be on rich members of the public? The taxes proposed would be charged on all bank transactions that do not include members of the public; bonds, derivatives, currencies, speculative stuff. The bankers would give something like 0.05% on each deal that they did, sometimes even less. Does that does sound unfair to you?
Third, how minimal would these benefits be? Even the most conservative estimates suggest that this tiny tax on the banks would raise hundreds of billions of dollars every year across the globe, Not only would that help save lives and fund vital environmental action around the world, it would help avoid cuts to crucial public services here in this country and fund improved outcomes for us all.
Every one standing in this election says they care, and are going to do something about our falling standards of living and rising poverty. So, in the debate between the two who are most likely to form some kind of government after the election, that’s what I was listening for. What are they going to do? How are we going to pay for it?
What I heard Key say was that National would sell assets to fund education, housing and health, while Goff said Labour would rejig taxes to do the same. But neither gave me a clear vision of what that would look like.
The answer is as plain as the nose on Goff’s face; don’t sell our assets and don’t just take GST off fruit and veges; tax the banks.
The MANA movement has renamed it the Hone Heke tax, and it’s the only sensible answer to John Key’s challenge to, “Show us the money!”
Monday, November 14, 2011
WHAT PRICE SOVEREIGNTY?
The clear trend across the world is to concentrate decision making and resources in fewer hands by over-riding the sovereignty of nations. Just look at Greece and Italy where elected leaders, unable to govern as a result of having joined the European Union and done a deal with the devil itself (Goldman Sachs) have been replaced by EU appointed bureaucrats who weren’t elected by their citizens and aren’t accountable to them. Instead both men (Mario Monti in Italy and Lucas Papademos in Greece) have very strong ties to Goldman Sachs and banking.
The same devil is now behind moves to change the membership and rules of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was originally set up in 2006 between Chile, Brunei, New Zealand and Singapore. Now Australia, Peru, the United States and Viet Nam also want to join it.
It’s the US interest in joining which has made it a hot topic, because America represents seventh heaven to free trade marketeers and hell on wheels to everyone else.
Right now the TPP has no enforcement provisions, no common currency, and no common governing body. But last year Ian Ferguson (international finance specialist) and Bruce Vaughan (Asian affairs specialist) wrote a paper for Congress identifying the changes that must be made to the TPP if it is to “serve the security and trade interests” of the US.
First, it must have a common governing body made up of non-elected bureaucrats appointed by participating governments. Second, it must have the power to enforce its decisions by force of arms if necessary. Third, it must be able to sue governments, but must itself be exempt from being sued.
Just last week, Secretary of State Clinton said, now that US engagement in the middle east (Iraq and Afghanistan) is winding down, it ‘vows’ to expand its ‘engagement in the Asia-Pacific...’
For us, America’s entry into the TPP will almost certainly mean the end of Pharmac which buys our pharmaceutical and medical supplies from whoever gives us the best price. It will also be the end of the private online auction facility that Fonterra had created to allow us to get better prices than other countries for our dairy products. It will tie us irrevocably to serving the ‘security and trade interests’ of America. And it will destroy what little is left of our already taretare sovereignty.
Already we know that under John Key US Marines will be housed somewhere in New Zealand. Under him, government will have a public-private partnership with some unknown entity to build an SAS training base somewhere in New Zealand. He has shown himself willing to use our navy and police forces to arrest us in favour of foreign commerce. And his government has made laws to prosecute us for taking action against foreign spy activities in our country.
If the steward of our sovereignty is John Key, how buttressed do you feel knowing that he has a home in Honolulu and all his money in US banks? Who is he really speaking for when he has his bolt hole elsewhere and his money safely offshore?
The same devil is now behind moves to change the membership and rules of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was originally set up in 2006 between Chile, Brunei, New Zealand and Singapore. Now Australia, Peru, the United States and Viet Nam also want to join it.
It’s the US interest in joining which has made it a hot topic, because America represents seventh heaven to free trade marketeers and hell on wheels to everyone else.
Right now the TPP has no enforcement provisions, no common currency, and no common governing body. But last year Ian Ferguson (international finance specialist) and Bruce Vaughan (Asian affairs specialist) wrote a paper for Congress identifying the changes that must be made to the TPP if it is to “serve the security and trade interests” of the US.
First, it must have a common governing body made up of non-elected bureaucrats appointed by participating governments. Second, it must have the power to enforce its decisions by force of arms if necessary. Third, it must be able to sue governments, but must itself be exempt from being sued.
Just last week, Secretary of State Clinton said, now that US engagement in the middle east (Iraq and Afghanistan) is winding down, it ‘vows’ to expand its ‘engagement in the Asia-Pacific...’
For us, America’s entry into the TPP will almost certainly mean the end of Pharmac which buys our pharmaceutical and medical supplies from whoever gives us the best price. It will also be the end of the private online auction facility that Fonterra had created to allow us to get better prices than other countries for our dairy products. It will tie us irrevocably to serving the ‘security and trade interests’ of America. And it will destroy what little is left of our already taretare sovereignty.
Already we know that under John Key US Marines will be housed somewhere in New Zealand. Under him, government will have a public-private partnership with some unknown entity to build an SAS training base somewhere in New Zealand. He has shown himself willing to use our navy and police forces to arrest us in favour of foreign commerce. And his government has made laws to prosecute us for taking action against foreign spy activities in our country.
If the steward of our sovereignty is John Key, how buttressed do you feel knowing that he has a home in Honolulu and all his money in US banks? Who is he really speaking for when he has his bolt hole elsewhere and his money safely offshore?
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
POISONED FRUIT
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is as well.
Last week Māori TV showed the documentary, “Operation Eight” about the illegal and racist terror raids carried out by the New Zealand Police for and on behalf of the Crown on the Tūhoe settlement of Ruatoki in 2007.
I say illegal because, in August this year, the video surveillance which comprised much of the Police’s raison d’etre for the raids was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Cue mad scramble by the Crown to pass retrospective legislation to make the video footage legal. It went through as law just last month after a lot of cross-party dealing and wheeling.
But, as the documentary lays out with precision, even if the video surveillance had been obtained legally, how it was edited and presented by the police in order to get authority to make the raids on Tūhoe is a black joke and an example of ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’
You can watch the documentary on Māori TV’s website for free and see it for yourself.
Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, who shepherded the Covert Police Surveillance Bill through the house, is also the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and he’s been a very busy little bee.
First, he was in the Far North again early last week, trying to convince Ngāti Kuri to drop its bottom lines regarding its lands and initial a deed of settlement with the Crown. Another poisoned fruit metaphor comes to mind here; the one that Snow White ate. To their eternal credit, Ngāti Kuri rejected what the Crown was offering and refused to swallow. Poof! Crown plan one up in smoke.
Then last Friday Finlayson hosted what was supposed to be a four-iwi initialing ceremony of four deeds of settlement (full, final and fair ones) with the Crown. But the negotiators for Ngāitakoto changed their minds when it became clear they too were being asked to drop their bottom lines on a key piece of land (Te Make aka Sweetwater) in which Te Paatu also has an interest. To their credit, Ngāitakoto also refused to swallow. Poof! Another Crown plan up in smoke.
On the same day the annual hikoi to commemorate the 1881 invasion of Parihaka by Crown troops (shades of Tūhoe terror raids) happened. And, as the marchers stood outside the barrier between them and the steps of Parliament, they spotted our Te Rarawa and Te Aupōuri whānau standing on the steps with fresh ink on their hands.
At the end of this month Ngāti Kahu has a judicial conference on our Waitangi Tribunal claim for binding recommendations against the Crown coming up. That means any deed initialed last week is somewhat moot; poisoned fruit even.
Why would anyone swallow that?
Last week Māori TV showed the documentary, “Operation Eight” about the illegal and racist terror raids carried out by the New Zealand Police for and on behalf of the Crown on the Tūhoe settlement of Ruatoki in 2007.
I say illegal because, in August this year, the video surveillance which comprised much of the Police’s raison d’etre for the raids was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Cue mad scramble by the Crown to pass retrospective legislation to make the video footage legal. It went through as law just last month after a lot of cross-party dealing and wheeling.
But, as the documentary lays out with precision, even if the video surveillance had been obtained legally, how it was edited and presented by the police in order to get authority to make the raids on Tūhoe is a black joke and an example of ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’
You can watch the documentary on Māori TV’s website for free and see it for yourself.
Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, who shepherded the Covert Police Surveillance Bill through the house, is also the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and he’s been a very busy little bee.
First, he was in the Far North again early last week, trying to convince Ngāti Kuri to drop its bottom lines regarding its lands and initial a deed of settlement with the Crown. Another poisoned fruit metaphor comes to mind here; the one that Snow White ate. To their eternal credit, Ngāti Kuri rejected what the Crown was offering and refused to swallow. Poof! Crown plan one up in smoke.
Then last Friday Finlayson hosted what was supposed to be a four-iwi initialing ceremony of four deeds of settlement (full, final and fair ones) with the Crown. But the negotiators for Ngāitakoto changed their minds when it became clear they too were being asked to drop their bottom lines on a key piece of land (Te Make aka Sweetwater) in which Te Paatu also has an interest. To their credit, Ngāitakoto also refused to swallow. Poof! Another Crown plan up in smoke.
On the same day the annual hikoi to commemorate the 1881 invasion of Parihaka by Crown troops (shades of Tūhoe terror raids) happened. And, as the marchers stood outside the barrier between them and the steps of Parliament, they spotted our Te Rarawa and Te Aupōuri whānau standing on the steps with fresh ink on their hands.
At the end of this month Ngāti Kahu has a judicial conference on our Waitangi Tribunal claim for binding recommendations against the Crown coming up. That means any deed initialed last week is somewhat moot; poisoned fruit even.
Why would anyone swallow that?
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
The theory of social contract is based on the notion that governments only exist by consent of the people; we the people agree to be governed if, in exchange, government agrees to protect us.
But here in this country, instead of protecting us, governments of left and right have spent the last thirty years deregulating all sorts of laws that have made us easy pickings for Big Banking, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Energy, Big Farming and Big Industry.
To illustrate, after the Great Depression (1929 – 1945), laws were passed across the world, including here, to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. But in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher took the gloves off in Great Britain, New Zealand governments rapidly followed suit.
Laws that had stopped banks from gambling investors’ money were repealed. Strict separations between bankers, brokers and insurers were removed. Laws that protected workers from unfair employment practices were put aside or weakened. Laws that protected the environment were amended or watered down. And more recent laws that recognised Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the special relationship of Māori with their whenua have been changed to diminish that relationship.
So, what has all that deregulation gained us? Our economy is now in a state of collapse (Hanover Finance, Southern Finance and triple credit rating downgrades), our infrastructure is a basket case (Pike River, the Taranaki gas line), and our environment is under pressure (Raukumara Basin, the Rena). On top of that, people are working harder for less, students are leaving university burdened with mortgage-sized debt, our housing bubble has burst, and our health and education statistics are tumbling down the OECD scale.
The only recent bright spot has been six weeks of RWC and an All Black victory. But even that’s beginning to dim as the spotlight turns on the state of the nation before the election. If you were looking for a metaphor for that state, then look no further than a ship called Rena.
“The government didn’t ground the Rena on that reef,” John Key said. True. But neither did it protect against or prepare adequately for such an event. Instead, it allowed a poorly serviced ship, under-manned by an under-paid and over-worked crew, to sail under a flag of convenience around our coastline and harbours until it fetched up on that reef.
Imagine a revolver with four chambers. First chamber represents our environment, second is our economy, third are our labour laws, and the fourth represents us the people. Well, the Rena is the bullet that fits all four chambers, while governmental negligence is the fire power.
It will take some time before the black oil works its way out of the seafood, sands and aquifers of Tauranga Moana and Te Tairāwhiti. But as each blob sinks downward or drifts shoreward, it becomes more and more clear; our government has smashed its social contract with us all.
And in its place looms a social nightmare called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA].
But here in this country, instead of protecting us, governments of left and right have spent the last thirty years deregulating all sorts of laws that have made us easy pickings for Big Banking, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Energy, Big Farming and Big Industry.
To illustrate, after the Great Depression (1929 – 1945), laws were passed across the world, including here, to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. But in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher took the gloves off in Great Britain, New Zealand governments rapidly followed suit.
Laws that had stopped banks from gambling investors’ money were repealed. Strict separations between bankers, brokers and insurers were removed. Laws that protected workers from unfair employment practices were put aside or weakened. Laws that protected the environment were amended or watered down. And more recent laws that recognised Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the special relationship of Māori with their whenua have been changed to diminish that relationship.
So, what has all that deregulation gained us? Our economy is now in a state of collapse (Hanover Finance, Southern Finance and triple credit rating downgrades), our infrastructure is a basket case (Pike River, the Taranaki gas line), and our environment is under pressure (Raukumara Basin, the Rena). On top of that, people are working harder for less, students are leaving university burdened with mortgage-sized debt, our housing bubble has burst, and our health and education statistics are tumbling down the OECD scale.
The only recent bright spot has been six weeks of RWC and an All Black victory. But even that’s beginning to dim as the spotlight turns on the state of the nation before the election. If you were looking for a metaphor for that state, then look no further than a ship called Rena.
“The government didn’t ground the Rena on that reef,” John Key said. True. But neither did it protect against or prepare adequately for such an event. Instead, it allowed a poorly serviced ship, under-manned by an under-paid and over-worked crew, to sail under a flag of convenience around our coastline and harbours until it fetched up on that reef.
Imagine a revolver with four chambers. First chamber represents our environment, second is our economy, third are our labour laws, and the fourth represents us the people. Well, the Rena is the bullet that fits all four chambers, while governmental negligence is the fire power.
It will take some time before the black oil works its way out of the seafood, sands and aquifers of Tauranga Moana and Te Tairāwhiti. But as each blob sinks downward or drifts shoreward, it becomes more and more clear; our government has smashed its social contract with us all.
And in its place looms a social nightmare called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA].
Sunday, October 30, 2011
THE REVOLVING DOOR
Across the world there’s a revolving-door between politics and finance through which high-ranking political retirees like Tony Blair move from government straight into banking, and high-flying bankers like John Key move unerringly into government.
In that world, governments have not only failed to protect their people from the predations of financiers, they’ve actually passed laws that enable financiers to lure people into a state of indebtedness off which they then feast.
In a spectacularly accurate piece of purple prose, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi described Goldman Sachs, the world's most powerful investment bank, as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
To illustrate, the housing bubble was never about getting people into housing. Rather it was about neighbourhood banks and lenders acting as funnels for debts which were then packaged up with thousands of others and bought by investment banks like Goldman Sachs to either be sold again as mortgage-backed securities or held as reserves. Alternatively they could be used as collateral or gambled on via the purchase of credit default swaps (CDS).
On paper, every transaction generated more money. But it was all plaque; a gigantic fraud that makes the Nigerian scam look puny.
That became clear when New York-based bank Lehmann Brothers (the main competitor of Goldman Sachs) collapsed in 2008. Although Lehmann owed a shocking $65 billion when they collapsed, it turned out there was more than $400 billion worth of CDS being held by various speculators on just such a collapse happening.
The biggest holder, and therefore the biggest winner when Lehmann collapsed, was none other than Goldman Sachs. Conversely the biggest loser was a single insurer which was exposed to more than a quarter of those CDS: That was AIG, and it didn’t have a hope in hell of covering their exposure.
AIG had their back to wall, bankruptcy loomed, threatening to bring down the entire derivatives market, and with it the global banking system.
To forestall further collapses, the US Treasury and Federal Reserve bailed AIG out with more than $175 billion. In exchange, they took more than 80% ownership of the company. In short, all AIG’s losses fell on the backs of American taxpayers. Goldman Sachs, and other banking counterparties were paid 100 cents on the dollar. One single individual, John Paulson, received $8 Billion dollars.
The American government and these financiers have done an al-Qaeda on what was once the strongest economy in the world; they’ve flown it straight into the ground.
And yet nothing much has changed since 2008. Lenders are still luring borrowers into debt. Debt is still being bundled and on-sold to investment banks. Speculation continues. The only difference is that, now that housing is a bust, the lenders are using credit cards and student loans as the bait.
Here in New Zealand we’re seeing a similar pattern of financial collapses followed by taxpayer-funded government bailouts. Here too, credit cards and student loans are replacing home mortgages as the bait for borrowers to take on debt.
And here, as well as in America, the revolving door between politics and finance has never been busier.
In that world, governments have not only failed to protect their people from the predations of financiers, they’ve actually passed laws that enable financiers to lure people into a state of indebtedness off which they then feast.
In a spectacularly accurate piece of purple prose, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi described Goldman Sachs, the world's most powerful investment bank, as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
To illustrate, the housing bubble was never about getting people into housing. Rather it was about neighbourhood banks and lenders acting as funnels for debts which were then packaged up with thousands of others and bought by investment banks like Goldman Sachs to either be sold again as mortgage-backed securities or held as reserves. Alternatively they could be used as collateral or gambled on via the purchase of credit default swaps (CDS).
On paper, every transaction generated more money. But it was all plaque; a gigantic fraud that makes the Nigerian scam look puny.
That became clear when New York-based bank Lehmann Brothers (the main competitor of Goldman Sachs) collapsed in 2008. Although Lehmann owed a shocking $65 billion when they collapsed, it turned out there was more than $400 billion worth of CDS being held by various speculators on just such a collapse happening.
The biggest holder, and therefore the biggest winner when Lehmann collapsed, was none other than Goldman Sachs. Conversely the biggest loser was a single insurer which was exposed to more than a quarter of those CDS: That was AIG, and it didn’t have a hope in hell of covering their exposure.
AIG had their back to wall, bankruptcy loomed, threatening to bring down the entire derivatives market, and with it the global banking system.
To forestall further collapses, the US Treasury and Federal Reserve bailed AIG out with more than $175 billion. In exchange, they took more than 80% ownership of the company. In short, all AIG’s losses fell on the backs of American taxpayers. Goldman Sachs, and other banking counterparties were paid 100 cents on the dollar. One single individual, John Paulson, received $8 Billion dollars.
The American government and these financiers have done an al-Qaeda on what was once the strongest economy in the world; they’ve flown it straight into the ground.
And yet nothing much has changed since 2008. Lenders are still luring borrowers into debt. Debt is still being bundled and on-sold to investment banks. Speculation continues. The only difference is that, now that housing is a bust, the lenders are using credit cards and student loans as the bait.
Here in New Zealand we’re seeing a similar pattern of financial collapses followed by taxpayer-funded government bailouts. Here too, credit cards and student loans are replacing home mortgages as the bait for borrowers to take on debt.
And here, as well as in America, the revolving door between politics and finance has never been busier.
CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS
Until this year I’d never heard of a credit default swap. It’s taken some time for me to get my head around what it is and why it’s so important to what’s happening to the economy today. In essence, a CDS is like an insurance policy on methamphetamine.
Here’s a hypothetical: Mr X borrows $50 from me. I want to get insurance on his debt in case he goes broke, so I go to Miss Y and, for a premium of $4 per year, she insures the debt.
Y is betting that X will pay me back, especially since she did her homework by looking at X’s credit rating and saw it was superb. But instead of writing a standard insurance policy, Y writes me a CDS.
Unfortunately Y then has some problems with her business, and she no longer has $50 to pay me in case X goes broke. The premiums I paid her are long gone.
Credit agencies notice this and kill Y’s credit rating. Now Y is stuffed because she can no longer raise cash at good rates to keep her business open (today’s large businesses need a constant flow of credit to maintain operations). Y goes bankrupt.
Now I’m in trouble. The debt X owes me is now uninsured. The credit agencies look at my books, see I have this exposed debt, and downgrade me. I enter bankruptcy as well. But I’m knee deep in the CDS game too. I wrote a ton of them for my mate Z, insuring debts owed to him by other parties. When I go down it puts pressure on X, Y and Z. Like dominoes we fall.
In the carnage it turns out that the ratings we all used to judge each other’s debt worthiness were bogus from the start. Essentially we all just gambled like we would at a blackjack table, but we did it while drunk. And blind.
In reality, the insurance company AIG wrote $78 billion worth of CDS between 2004 and 2009. Ivy League bright boys with MBAs then turned those CDS into a device which didn’t just insure against debt, but speculated if companies would fail or not. These speculative CDS could be on-sold, and often were. So, when a company went belly-up, whoever the lucky sod was holding the CDS on it at the time made a killing.
The Toxic Asset Relief Programme (TARP) in the US, and other taxpayer funded bailouts New Zealand and other countries, meant the bright boys not only survived, they were guaranteed to make money regardless of what happened to the company. As for the poor souls who had invested in it; for most of them it was a case of, “How sad, too bad, never mind!”
Here’s the bad news: the Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades, including CDS, now exceeds one quadrillion dollars – that’s 1,000 trillion dollars.
How is that figure even possible? The gross domestic product of all the countries in the world is only about 60 trillion dollars.
The answer to that is the real bad news.
Here’s a hypothetical: Mr X borrows $50 from me. I want to get insurance on his debt in case he goes broke, so I go to Miss Y and, for a premium of $4 per year, she insures the debt.
Y is betting that X will pay me back, especially since she did her homework by looking at X’s credit rating and saw it was superb. But instead of writing a standard insurance policy, Y writes me a CDS.
Unfortunately Y then has some problems with her business, and she no longer has $50 to pay me in case X goes broke. The premiums I paid her are long gone.
Credit agencies notice this and kill Y’s credit rating. Now Y is stuffed because she can no longer raise cash at good rates to keep her business open (today’s large businesses need a constant flow of credit to maintain operations). Y goes bankrupt.
Now I’m in trouble. The debt X owes me is now uninsured. The credit agencies look at my books, see I have this exposed debt, and downgrade me. I enter bankruptcy as well. But I’m knee deep in the CDS game too. I wrote a ton of them for my mate Z, insuring debts owed to him by other parties. When I go down it puts pressure on X, Y and Z. Like dominoes we fall.
In the carnage it turns out that the ratings we all used to judge each other’s debt worthiness were bogus from the start. Essentially we all just gambled like we would at a blackjack table, but we did it while drunk. And blind.
In reality, the insurance company AIG wrote $78 billion worth of CDS between 2004 and 2009. Ivy League bright boys with MBAs then turned those CDS into a device which didn’t just insure against debt, but speculated if companies would fail or not. These speculative CDS could be on-sold, and often were. So, when a company went belly-up, whoever the lucky sod was holding the CDS on it at the time made a killing.
The Toxic Asset Relief Programme (TARP) in the US, and other taxpayer funded bailouts New Zealand and other countries, meant the bright boys not only survived, they were guaranteed to make money regardless of what happened to the company. As for the poor souls who had invested in it; for most of them it was a case of, “How sad, too bad, never mind!”
Here’s the bad news: the Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades, including CDS, now exceeds one quadrillion dollars – that’s 1,000 trillion dollars.
How is that figure even possible? The gross domestic product of all the countries in the world is only about 60 trillion dollars.
The answer to that is the real bad news.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
THE TIPPING POINT
Spoilt sportsmen, conniving politicians, dishonest financiers; they all get caught eventually. And yet it often seems that, instead of kicking their sorry butts, we meekly accept their nonsense.
Perhaps that is the price we feel has to be paid for being associated with winners. Perhaps it’s what we feel has to be done to keep the leaky ship of state, sport or enterprise afloat. Hei aha? Whatever the reason, the tipping point always comes and change happens.
Right now we’re seeing it happening with regards to ‘the economy.’ As millions of homeless, jobless, cashless people (and those who are about to join their ranks) wake up to the fact that someone is making a financial killing off their misery, they are taking to the streets in protest.
Waves of civil disobedience are rippling across North America, the Middle East, and Europe against the moneymen who profit at every turn of the screw. The brokers, insurers, bankers and financiers, as well as the princes and politicians who serve their interests; to millions across the world they all deserve to be thrown out on their ear. And who can blame them for feeling that way?
However a word of caution.
It is good to see the rising awareness amongst the middle-class in particular that our nations and economies are not being run well by those in power. But, unless we understand that it is our own attitudes, expectations and practices that feed the problem and support those in power, nothing will change for us.
It does not matter what kind of government it is. Democracy, autocracy, theocracy, and even that strange beast called plutocracy (the rule or power of the wealthy); they are all addicted to an economic system called money upon which all international trading and commerce occurs. In turn we are addicted to it, mainly as borrowers.
As with any addiction, we who suffer from it are all subject to the increasingly centralised control of the money by an increasingly small and powerful group.
So, until enough of us understand how the addiction works and how to recover from it, nothing will change. In fact it will just get a whole lot worse as the cycle of boom and bust recurs on ever-increasing scales.
How do we break the cycle? Well, the people I respect most are all advising the same things. First, stop spending on anything but the necessities and pay your debts down. Second, drop your expectations and ‘use it up or wear it out, make it do or do without.’ Third, grow your own food as much as possible. Fourth, make alliances with likeminded people.
Depending on how much of this advice you take, when the tipping point comes (and it will), you’ll either already be in recovery, in jail, or dead and buried.
Perhaps that is the price we feel has to be paid for being associated with winners. Perhaps it’s what we feel has to be done to keep the leaky ship of state, sport or enterprise afloat. Hei aha? Whatever the reason, the tipping point always comes and change happens.
Right now we’re seeing it happening with regards to ‘the economy.’ As millions of homeless, jobless, cashless people (and those who are about to join their ranks) wake up to the fact that someone is making a financial killing off their misery, they are taking to the streets in protest.
Waves of civil disobedience are rippling across North America, the Middle East, and Europe against the moneymen who profit at every turn of the screw. The brokers, insurers, bankers and financiers, as well as the princes and politicians who serve their interests; to millions across the world they all deserve to be thrown out on their ear. And who can blame them for feeling that way?
However a word of caution.
It is good to see the rising awareness amongst the middle-class in particular that our nations and economies are not being run well by those in power. But, unless we understand that it is our own attitudes, expectations and practices that feed the problem and support those in power, nothing will change for us.
It does not matter what kind of government it is. Democracy, autocracy, theocracy, and even that strange beast called plutocracy (the rule or power of the wealthy); they are all addicted to an economic system called money upon which all international trading and commerce occurs. In turn we are addicted to it, mainly as borrowers.
As with any addiction, we who suffer from it are all subject to the increasingly centralised control of the money by an increasingly small and powerful group.
So, until enough of us understand how the addiction works and how to recover from it, nothing will change. In fact it will just get a whole lot worse as the cycle of boom and bust recurs on ever-increasing scales.
How do we break the cycle? Well, the people I respect most are all advising the same things. First, stop spending on anything but the necessities and pay your debts down. Second, drop your expectations and ‘use it up or wear it out, make it do or do without.’ Third, grow your own food as much as possible. Fourth, make alliances with likeminded people.
Depending on how much of this advice you take, when the tipping point comes (and it will), you’ll either already be in recovery, in jail, or dead and buried.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
GO FLY A KITE
For some time now Chris Finlayson has been flying kites for the crown amongst the iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika, gauging how much he can get away with and who will support him against Ngāti Kahu.
In August he wrote instructing Ngāti Kahu to comply with Crown deadlines about providing information relating to the settlement of the other four iwi. Last month he wrote again saying he has now decided how to extinguish (not settle) Ngāti Kahu’s claims.
He intends to vest a lot of Ngāti Kahu lands in other iwi; Rangiāniwaniwa (kura kaupapa and airport), Te Make (the Sweetwater farm), Te Hiku forest lands as far north as Hukatere, and several properties in Kaitāia and Takahue. On top of that, he has withdrawn more than 60 other properties altogether that were in the Ngāti Kahu and Te Rarawa agreements in principle, saying the Crown wants to keep them (presumably to sell). In any event they have disappeared off the ever-shortening list of lands the crown is willing to transfer to the other iwi.
With regard to Rangiāniwaniwa, Finlayson instructs that the land will be transferred in a 50:50 split to Ngāi Takoto and Ngāti Kahu. But, until Ngāti Kahu behave like good Mowries, the crown will hang on to the Ngāti Kahu share. And if Ngāti Kahu are still being bad Mowries 36 months later, then the crown will transfer the Ngāti Kahu share to Ngāi Takoto. So, if Ngāi Takoto waits long enough, they can swoop in and take all of Rangiāniwaniwa. Never mind that the two whānau from whom it was taken during WW2 are still living right next to Rangiāniwaniwa; the Erstich and Pōpata whānau of Ngāti Kahu. Fortunately we can rely on the rank and file Ngāi Takoto not to fly that kite.
But wait, there’s more. Finlayson has also decided he must protect Far North District Council’s $1 per annum lease on more than half of Rangiāniwaniwa. Never mind that the lease doesn’t expire until 2013 or that he has no title on the land. Never mind that it still belongs to Patukōraha and Ngāi Tohianga hapū of Ngāti Kahu and Ngāi Takoto. And never mind that the council is lead by a man who, when told in 2008 that the land was going back to Ngāti Kahu and Ngāi Takoto, said there was no way Mowry could ever own an airport.
The legal owners of Rangiāniwaniwa met last Thursday and reaffirmed that they are happy for both the airport and the kura kaupapa to remain on their land. But it is they who will determine the terms of the renewed leases.
As for crown and council, they will get their answers in the Waitangi Tribunal soon enough. Until then, they are invited to take their racist whim, will and purported authority over all iwi including Ngāti Kahu, and go fly a kite.
In August he wrote instructing Ngāti Kahu to comply with Crown deadlines about providing information relating to the settlement of the other four iwi. Last month he wrote again saying he has now decided how to extinguish (not settle) Ngāti Kahu’s claims.
He intends to vest a lot of Ngāti Kahu lands in other iwi; Rangiāniwaniwa (kura kaupapa and airport), Te Make (the Sweetwater farm), Te Hiku forest lands as far north as Hukatere, and several properties in Kaitāia and Takahue. On top of that, he has withdrawn more than 60 other properties altogether that were in the Ngāti Kahu and Te Rarawa agreements in principle, saying the Crown wants to keep them (presumably to sell). In any event they have disappeared off the ever-shortening list of lands the crown is willing to transfer to the other iwi.
With regard to Rangiāniwaniwa, Finlayson instructs that the land will be transferred in a 50:50 split to Ngāi Takoto and Ngāti Kahu. But, until Ngāti Kahu behave like good Mowries, the crown will hang on to the Ngāti Kahu share. And if Ngāti Kahu are still being bad Mowries 36 months later, then the crown will transfer the Ngāti Kahu share to Ngāi Takoto. So, if Ngāi Takoto waits long enough, they can swoop in and take all of Rangiāniwaniwa. Never mind that the two whānau from whom it was taken during WW2 are still living right next to Rangiāniwaniwa; the Erstich and Pōpata whānau of Ngāti Kahu. Fortunately we can rely on the rank and file Ngāi Takoto not to fly that kite.
But wait, there’s more. Finlayson has also decided he must protect Far North District Council’s $1 per annum lease on more than half of Rangiāniwaniwa. Never mind that the lease doesn’t expire until 2013 or that he has no title on the land. Never mind that it still belongs to Patukōraha and Ngāi Tohianga hapū of Ngāti Kahu and Ngāi Takoto. And never mind that the council is lead by a man who, when told in 2008 that the land was going back to Ngāti Kahu and Ngāi Takoto, said there was no way Mowry could ever own an airport.
The legal owners of Rangiāniwaniwa met last Thursday and reaffirmed that they are happy for both the airport and the kura kaupapa to remain on their land. But it is they who will determine the terms of the renewed leases.
As for crown and council, they will get their answers in the Waitangi Tribunal soon enough. Until then, they are invited to take their racist whim, will and purported authority over all iwi including Ngāti Kahu, and go fly a kite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)