AN IMPORTANT RULING

Late last month the Supreme Court released a majority ruling (4 to 1) in favour of a man named Allan Haronga. Mr Haronga had fought his case all the way up from the Waitangi Tribunal, through the Māori Appellate Court, the High Court, and then the Court of Appeal, before finally winning a ruling from the highest Court in New Zealand. And what was that ruling? Simply that the Waitangi Tribunal must do its job and hold an urgent hearing into Mr Haronga’s application for a binding recommendation that the Crown return 8626 acres of the Mangatu State Forest to Mangatu Incorporation.

In 1893 Mangatu Incorporation was established by Te Aitanga a Māhaki, an iwi based in Turanganui a Kiwa (the Bay of Plenty), to protect them and their lands from the pressure to sell to Europeans. It is a matter of great pride to them that they have managed to hold the bulk of their lands since 1893. However in 1961 the Crown acquired some of their land for ‘erosion control purposes.’ Although the Incorporation was reluctant to sell, as it planned to afforest the land, it was prevailed upon to believe that there was no option other than Crown ownership. But it turned out that the Crown had never intended to use their land for erosion control at all. Instead it planted a commercial forest on it from which it has profited ever since.

In 1992 Eric Ruru, a member of the Incorporation, lodged two claims with the Waitangi Tribunal seeking the return of the land from the Crown. Later, his claims were grouped by the Tribunal into a district-wide inquiry. In 2004 the Tribunal ruled his claims were well-founded, but recommended that all claimants within the district enter direct negotiations with the Crown together. In 2008 a draft Agreement in Principle emerged which showed that the key redress item for the entire district was to be the Mangatu lands. In short, Te Aitanga a Māhaki and their claims had been subsumed, and their lands were to be used by the Crown to settle everyone’s claims.

As soon as he saw where negotiations were headed Allan Haronga returned to the Tribunal and asked it to complete its inquiry by ordering the Crown to return the Mangatu lands to the Mangatu Incorporation, but the Tribunal declined to even hold a hearing on the grounds that its power to hear an application for binding orders against the Crown was a discretionary one. Now it has been plainly told by the Supreme Court that it is not a discretionary power and it needs to do its job; i.e. hold a hearing and make a ruling based on law for or against Mr Haronga’s application.

In 2008 Ngāti Kahu also applied to the Tribunal for binding orders against the Crown and also got rebuffed, but we didn’t have the wherewithal to appeal. Combined with the fact that Supreme Court rulings set case law that can be used by others in the future, this makes Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal and Others a very important ruling for us. We are now considering our options very carefully.

I AM

I was asked recently how I can work year in and year out on the fault line between Māori and the Crown without getting bitter and twisted. Some years ago, during the worse series of tragedies I have ever experienced, I received a great yet simple insight – the knowledge that whatever happens to me, I am always OK. At the time I thought I was desperately unhappy, exhausted, frightened, and furious. But today I know that, while all those feelings have been felt by me at different times, none of them actually defines who I am. Neither do their opposites for that matter.

The late Anthony de Mello describes this knowledge in his book “Awareness.” Using the sky as a metaphor for who “I am” and the clouds as a metaphor for the things that happen to “me,” he explains how when a cloud appears and then disappears it may affect the look of the sky, but the sky itself remains essentially unchanged by the cloud’s coming or going, or by what type of cloud it is. In the same way, he continues, I am essentially unchanged by whatever happens to me or whoever comes and goes in my life. They may appear to make me look or feel sad, but in reality I am neither.

However, knowing who I am (or am not) does not automatically exempt me from suffering. De Mello defines suffering as what happens when my will comes up against immutable reality. Although reality does not cause suffering in itself, any more than it causes joy, it’s clear that if I try to bend it to my will, then that will cause me to suffer alright.

But if I am not visibly suffering will those who did me wrong ever be held accountable? Am I supposed to just forgive and do nothing to them? Surprisingly the answers are yes and yes. Other people and their actions are not mine to control. If I have an expectancy that they will be honest but they turn out to be lying thieves, I either accept that fact and work to resolve any hurt caused, or I try to force them to be honest and suffer when that inevitably doesn’t happen. There is nothing wrong with having expectancy, but I don’t need to get bitter and twisted when or if it doesn’t match with reality. As for wrongdoers being held accountable, there is a God to take care of that. And guess what? It’s not me. Thank God!

In the past I would crack a fit over the fact that the Crown has yet to right any of the wrongs it has done to me and my people. Now, I simply observe and accept the reality that the Crown currently remains without honour or integrity. Then I cheerfully carry on seeking after a day when that changes.

And the key to doing that year in and year out is to simply know I am.

SOUNDS OF SILENCE

On Saturday just gone Chris Finlayson and his officials were in Te Hiku meeting with different iwi in the region, starting with Ngāti Kahu. By Sunday we were hearing very muddled reports of the hui with Ngāti Kahu. There was this from TVNZ: “Ngati Kahu broke away from the four other iwi about a month ago, and asked to be allowed to come up with its own draft deed of settlement.”

That would have been news to everyone up here alright. Especially to those who know that, in order to write the deed, Ngāti Kahu made a planned and well-signalled withdrawal in January 2010 from the now-defunct Te Hiku Forum. But even if you didn’t know this background, hands up those who believe Ngāti Kahu ever asked anyone for permission to write its own deed.

Even more interesting than TVNZ’s piece, was the pollie-speak coming from Chris Finlayson himself about the meeting with Ngāti Kahu and our deed. He was reported on stuff.co.nz as saying the draft deed would be a ''partial settlement'' that would ''allow grievances to linger”, that ''full and final settlements are the cornerstone of the historical settlement process”, and that “finality allows the Crown and iwi to draw a line under the grievances of the past and focus on developing a positive future together.''

Translation: “If Ngāti Kahu wants to settle, they have to first let the Crown put the words ‘full and final’ on their deed, second stop acting like they own their lands and other estates, and third start pretending the Crown does.” As you can imagine, Ngāti Kahu’s response needs no translation.

Finlayson and the Crown have had the deed for two months now. The deadline for them to make submissions to it closes at 12 noon today. They hadn’t asked for an extension at time of this column being written.

If the Crown is still not ready to make full redress for all its wrongdoing and lawlessness, Ngāti Kahu will allow it to make a partial settlement at this time. We would prefer to sign a final deed of settlement, on the simple condition that it does actually contain full settlement redress.

It’s worrying for the future wellbeing of this country that the Crown still seems unable to see or portray Ngāti Kahu as anything but breakaways from the other iwi and beggars to the Crown. But even more worrying is the unnatural silence from the other iwi to whom I tātai. Just last month their leaders all sat unmurmuring, except for one of their number who told Ngāti Kahu off to a standstill for having finished our deed and then come expecting to sort out the finer details of our shared interests with them, when some of them hadn’t even started writing their deeds yet. But on Saturday Finlayson announced the other four iwi were all ready to sign their deeds of settlement.

What deeds of settlement are those? Who wrote them and when? Be interesting to hear something more than the sounds of silence from the other iwi.

A LEGACY

As a youngster I’d get hoha hearing my dad say things like, “Our family name is a good one. Don’t blinkin’ stuff it up.” Over the years since, I’ve come to understand that what dad was talking about was the importance of respecting our relationship to each other. What one did impacted on others in our whānau.

For Ngāti Kahu the relationship we agreed we would have with the British Crown was that between two sovereign nations as was set out clearly in the 1835 Te Hakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (referred to in English as the Declaration of Independence) and Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840. The British Crown recognized Te Hakaputanga and is a signatory to Te Tiriti.

More recently the United Nations has set out the minimum requirements to uphold basic human rights of indigenous peoples, including the Tangata Whenua of Aotearoa/New Zealand, in its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Ngāti Kahu expects and will ensure that these minimum standards of human rights and mutual respect form the basis of our future relationship with the Crown. There is a great deal to be done before we can claim to have achieved those standards.

Due to the historical Crown breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi documented in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Muriwhenua Land Claims Report (1997) the Ngāti Kahu / Crown relationship is in very poor shape. The many ways in which the Crown has lied to, stolen from, discriminated against and oppressed Ngāti Kahu at every opportunity, are matters of public record.

Ngāti Kahu have now written “Te Hakapūmautanga o te Mana o Ngāti Kahu: the Ngāti Kahu deed of partial settlement towards extinguishment of all Crown claims to Ngāti Kahu lands.” We did this to show how and why the relationship is so bad and to outline a pathway to improving it. We have recorded for those coming after us the work undertaken by six generations of Ngāti Kahu to halt and then repair the damage wrought by Crown lawlessness in our territories since 1840. We have laid out what it will take to fully, fairly and finally settle our claims against the Crown for its numerous breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi since 1840, and to extinguish all Crown claims to our lands. We have written down what has actually been achieved towards that ideal. And we have recorded an agreement to commence those extinguishments through the Crown’s relinquishment of its claims to approximately 10% of our inland territories.

Over the years I have seen time and time again how the mere mention of my parents’ names has opened many doors for their uri. It’s a pretty cool legacy. On the other hand what the Crown has done to Ngāti Kahu has created a legacy of prejudice, poverty, deprivation and marginalization that are still being experienced by us up to and at the present time.

It’s a pathetic legacy. But as long as the relationship between us remains the way it is, it will not change.

THEM AND US

"Mana May Miss By-election" was the headline in last Friday's Herald, pretty much the same line we were fed by TV1 and TV3 the previous night. As a headline it at least had alliteration going for it, but as important news or even as mundane information, it held little merit. The headline might just as well have read, "Mainstream Media May have Missed the Point.”

Perhaps it’s not fair to expect the mainstream to get it, even 171 years after they began publishing in this country. After all, very few within it have either the chops or the insight to know what is politically important to Māori in general, let alone to Māori who will vote in the upcoming Taitokerau by-election. So let me spell out to them what is and isn’t important to us.

Iwi Chairs have very little influence on how we vote. In fact the support of certain Chairs will almost certainly lose a candidate more votes than it will gain; especially if that Chair is seen by us as a Crown puppet or, worse still, a Crown employee. However, anyone within our iwi who has a long record of standing apart from the Crown and standing up for us can swing a lot of votes.

Political parties don’t have the same clout with us that they held, say twenty or even ten years ago. Add that to the fact that there is no party vote in a by-election, and party branding just doesn’t have a lot of relevancy for us today. Not unless it’s tagged to someone who does.

Planks of policies and platforms of promises; even though most of the razzamatazz of campaigning is based around such things, they don’t impress us much. No matter who the government is, we’ve seen most policies and promises aimed at addressing issues of concern to us come to nothing.

What is important and does impress us is the candidate and his history amongst us. We want to know, does his public campaign match his private character? Is he known to tell his party what we want it to do? Or does he sell us what it wants to do? Does he equate his ambitions with our needs? Do we see him at our hui, laughing and crying over the same things we do? Has he got an honest mouth instead of a smooth tongue? Does he live clean or dirty? If he’s got skeletons, are they closeted or are they out in the middle of the floor dancing for all to see? When we watch him do we sense his strength and mana, or does he feel just like a big puff of emptiness?

We did not create the Māori seats, and if Don Brash has his way we won’t be there when they’re uncreated. But while they exist we do take an interest in who sits in them based on the answers to all the above, and not on whether they have money to run their campaign. In the end, if we like the candidate and what they stand for, we’ll raise the necessary funds. We may even vote for them.

As for mainstream media, they do a fair to middling job analysing the Dons and the Keys of politics. But they still don’t get us.

YOU'VE GOTTA LAUGH

That great Māori writer, Mark Twain, once wrote, “Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.”

On a recent flight to Kerikeri, my seat mate was a Ngāpuhi woman coming home from Perth for time with whānau, particularly the mokopuna. She’d been away for a year, and had at least two new descendants to meet for the first time. Like many grandparents who live on either side of Te Moana Tāpokapoka a Tāwhaki, she relies heavily on the internet to keep in touch with her mokopuna.

As the Māori diaspora continues, one of its saddest and yet most appreciated outcomes is that it’s given rise to the facebook whānau. It’s a phenomenon that social commentators and historians will have a field day with in the future. But here, in the present, it’s just about whānau doing what we must to communicate our love and longing for home, and for each other.

And that has given rise to an emerging vocabulary of facebookisms; new words for old meanings, as well as old words with new spellings and meanings. These, in turn, have given rise to a new wave of that unique brand of Māori humour; the kind that keeps us sane in the face of insanity.

The hallmarks of a really good facebookism are that it’s got to make you laugh, it has to be slightly off the mark and yet be oddly appropriate.

A six year old in Perth to her recuperating nanna, “We love you nanna. No more harder tacks ay.” A newly politicised youth in Melbourne commenting on Osama bin Laden’s death, “It’s disgusting to see americans celebrating OBL’s death, nothing but proper gander!” A middle-aged man describing the climate in Brisbane to his mum in Auckland, “Rain rain rain yet stinkin hot, over 30 degrease.” A young father on white Australian attitudes to Aboriginals, “They’re so pignorant.”

You’ve gotta laugh ay. While more of our whānau succeed in Ozzie rather than here at home, we get to stare at and lovingly trace their faces on computer screens in a parody of human touch. And we get to watch homesteads fall into disrepair, marae struggle to manāki manuhiri, taumata manned by boys, and young girls conduct the karanga. But, you’ve gotta laugh.

When those who have been privileged by our dispossession and marginalisation accuse us of being privileged and lazy, you’ve gotta laugh. Especially when they take it upon themselve to tell us our history based on how someone from another culture saw or sees it. Can you imagine if we rewrote their hakapapa and history the way they do ours? It’s too funny for words, so best just laugh.

Back to that rangatira Mark Twain. “The human race,” he wrote, “ has only one really effective weapon, and that is laughter.” I struggle with that. I love laughing, but my problem is that I stopped seeing the pignorant proper gander of degreased racists giving themselves harder tacks as funny a long time ago.

Still, you’ve gotta laugh ay. Because if you don’t ...

HE IWI KOTAHI

For the past twelve months, while critics within and without Ngāti Kahu have been pressuring us to work towards settlement under the Crown’s processes and timetables, we have been writing the Ngāti Kahu Deed of Partial Settlement under the processes and timetables of our hapū. The first draft was delivered to the Crown on April 1st.

A written Deed is critical to any kind of settlement. In the past, and under the process that our critics wanted us to follow, the Crown has written the Deed with some input from the claimant. After that, it has become a take it or leave it proposition for the claimant, and they have had to choose to either settle under the terms and conditions of the Deed, or go to the back of the claimant line and wait.

Tired of waiting, with no substantial fallback plan, and with high hopes of finally being able to take their rightful place in their own land, almost every claimant has signed when presented with this choice. In fact I think the only claimant who has refused to sign such a Deed of Settlement to date has been Whakatōhea.

Most of us in this country have heard the words apparently spoken at Waitangi on 6th February 1840 by Captain William Hobson, the man the Crown sent to negotiate and conclude a Treaty with the Māori nation. As each of the rangatira appended his signature or mark to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Captain Hobson is reputed to have said: He iwi kotahi tatou. We are now one people.

But the very fact that the Treaty exists is testament to the reality that there are two nations in this country who are on sometimes parallel, other times divergent, courses. The Crown’s course is, by and large, known. Now for the first time ever the course of one small part of the Māori nation has been set down in a Deed of Partial Settlement.

In its Deed, Ngāti Kahu have laid out simply and clearly the central precept on which New Zealand was founded; i.e. two nations, one people. This is the very issue our respective tūpuna began to address with Te Hakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (the Declaration of Independence) in 1835, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The Crown recognised Te Hakaputanga and is a signatory to Te Tiriti. The fact that the Crown subsequently chose to try and simply override Māori with superior numbers has delayed the realization of the full potential of both nations for too long. The Ngāti Kahu Deed addresses this fully.

No-one who knows Ngāti Kahu should be surprised that it has ignored the choice of “sign now or wait until later”. We are now waiting for the Crown to respond to our Deed of Settlement by or before 1st June.

Whether or not the Crown agrees at this time to relinquish the lands it has stolen from Ngāti Kahu and to extinguish its claims over them, it has yet to sincerely address this important issue of two nations, one people. It needs to. Urgently.

MAORI LIBERATION THEOLOGY - PART ONE

A generation ago I asked a kaumātua why our tūpuna had almost universally embraced Christ and turned away from ngā Atua Māori in all but form, and if, in his opinion, that had been a good thing?

Māori Marsden was a graduate of the Ngāpuhi wananga as well as of St Johns Theological College, and he knew his stuff, both in terms of Christianity and ngā Atua Māori. His answer to both questions was long, interconnected and somewhat complex, so I apologise to his whānau in advance for any injustice they may perceive I do in this summary of it.

He said the reasons our tūpuna became Christians included the parallels between the Old Testament Jehovah, the New Testament Jesus Christ, and the Polynesian Io; the kinship they felt with the house of Israel; the clearer separation they found in Christianity between ‘good’ and ‘evil’; the similarities between the Christian and Māori stories of the Creation; the clearly defined concepts of the Fall, Incarnation, Atonement and Resurrection; and the written word of the Bible. These were all seen as upholding and enhancing the underlying principles of Mana and Tapu so important to tikanga Māori. So Christianity was embraced and accepted by our tūpuna and by himself as a natural spiritual progression for our hapū to make. But he also said that the form of Christianity brought to these islands by Pākehā was ‘broken-legged’ (divided between warring factions of Europeans). And while liberating us on one level, it had also added to our division which was then seized on by the Crown in its drive to rule us. In short, Christianity was definitely a tool of colonisation.

Being an inveterate questioner I then asked him if personal conviction, as opposed to political considerations, had had any part in the conversion of our tūpuna to Christianity? His answer was instant and his look intent, ‘They were people of deep spirituality and intelligence. Make of that what you will, but never doubt that they were excited by the new religion and were fired to make the leap of faith.’

Today Christianity is being increasingly abandoned by the Pākehā and Māori alike. Even amongt those who still hold to its outward forms, many have become ‘Godless Christians’ who treat its theology like a menu from which to pick and choose, and its head, not as God, but as the maitre’d who delivers the menu.

Disillusioned by the wide gap between Pākehā professions of faith in Christian principles and their lack of principles when dealing with us, many Māori have turned to other faiths. Others seek to reinstate ngā Atua Māori as our primary religion. And some have given up on God totally to embrace materialism wholly. Invariably the result is a far cry from the ‘deep spirituality and intelligence’ of our tūpuna and their ‘fired leap of faith’ as described by Māori Marsden.

For materialists, no God or a maitre’d God may be fine. But for anyone seeking liberation, that will not do at all. In fact, if we don’t address God with deep intelligence, spirituality and faith, will we even be fit for the liberation for which we are striving?

Next week I’ll continue exploring this vexed issue.

LAWLESS MĀORI LEADERS

The closest Pākehā term there is for tikanga is ‘law.’

It’s not necessary to be steeped in tikanga Māori to live by it, anymore than it’s necessary to be steeped in Pākehā law to live by that. In fact, given that there are currently almost 2000 separate Acts in this country, I’d argue that it’s simpler to live by tikanga Māori. However I would also concede that it’s not necessarily easier.

That is a debate I’m happy to have at any time with anyone. However what is not open to debate is that Māori leaders who operate outside of tikanga pose a problem for their whānau, hapū and iwi.

To illustrate; within any whānau, hapū or iwi we have a problem if our leader makes a habit of abusing women or children, has the sexual morals of an alley cat, can barely get through the day without a toke, regularly puts the opinions and needs of others before ours, thinks they know better than us what is good for us, has an ego bigger than our national debt, is prone to doing deals and selling us down the river, and refuses to take our instruction.

We especially have a problem if we do nothing about the problem.

Given our paradigms of collectivism and whakapapa, the impact of such serious tikanga violations by our leaders radiate through and across the generations, and they often take their uri with them.

Tikanga violations may eventually be forgiven, but they can never be tolerated, particularly by our leaders. If we turn a blind eye, we as good as say to the world that their violence, infidelity, addiction, corruption, egotism or whatever, is OK. Worst of all, we condemn that leader to their weakness and become complicit with them in all they do.

To stop the damage, we must apply tikanga to bring an erring leader to account and give them a chance to take corrective action or be removed.

If we want to confuse and diminish our whānau, hapū or iwi, all we need do is appoint, follow and tolerate lawless leaders. If we don’t want those outcomes, then we need to do the opposite.

Tikanga or kaore he tikanga. It’s just as simple as that.

THE PRE-EMINENT UNIT

Inside a hapū the whānau have always been, and still remain, the pre-eminent unit.

Inside an iwi, the hapū have always been, and still remain, the pre-eminent unit.

With grateful acknowledgement to Tepania Kingi of Ngāti Whātua who first articulated it on paper, I have adapted his words to show how that works in Ngāti Kahu under the following tikanga:

• Whānau aggregate to form hapū which in turn aggregate to form iwi.


• The authority that resides at each level of this social order is conveyed to the next via a leadership representative.


• Hence, whānau leaders engaging with other whānau leaders is a hapū level engagement; hapū leaders engaging with other hapū leaders is an iwi level engagement; iwi leaders engaging with other iwi leaders is a waka level engagement. Up here in Te Hiku, unlike Tainui and Te Arawa, we have a lot of different waka. So we don’t do the waka level thing often, and if we do, it’s only under our own iwi waka.


• For engagement to be effective, it must be level to level i.e. iwi to iwi; hapū to hapū; whānau to whānau. The only exception to this is when engagement occurs as part of the aggregation process i.e. own whānau to own hapū to own iwi and vice versa.


• For the structure to maintain its integrity, the ‘chain of authority’ must be followed i.e. whānau to hapū; hapū to iwi – iwi to hapū; hapū to whānau. • At all levels of engagement there must be authority to engage. At the waka level, iwi leaders engage with other iwi leaders by virtue of the authority vested in them by their hapū leaders. At the iwi level, hapū leaders engage with other hapū leaders by virtue of the authority vested in them by their whānau leaders.


• The authority that each representative brings to their level of engagement is non-transferable. Hence no hapū leader could purport to represent another hapū leader, likewise with the whānau leaders, likewise with the iwi leaders. This often creates a conundrum for external parties seeking to engage with the largest collective possible, preferably of iwi. Generally, external parties tend to presume that engagement is with a collective whole rather than a collective of independent participants. While this may appear to be a subtle difference, it can become a significant hindrance to engagement if it is not made clear that the collective incorporates a number of independent authorities rather than maintaining a ‘single’ overarching authority.


• Any information shared with the collective must also be shared with the individual members of the collective – particularly those not participating in the collective.


• Anything produced by the collective can only be described as ‘collective’ if it has 100% support of all of the individual participants. And, even then, it can only represent the collective participants i.e. the iwi, hapū or whānau leaders, not the actual iwi, hapū or whānau which, by virtue of tikanga, retain the authority to represent only themselves and no others.

Next week I’ll continue this theme by looking at what happens within the whānau, hapū and iwi when leaders presume to speak for others without a clear mandate.

SWISS CHEESE LOGIC, SMORGASBORD ETHICS

I like swiss cheese and smorgasbords because they’re generally tasty and light to eat. But as metaphors for logic and ethics, they stink. Whenever I see or hear swiss cheese logic and smorgasbord ethics at play along racial grounds, the stench is particularly strong.

A case in point is the use of myths about Moriori to prove that Māori are not indigenous to Aotearoa, and to support the Crown’s confiscation of the takutaimoana.

Moriori are genetically and lingusitically Māori. In 1835/36 when their rohe was invaded by Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, all three iwi had a shared language and common laws, except in one respect – Moriori weren’t permitted to kill, while their invaders were. You may shudder at the ferocity of Ngāti Mutunga / Ngāti Tama, but you can’t logically accuse them of breaking their laws.

However, the swiss cheese logicians and smorgasbord ethicists can and do, and here’s how they roll. They first ignore the Crown’s utter disregard for its own law against theft. Then they apply that law retrospectively to Māori who had no such concept. Next they recall that Māori were cannibals, and follow that up with claims that Māori were not the first race here, and massacred their predecessors. Finally they say that all this proves Māori are not the indigenous people of this land, and therefore the Crown is justified in seizing the takutaimoana for the general public.

Strip away their holey logic and carefully selected ethics, and the guts of their message to Māori is, “There are now more of our type of people in these lands than your type, so we can get away with pretty much anything we do to you, and you may as well shut up about it.”

But the problem with relying on being the majority as your moral compass is that, unlike true ethics and logic, the numbers can and do change often and unpredictably. And they don’t travel well.

Try transporting our majority into Japan or China and how do you think they’d fare claiming ethical ownership of those nations’ foreshores and seabeds? Reckon they’d dare to apply their law and logic to the cultures and histories of India or Indonesia while trying to claim the resources of those lands?

The facts are that their predecessors tried those tricks in those very countries throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and they all got booted out after the numbers swung against them. I’ll bet you anything they complained about the “poor me” attitude of the indigenes they’d oppressed, mourned the loss of multi-culturalism, and wept into their nightcaps over the natives’ failure to appreciate that, at heart, they were all one people.

You know I feel kind of sorry for those whose logic is full of holes and whose ethics are based only on their dwindling majority. It can’t be comfortable for them.
Oh well, they can always comfort themselves temporarily with a slice of swiss cheese and the occasional smorgasbord.

NĀ TE WHANAU, TANGATA ORA E

Every columnist and commentator seems to have an opinion about where they think Hone Harawira should go from here and what he should do. All of them have one thing in common; they expect him to remain in Parliament. I don’t. There’s far more important work to be done outside Parliament than in, so I say he should finish this term representing Te Taitokerau then turn his back on the place.

The conventional wisdom is that central government represents the height of power in a country and is the only way for a modern state to be run. But there is another school of thought that views it as little more than a mutated and monstrous committee into which all good ideas are lured and either ruined or quietly strangled. I can picture that. I actually believe the highest human power is that found in the smallest unit of society, the whanau.

Māori society is based on whānau, hapū and iwi. So why are we sending our best into a system that bears no resemblance to our society? Our whānau, hapū and iwi are the launching pads for all our physical, emotional and spiritual aspirations. Why have we replaced them with parties and movements when it comes to our political aspirations? The wellspring of tino-rangatiratanga is found solely within the whanau. Does it not make more sense to come back and work within that rather then stay within Parliament?

Although our tikanga provides all we need to be self-governing at every level of our society, it’s no longer true that every whānau knows how to live or teach it. So there’s work to be done showing them how to organise, govern and provide for themselves.

There are also hapū who no longer function well. There’s more work to be done there to ensure that, when whānau come up against something that’s beyond their skill and knowledge, they can combine with their related whānau and act as a hapū to push their cause. Then, if they can’t get what they want as a hapū, they need to have the confidence that they can combine with other hapū and work as an iwi to progress it. Should they still fail, they may need to aggregate further and combine with their waka grouping to finish it off. But most of all, each smaller unit has to be confident that their take won’t get hijacked by the bigger units, and each bigger unit has to be willing to accept the smaller units’ right to accept or reject what they achieve. More work to be done.

Why am I shoulder-tapping Hone for the job? Because it’s all preparatory for an idea whose time is surely coming; the national Māori political forum. The current constitutional review being lead by Moana Jackson is bound to progress its development. Before it’s established though, we must ready the whānau, hapū, iwi and waka to instruct it. What better preparation then to reinforce in them the tikanga of self-government? And who better to lead that mahi then the guy with the most political nouse and experience outside Parliament?

Whina Cooper said it in her karanga on the Herbs album – “Na te whanau, tangata ora e.’ How’s that for a post-political manifesto Hone?

Might be easier to stay in Parliament ne?

CHARITY IS NOT EASY

I had a couple of lessons in charity this weekend.

The first came from one of my church leaders, a quietly unassuming but brilliant man, who said, “We find it easy to show charity towards others in their times of need. Can we also show charity to them in their times of weakness?”

They reckon one of the sure signs you’ve given a good kauhau is when the congregation is left wondering how you knew so much about their peccadillos. That was a good sermon President.

The second lesson came from my dad who said, “I see you gave poor old Mate hell.” He was referring to a letter I wrote to the editor of this paper last week over the way Council had mishandled (or more accurately, not handled) my complaint of misconduct against Councillor Radich.

Anyway, it struck me that what Dad wasn’t saying was that I may have been uncharitable in some of the things I’d written.

The truth is that that there is a fine line between turning the other cheek and being a doormat. The first is charitable, the second is merely masochistic. However, upon personal introspection, I can see that some of what I wrote was not necessary. I should not have used the word ‘Nazi’ in reference to Mr Radich. That was uncharitable.

That got me thinking about the balance between charity and masochism in recent events on the national scene.

A protest Hikoi against the Crown’s latest planned theft from Maori of the takutaimona left Te Rerenga Wairua 5a.m. yesterday. Originally scheduled to leave last Thursday, it was delayed because the kaumatua of Te Hiku o Te Ika had asked the rangatahi organisers to be sensitive to the Crown’s need to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake in Otautahi. Charitable of them.

They also wrote to the Prime Minister asking for the readings of the Marine and Coastal Bill to cease while grieving families mourned, and while Ngai Tahu, who are strongly opposed to the Bill, were preoccupied with taking care of its own people as well as nga iwi ke within its rohe. Charitable again.

Their letter was ignored, and on Tuesday 8th March the second reading of the Bill was passed by 62 votes to 56. Instead of hanging their heads in shame, the Crown and its supporters in and out of the House, puffed up their chests, stretched their throats and crowed that Hone had failed to vote against it. Gee, call Hone dumb, but his vote wouldn’t have defeated the second reading anyway, right? What price charity huh?

Clearly it was not good form of Hone to have messed with the protocols of Parliament like that. However keeping Parliamentary rules is not why Taitokerau sent him into that den in the first place. Rather it was to accurately and strongly represent what his constituents think, say and feel. He did that when he stood up, faced the thieves, bullies and cowards in the House and said in effect, “My constituents are never going to be doormats for you lot on this one.” To do otherwise would have been merely masochistic.

Indeed there is a charitable balance to be struck when dealing with the bully, the thief, the abuser or anyone who has let us down and shown weakness. The time will come when, unless they repent and humble themselves, they will get dealt to. But until then, we have to struggle as best we can to turn the other cheek without being doormats. Not easy.

TECTONIC TALES

One of the most enduring relationships I know of is that between my 83 year old dad and his 85 year old sister. For years she used to come home every holiday and set up camp on our lawn until dad built her a bach right where she used to put up her tent. No legal paperwork was signed, and no cash exchanged.

Things went well until aunty stopped coming and her mokopuna started turning up instead with their Pakeha mates and their different ways. That was OK too, until the Pakeha mates arrived one day by themselves and began treating the whole place, not just the bach, like it was theirs.

The time had come to cancel the gift. Aunty understood but didn’t want the hassle of dismantling camp that one last time. So to satisfy any claims her mokopuna or their Pakeha mates might make, dad paid her for the bach and its contents, and that was that. Gift cancelled.

It all went smoothly because both dad and his sister understood that the gift and its cancellation were expressions of Tuku Whenua under Tikanga Maori. The only right attached to the gift was that of use. When the use ended, so did the gift; but not the relationship which continues happily to this day.

I thought of this Tuku Whenua Tikanga while reading two recently released publications. The first is the report by United Nations Special Rapporteur, Dr James Anaya, titled “The Situation of Maori People in New Zealand.”

Several key issues are addressed by Dr Anaya, but his main focus is the settlement process for historical and contemporary claims based on the Treaty of Waitangi. He reports that, while there has been progress since 2005 when the last UN Special Rapporteur was here, there is still a long way to go “to achieve the increased social and economic parity that is necessary for Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders to move forward as true partners in the future, as contemplated under the Treaty of Waitangi.”

The second publication is a book titled “The State of Maori Rights” by Professor Margaret Mutu which brings together a set of articles she wrote between 1994 and 2009. In it she places on record the Maori view of events and issues that have been more typically reported to the general public from a 'mainstream' media perspective. Having lived through all of the events reviewed and taken part in many of them, even I was astonished at how clearly the threads of racism are there for the world to see. Actually, what with the footnotes and cross-references, they are more like whopping great ropes.

Both these publications stand as stark counterpoints to the Tuku Whenua transaction between my dad and his sister. They reveal the racist rubbishing of most things Maori and the tension arising out of that, while the Tuku Whenua transaction shows Maori unselfconsciously practicing Tikanga, and the relaxed ease of that.

Both Dr Anaya’s report and Professor Mutu’s book have understandably been overshadowed by the most recent tectonic shifts in and around Christchurch and the push to rebuild that city. But it is their messages that will contribute more to shifting the tectonics between races and rebuilding this country.

However the key message for Maori lies in the Tuku Whenua transaction. It shows that while others can either support or oppose Tikanga, Maori must do it. Why? Because, if we don’t, race relationships are going to get a whole lot worse in this country; and Papatuanuku will let us know about it for sure.

PROPHECIES FROM THE EPICENTRE

06/02/11
"A terrible earthquake is going to hit Wellington. I have seen body bags in the streets of Wellington. I have seen houses on the hills of Wellington – seen them disappear. I have seen the roof of the Beehive lying in the debris of the streets of Wellington." (Anglican minister Gray Theodore at Waitangi’s dawn service)

22/02/11
Kia ora whanau, first chance to post on here! Everyone is safe. After shocks still coming! At work and all the cars in the carpark start hopping up and down like an Ice Cube video. He puna hou i puta mai i a Papatuanuku spewing grey silty water into the gutter outside the Greers Rd substation.

“… with great sadness, and after many hours of deliberation …there did not appear to be any way of resolving the complaint besides cancelling Mr Harawira's membership of the Maori Party." (Orohi Paul – Maori Party Disciplinary Committee Chair)

23/02/11
“… the scale of the destruction in Christchurch reminds us all of the value of life and the importance of whanau in all that we do.” (Hone Harawira – Independent MP for Te Taitokerau)

It helps knowing people are thinking of us. Some people’s entire lives are literally turned upside down. Four kids weren't picked up from the kids’ kura yesterday as their parents perished in the CBD.

24/02/11
“... it is best for me and the party to go our separate ways, and to focus on the issues that are crippling Maori people, and indeed Pasifika and Pakeha people living in poverty throughout this country.” (Harawira)

A dude being refused credit because he had no cash and eftpos was unavailable. A mother walking her two young children in circles up and down the street, going nowhere in particular, comforted by the fact they are not alone in the city.

24/02/11
“[I will] go back to my electorate and to supporters around the country over the next month … because it is their energy and support that has sustained me.” (Harawira)

Tried to contact my cousin yesterday. Glad to hear they got out safely. Might accept their invitation yet. Going to check on aunty today.

25/02/11
“… in the best interests of advancing our people’s future, we [should] focus on the issues rather than the personalities, and … not speak disparagingly of one another.” (Harawira)

Aunty is fine. On the way back saw the most random thing, a pure white dove sitting on the roadside? Stopped and got out and was tame as. No olive branch though. First thought was, he tohu tumanako. Second, there’s a magician nearby with a broken aviary.

26/02/11
“A senior National official … gloated they had lanced the boil of Harawira and the Maori Party was now their long-term, docile and trouble-free coalition partner.” (Matt McCarten – NZ Herald columnist)

We have decided to stay in our own bubble for at least a few days to avoid the stresses of what is happening in our city. Unfortunately ugliness is starting to become more common although on the whole most people remain courteous to each other.

06/02/11
“I won’t be taking much away from that last speaker.” (Prime Minister John Key at Waitangi’s dawn ceremony)

THE MISSION BEGINS

This year I have made it my mission to visit a number of online newsfeed sites and see if I can turn around the racists who post their hatred on those sites. My mission statement is simple; stick to the facts, expose the red herrings, be nice.
I’ve boiled the pet issues of the posting racists down to a few essentials and have similarly distilled my responses to the essentials.

ISSUE: Maori are not the indigenous people of this country, instead the Moriori were ... or maybe the Celts. So, because Maori ‘stole’ the land from the Moriori, they can’t and shouldn’t be making claims against white people for stealing it from them. RESPONSE: First, Moriori are Maori, and Maori had no concept of land theft in pre-European times. Second, Maori claims are not about or against a specific racial colour, but about whether or not the Crown has kept or broken its own laws.

ISSUE: Maori are genetically violent thugs and if it weren’t for the “Euros” signing the Treaty with them, they’d still be murdering and eating each other. RESPONSE: “Scratch John Bull and you find the ancient Briton who revels in blood, who loves to dip deep into a murder, and devours the details of a hanging." So said the Pall Mall Gazette in 1887. In any event the Crown’s colonial and contemporary thefts can’t be excused by the amount of blood shed during its own or others’ histories.

ISSUE: Maori are ungrateful wasters who should be thankful for things brought by white people like “Christianity, iron, clothes and education.” RESPONSE: Maori always had clothes and education, so we have never credited anyone else for those things. And the introduction of iron, Christianity or any other thing in no way permitted the Crown to steal from us. In fact Christianity is against theft.

ISSUE: Maori are greedy bludgers, and Treaty settlements are a gravy train that are running the country broke. RESPONSE: To date, it has cost the Crown almost nothing to settle any land claims. It has achieved this through the simple expediency of requiring claimants to use almost every cent of their so-called redress to buy back the lands it stole in the first place. These alleged settlements are almost entirely fiscally neutral for the Crown and the taxpayer. And yet, ironically, Maori are vilified for being greedy.

ISSUE: Pakeha are all honky rapists and should commit an impossible indecency on themselves. RESPONSE: Don’t be a reactionary racist. You can do better than that.

Two months into the mission I’ve turned a couple of posters. They’re still fragile in their new freedom from the fear and ignorance that fed their racism, but they’re getting there.

Other people from many different races, but with similar motives as me, are also posting with compassion and dignity, even humour. None of us are surprised at the levels of ignorance, anger and fear we’ve found.

These things are inevitable when the media delivers headlines rather than facts, political commentators write opinion pieces rather than subjective analyses, and the Crown acts with expediency rather than integrity. If the joint mission of media, commentators and Crown was to keep the population dumb and divided, they’ve been quite successful to date. However they are not going unchallenged.

Inside every racist poster there is an angry, frightened, unhappy human being. The key to turn them is to show love, courage and happiness towards them. It's a mission.

You know, missionaries often get a bad press, but we don’t care. We're on a mission and you’re welcome to join us any time or place.

A STATE OF GRACE

Years ago I and a bunch of mates, all nurses at Kaitaia hospital, were on a night out in Awanui hotel. The large crowd there that night included a small number of out of town gang members – some with local connections, including a cousin of mine. The general mood was sweet.

I’m not sure when that changed, and I have never known what triggered the change, but at some point we heard something was going down outside – so out we went too. There we saw three gangers, including my cousin, punching and booting the publican who was on the ground whimpering. And dozens of locals, men we’d grown up with and knew to be tough sorts, were standing watching it happen.

Without a word we crossed the street, pushed the gangers away, picked the publican up, and helped him back inside past all our local tough guys. Someone called the cops and ambos, while we cleaned the guy up, comforted his distraught wife and berated the few remaining locals. In our eyes their inaction was a disgrace and they knew it. With heads down, none of them could answer our repeated and distressed question, “Why didn’t you stop it?”

Now, years later, and with the perspective of time and experience, I think the answer to their inaction boils down to five basic failings of humanity. Some of them were uncertain (was this a stoush between family, or had the publican started it?), some of them were afraid (they might get a hiding too, or might hurt someone else for the wrong reason), some were weighing up where their best interests lay (a grateful publican later, versus a violent ganger now), some were just too plain drunk to care, and others were a bit of all those things.

Thus it ever has been. When a bad thing unfolds in front of our eyes and we do nothing, it can generally be put down to uncertainty, fear, self-interest, incapacity or callousness.

When the Crown takes money through iniquitous taxes like GST on food – is it uncertainty of what to do that stops you acting? When politicians legislate to allow 10% rises for themselves, while others are legally screwed down to less than 2% – is it self-interest that gags you from speaking out? When government officials intimidate and threaten the very people they are supposed to help – is it fear that freezes you? When the Crown steals land from Maori – is it that you just don’t care?

I pick on the Crown because its government controls most of the institutions and powers of State in the country – police, army, courts, schools, media and infrastructure – and because it’s lead by powerful people who answer to even more powerful people, who are not you and me, and who do not have our interests at heart.

Division is a terrible thing; rich against poor, men against women, young against old, and race against race – yuck! But division amongst us does serve the interests of the powerful because it keeps our eyes off what they are doing and who they are serving.

So here’s the challenge. Can we overcome and master any uncertainty, fear, self-interest, incapacity and callousness in ourselves? Can we get to the point where we ignore the symptoms of that in others and keep our eyes on the real danger? Can we act with grace under fire?

As for those who beat up the Awanui publican all those years ago and those who didn’t move to help – their failing was not one of gender or race, but one of humanity.

Would you cross the road to save another? For sure you would – if you were certain, unafraid, interested, able and caring.

THE PLIGHT OF THE PAWN

Well, here we go again. Business as usual in Aotearoa / New Zealand as the issue of sovereignty comes ever sharper into focus and closer to resolution one way or another. Unsurprisingly Ngati Kahu is at the sharp end as our Hapu continue to assert sovereign power and authority in their rohe.

Barely twelve months out from the next general election and one month past the latest local body round, we’re seeing and watching pawns being marshalled against Ngati Kahu; most to certain capture of one type or another, a very few to freedom, given the nature of the game in which pawns are used.

In human terms, pawns are those who are acted upon by base emotions like fear, jealousy and resentment. For a government whose legitimacy is coming under increasing question and pressure, such pawns have their uses. Certainly if the reigning majority wish to retain or shore up their hegemony in this country, now is the exact time I would expect them to be moving their pawns against Maori expressions of sovereignty.

Fearful pawns are good for generating distrust and doubt about anyone who looks, sounds, or believes differently to the majority. They say things like, “If we don’t watch out, we’ll all end up speaking Chinese,” or, “Crown and Maori deals on the foreshore and seabed is sovereignty by stealth.” 

A nice turn of phrase that – sovereignty by stealth. It identifies sovereign Maori as untrustworthy and deserving to be attacked as a threat. Those who utter it either don’t know or don’t care to recall that what they fear has already happened in this country; to Maori – and it was done by people who looked a lot like them, not by any Asians.

The jealous pawn is especially interesting because they are mostly from within the same group as the object of their envy. As a result they are very mixed up – just like the metaphor I am about to use.

A jealous pawn will invariably play the person they envy instead of the ball. They will occasionally make what, for them, is a direct tackle, like writing a letter that says, “She’s a liar!” But more often they will indirectly use an issue as a platform from which to snipe at the person they are jealous of by writing something like, “The court case he took in our behalf was lost, so that proves he has wasted our money and time, therefore he has to go.” 

Very rarely will such a jealous pawn front up and say these things in person. For the rulers of this country, the best pawn to combat Maori assertions of sovereignty is a jealous Maori, who, forgetting the big picture in their desire to get at the one they envy, will “say the things the government thinks but can't  say.”

The saddest pawn of all is the one motivated by resentment. Only able to see what someone else has that they don’t, they neglect and find no joy in their own gifts. For example, unable to ever be mana whenua, some tauiwi make a dog’s breakfast of being manuwhiri.

Resentful pawns are the least useful because they don’t last long as they tend to drink metaphorical poison in the expectation that the focus of their resentment will die. Sadly, for them, it doesn’t work that way.

Regardless of motivation, it seems to me that both the pawns and the powers that deploy them have either forgotten or never known that Ngati Kahu has its own board and its own rules of engagement.

Interestingly the Ngati Kahu board requires no pawns, just people who have the patience and integrity to do as their respective people tell them and stick at it until tikanga prevails.

Pawns can only serve those who are themselves ruled by base emotions. While they are of little use, they do have a nuisance value. 

But the most important thing for a pawn to realise is that, unless and until they stop being pawns, they are of zero value to themselves.

HISTORY - NOT HYSTERIA

In 1918 my great grandfather, Te Para Puhi Te Paa, died of the flu leaving behind his young wife and 7 children. He left his home in Ahipara that morning, fit and healthy, and died that evening while visiting whanau in Pukepoto. Quarantine was put in place almost immediately. Result - his wife and kids weren’t allowed through from Ahipara – so they missed the entire tangihanga. It was a desperately sad time. The big picture context for this one death is provided by the following facts that my husband researched. Some are well-known, others may be new to you.

Servicemen returning from The Great War brought the flu virus to Aotearoa, and one of its characteristics was that it attacked in waves. In the first wave, only a few died and many people were lulled into believing it wasn’t the same flu as the one that had killed huge numbers in other countries. But it was the second wave that caused the majority of the 8,600 officially recorded deaths in New Zealand, and Maori suffered heavily. Our overall rate of death was 42.3 per thousand people, seven times that of Europeans.

In one community, Mangatawhiri in the Waikato, about 50 out of 200 local Maori died. Closer to home, in her biography Dame Whina Cooper recalled similar suffering at Panguru, in the Hokianga. “Everyone was sick,” she said. “No one to help, they were dying one after the other. My father was very, very sick then. He was the first to die. I couldn't do anything for him. I remember we put him in a coffin, like a box. There were many others, you could see them on the roads, on the sledges, the ones that are able to drag them away, dragged them away to the cemetery. No time for tangis." Although official statistics identify only 9 deaths in the Hokianga, anecdotal evidence is that there were many, many more.

To date, nobody has died from the flu outside of Mexico. But certainly, this H1N1 virus bears striking similarities to the 1918 flu. Both had origins in swine and both claimed the lives of healthy people between the ages of 19 - 35. What makes this virus more alarming than the 1918 variety is the hybrid nature of it. Almost certainly manufactured in a laboratory, this strain has combined the most dangerous elements of both the swine and avian varieties. Because of its exotic nature, it is highly unlikely that tamiflu or any other vaccine will be effective, and a new vaccine, specific to this virus, could take months to develop.

Hysteria is neither necessary nor useful at this time. Instead, planning and forethought are needed.

It may never happen, but if another pandemic does hit Aotearoa, our marae, hapu and whanau will need to have strategies in place to cope. The logistics of a tangihanga are generally easy to manage. But during a pandemic emergency measures, such as closed coffins and quarantines, impact on everything from the tono to the nehunga.

My grandmother, Paniwaka, told me once of the dislocation, shock and hurt of being within walking distance of her father yet unable to go to his tangi. He was a handsome man and I’m grateful we have his photo. I’ve visited his windswept grave on the hill there at the urupa, Te Rangi Hau Kaha, and we named our oldest grandson after him. Ae ra . Kaore e taea e tātau te whakarerekē a mua. But with a little forethought and planning based on our history, we don’t have to repeat it.

THERE MUST NEEDS BE AN OPPOSITION

When Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil she learned a very simple, yet complex truth: “There must needs be an opposition in all things…” (2 Ne. 2:11). In order for her to fully experience one thing, she had to also experience its opposite – virtue and vice, health and sickness, pleasure and pain, light and darkness. When I was 26 I started on the path that became my life work and learned the same simple and complex truth about a number of things, among them money and marriage.

First, money. In 1986 the government split the trees from the land of the state forests, sold the cutting rights and kept the land available for future Treaty settlements. That included the Aupouri forest, a huge employer of our people here in Te Hiku. At the same time the owners of Northern Pulp’s triboard mill in Kaitaia, where most of Aupouri’s timber went, were going belly-up. So a group of five Maori Trusts and Incorporations from Te Hapua, Te Kao, Herekino, Motuti and Mitimiti who also supplied timber to the mill, cobbled together a bid of $1million for the Aupouri forest. Although we had assets, cash was kind of scarce. Still we were confident we could find a partner with the money in short order. But, to buy time, between us we scraped up the necessary 10% deposit. Then Matiu Rata and I were sent to Wellington with the bid and the cheque; I to observe and analyse, Matiu to speak and make our case. We were received very politely, given a nice platter of finger food and a glass of fruit juice, listened to. Matiu said, “The land is under claim and correctly belongs to the iwi of Muriwhenua, so it should not be sold at all. As Treaty partners we gifted the use of the land in the expectation that we would one day get a return from that use. For that reason neither should the trees be split from the land and sold. If, contrary to all principles of natural justice [a favourite phrase of Matiu’s], the government is determined to go ahead and sell anyway, you must give preference to our bid.” We were invited to place our paperwork in a ballot-type box, then shown the door. In the lift Matiu, bless his dear optimistic heart, grabbed my hand and danced us around shouting, “We’ve done it!” In my bones I knew we’d just been given the bum’s rush by the Crown and its officials. Why? Because, in their world view (as our bid proved), we had little money and less credibility. We did not succeed in buying the Aupouri forest. I filed the experience away.

Next, marriage. In the mid-80s a group of us talked with Dame Mira Szaszy about what we were experiencing as single women. In her time she’d run into the same thing – male resistance, even aggression towards us as leaders. She felt it was something that had come to New Zealand with Pakeha settlers – what she called a “Victorian assumption” where women, like property, marked a man’s status in society. Having married relatively late in life herself, Mira knew the feeling of being soiled by exchanges such as the late night call I once got from a contemporary who, when I politely declined to follow his chosen pathway to settlement of our claims, sneered down the phone in graphic detail what he thought I needed. I filed that away as well.

Money is never something I’ve worried about personally. Even in the poorest of times there’s always been enough to feed, clothe, clean and shelter us. Being single … well, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. The value both money and a good marriage have for me today, 26 years since I started on what is still my life’s work, is deepened by the fact that I know what it’s like to be without them.

And for that I can partially thank the moneyed, male, married majority whose opposition helped me be a better mother. You showed me that it's while doing ordinary things that extraordinary things are fashioned. Thank you.

THE POWER PARADOX

It ain’t easy being a Maori leader engaged with the Crown. It can be likened to standing with a crowd of friends and whanau in an unmarked minefield, all of them needing medical help … urgently. But, unlike Western Generals, who generally lead from the rear, we must lead from the front or risk, literally, losing our followers.

Additionally, before we can lead the way out of the minefield, we have to first find where the front of the crowd is. Then, having established ourselves on the front, we have to keep a close eye on our backs for the hits from wannabes and once-weres, all while still keeping a sharp eye forward for those damned mines.

Should we be smart or lucky enough to get through without being blown to smithereens, we then find that we’re actually tied, by a very close and tight rein, to the last man behind us. So we can never totally relax or be completely free of danger until the last of us reaches safety.

The recent hikoi through Kaitaia protesting Te Runanga O Te Rarawa's decision to negotiate the foreshore and seabed has all the elements of the power paradox between Maori leaders and followers, as did an incident during the 2004 Hikoi over the same foreshore and seabed. A week before that hikoi ended, all eight Taitokerau iwi Chairs had agreed to sign and deliver a letter to the government condemning its decision to legislate away the right of Maori to have title to the foreshore and seabed investigated. Then one of the Chairs refused to sign. He felt the best protection for his iwi’s interests was to distance them from the ‘radical’ face of the Hikoi that was so infuriating Helen at the time. His people were not happy with him, BUT – they wanted to keep it hush-hush.

Both these hikoi illustrate the power paradox in a nutshell. On the one hand, how do leaders protect and advance their people’s interests without looking like a kupapa? And, on the other hand, how do people pull their leaders into line without turning it into a bloodbath inside a media circus? Mines everywhere!

My experience is that there is only one sure way through that minefield. It’s found in the example of the greatest leader ever who simply said, “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister … and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Then he said, “Follow me.” Of course at least one of his erstwhile followers proved more lethal than any mine. But the simple principle of leadership that serves arose triumphant with him and remains shiningly valid into eternity.

Being a Maori leader engaged with the Crown can also be that simple … but it’s never going to be any easier. Such a paradox!

THE MOST DANGEROUS PERSON

I know a little bubba who was born with cross eyes. Because his brain gets a different picture from each eye, it blocks out everything from the weaker one. If the problem isn’t fixed while he’s still young, his brain will eventually learn to simply ignore the pictures from his weaker eye; and that will be that.

A permanently blind eye is a problem. But worse still is the ethical blind spot that, here in this country and century, ignores the theft of land and resources and allows them to continue unchecked to the present day. These thefts happen on the back of a history where, after war proved too costly, the thieves simply changed their tools of trade to pen, paper, wig and gown – and konei! In their view, European superiority had beaten Maori inferiority and the Devil take the hindmost.

This vexed history is further complicated by the fact that, nowadays, the thief and his employees are likely to be our rellies and are, often as not, quite likable people.

The thing to understand is that everyone in this country has had a world view beamed into us from birth that’s predicated on key messages such as – Customary title is toast, the Crown holds the Radical title for everything under the topsoil, the Government can issue Fee Simple title to everything above it.

The problem with those messages and world view is that they’re highly questionable, clash hugely with the dictates of good conscience and are totally at odds with the simple facts – Maori were never conquered, we never ceded sovereignty, and Customary title is not extinguished.

How on earth can we reconcile these opposing world views? We can’t. Instead, to stay sane, we have to either ignore the view from our weaker eye or forcefully over-ride the view from our stronger eye. We can choose either to be brave … or to be governed.

Since the original series of thefts took place, apart from discarding the wig and gown for anything other than ceremonial events, regularly updating the pen and paper, and occasionally shifting shape between local and national governing bodies – the thieves and their agents haven’t had to put too much energy into keeping power in New Zealand.

But there is someone who has the power to upset and change their world. They fear him above all others and will do anything to marginalize and ignore him. Who is it? It’s the one who, regardless of age, gender, race or religion, sees things as they really are, and is totally unafraid.

If we think about the legitimacy of any of this, it could me or you. It could even be a little bubba. Very dangerous.

Say, "Cheese!"

Last year, I wrote a column encouraging our people to plant gardens in back yards to help take the bite out of the cost of kai and gain some measure of self-sufficiency. Perhaps they should also get a cow. I ‘had a cow’ last week when I examined a bill from PAK ‘n SAVE after purchasing bread, milk, butter and cheese. Statistics show cheese up 45.5 per cent, milk up 21.1 per cent, bread up 13.1 per cent and butter up 86 per cent over the past year. And families are hurting.

The experts blame drought caused by global warming and the high costs of feed grain because corn and wheat are being sold to produce ethanol. But this shift didn’t happen overnight. The truth is that food is becoming “the new black” – as in oil. If OPEC taught the world anything it was that fortunes could be made if you can control world markets. Take cheese for example.
Every Friday at 10am, in Green Bay, Wisconson, half a dozen major producers set the price for American style cheeses like Cheddar, Monterey and Colby, most of it for export. Although there are approximately 40 members of the National Cheese Exchange, only a few show up for a meeting that typically lasts half an hour. So if the Yanks can get $12 for a kilogram of cheese on the world market, well, why shouldn’t we? All Fonterra had to do was take their cut and give farmers a massive raise so they would produce more.

Since cows become more valuable on the hoof instead of in the freezer, the price of mince increases. Sheep and pork producers follow suit because … well, because they can. And, here in Aotearoa, all of these prices are subject to GST. So the government wins too. Is it too large a stretch of imagination to picture food riots in Kaitaia, the same as are happening in the Third World?

In the short term, there is a lot families can do: Plant gardens. Begin baking your own bread. Cut down on the amount of meat and dairy products purchased and take your whanau fishing more often. One thing in our favour is that dairy and meat products have a limited shelf life. So, not buying cheese, milk, and butter one week should result in sale prices the following week.

In the long term, it is time our government eliminated GST on foodstuffs. Countries like Canada do not charge GST on food purchased in the supermarket. The government argues that it would be too difficult to parse food purchases from the list of taxable goods. But if the Saudis and Venezuelans can get away with charging their citizens 12 cents a litre for petrol, then why is it we are paying 12 dollars for a block of cheese?

Talking to Each Other

Contrary to the impression this column might give, my whanau definitely come before my hapu and iwi. Because, at the end of a hard day’s mahi, it’s they who put their arms around me and make it all worthwhile. So, regretfully, I had to decline going to a couple of hui this weekend – one out at Taipa resort, the other at Mangamuka marae.

Both were called by the Crown to give Iwi Maori in Te Hiku a chance to talk to each other about our shared land claim interests – you know, the land on the boundaries (like parts of Kaitaia) and the stuff that’s spread far and wide (like the forest, the mountain and the beach).

Now, you’d think that the last thing we need is for the Crown to hold hui so we can talk to each other. Isn’t that that what we do every chance we get? Think about it – kettle korero (over the teacups), church (behind the hymnal), sport (inside the ruck), school (on the blackboard jungle), Pak N’ Save (in the aisles), radio and TV (across the airwaves), print media (between the lines), hui (on the floor) – you name it and we’re talking. Hika! Even the basket cases amongst us get to be heard. Engari, it’s all good. We can use Crown hui as well. As long as we don’t think they’re the only game in town.

That’s why it puzzles me to hear someone turn up to a Crown hui and say, “Man, it took the Crown to get us together.” It did not! The main reason both Crown and Maori come to those hui is to keep an eye on each other and make sure the story doesn’t get changed in our absence. I think it’s called ‘healthy skepticism.’ For example, it sometimes seems the Crown would prefer that the different iwi only tell each other what it agrees we can tell. Well, well, well. If one iwi managed to get a better deal out of the Crown than anyone else, is it seriously expected to just sit on it? Kei hea te iti me te rahi?

Now, of course, the Crown want everyone to talk to each other – ka pai tena. But, instead of trying to script what we can and cannot say to each other, it’s going to have to trust us. Now, there’s a novel idea!

From my viewpoint as an iwi insider, we’re working things out. Not always nicely, no. But resolutely, yes. So I say to the mandated negotiators for each iwi – haere tonu atu. You’ve done the hard yards to get your people’s mandate to speak for them. Carry on getting their guidance. Carry on inviting them to the hui you have with the Crown and with each other. Carry on putting your cards on the table with each other. Send your ops people in to liberate some cash from the Crown to resource your talks, then let it know what you finally decide about our shared interests. But, above all else, carry on talking to each other.

That way I can stay home of a weekend and relax with my family each night knowing the story remains straight.

Talking to the Crown

When dealing with matters that impact on our existence as Maori, the general rule of thumb is that we’d prefer to talk with another Maori because it saves us a lot of time not having to first explain ourselves. The exception that proves this rule is when it comes to Treaty Negotiations with the Crown.

I firmly believe that no Maori should ever front for the Crown in these negotiations. Not even the List MPs of Maori descent. Their world view and loyalties are always going to be ambiguous, even compromised. I tell you, it’s too awful watching them walk the tightrope between Claimants and Crown.

So, when Michael Cullen (Hon Dr, Dep. PM, MICOTOWN) walked into Tatai Hono marae last Friday for his first meeting with the Ngati Kahu Land Claim Negotiators, we were pretty pleased to see him. And I have to say that he seemed genuinely pleased to be there too – comfortable even.

His lineup included Parekura Horomia (Minister of Maori Affairs), Mita Ririnui (Deputy Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations), John Clark (Crown Kaumatua), Lewis Moeau (Te Puni Kokiri), Ben White (Office of Treaty Settlement Manager), Paul James (Office of Treaty Settlements Director), Maureen Hickey (Office of Treaty Settlements Researcher) and 3 others.

On the Ngati Kahu side were our Head Claimant, Ven Timoti Flavell, plus our Negotiators, Prof Margaret Mutu, Rev Lloyd Popata and Te Kani Williams. Best of all, there were more than two dozen of our own people who’d traveled from Kaitaia, Taupo and a few places in-between to keenly watch and listen.

Picture it. Mandated Negotiators on either side of a large table start to talk. Then, as the marae acoustics swallow the sound of their voices, Ngati Kahu people move quietly and respectfully to sit at the table beside Professor, Reverend, Venerable and Minister. Not a word is spoken by anyone other than the Negotiators. No-one is the least discomfited. Everyone hears and sees clearly what is said. With democracy, dignity and respect the business is concluded rapidly and efficiently. Within two hours positions are stated, next steps are negotiated and the meeting is closed.

When Waitangi Tribunal Judge, Carrie Wainwright, directed the Crown and Ngati Kahu to re-enter negotiations last month, she hoped for a positive outcome under this new Minister In Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Now that we have held our first meeting with him, my impression is that, for the first time ever, Ngati Kahu is talking directly to the Crown without the filter of third parties pushing themselves between the Minister’s ear and our mouthpieces.

That’s a good thing for us as Maori. How good? Only time will tell.

KEEPING IT HONEST

The most fascinating thing about hui for me, especially those between opposing groups, is watching the faces and bodies of the people who sit and listen while others stand and talk. Because it’s the faces and bodies that tell me more about what’s likely to happen after a hui than anything the speakers might say during it. That’s why, after years of faithfully writing entire books of who said what at any number of hui, I gave it up and opted to sit back and quietly watch instead.

So what do the faces and bodies tell me? Well, a darned sight more honest stuff than the spoken word generally. Take one simple gesture, like a chin in hand, for example.

Now, I’ve noticed that when the supporters of a speaker put their chin in hand, they tend to lean forward – they nod, they smile, they even laugh. Their approval is easy to read. On the other hand when those who oppose a speaker put their chins in their hands, they tend to do it while leaning back and their language, although just as honest, is also a lot more subtle. Interestingly it often has prayer-like tones such as, “Oh God, do we have to hear this again?” As other parts of their bodies come into play, this language gets more fervent. Eyes slowly closed with a sigh while in this position say, “God give me strength to not scream.” Pushed out lips and a raised eyebrow signify a mutter of, “S’truth! I doubt it.” An added snort turns the mutter into a full-blooded shout of, “God smite them!” or something similar.

All in all, after hearing this kind of body language at a hui, I can accurately predict that afterwards it will be business as usual. And, depending on whether they think their side’s view carried the day or not, the listeners will say the hui was either another missed opportunity or a another lucky escape.

So, if no-one is clearly knocked out or beaten, what value is there in holding hui between opposing sides at all? Heaps actually. Quite apart from the theatre put on, hui give newbies and observers a chance to witness, maybe even understand, the dynamics between the sides. They also make incremental progress one way or the other as hearts and minds are won or lost. And, although there will likely be some undisciplined shouters there, hui are generally a much more civilized way of airing differences than most other ethnicities have come up with to date.

To read a hui accurately it helps to know the people and their views, but it’s not essential. The most important thing is to be honest in your own body language. Because if what you are feeling is out of synch with what your body is saying, you will just make yourself sick and any outcomes of that hui will not be true.

And if you’re lucky you’ll get to hear a priceless piece of wisdom like this one I heard just last week courtesy of Ted Jones of Ngaitakoto, “To have strength you need Unity. To have Unity you need Trust. To have Trust you need Honesty.”

Honesty. Can’t be beaten really.

WISDOM AND ORDER

Most of you will know that Ngati Kahu has had claims lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal since 1984 and that these claims have been partially heard and were reported on by the Tribunal in the Muriwhenua Land Report of 1997. You may also know that in 2003 Ngati Kahu and the Crown opened direct negotiations, and that those talks broke down in 2006 after the Crown tried to sell claim lands at Rangiputa. What you may not know is that, in November 2006, Ngati Kahu applied to the Waitangi Tribunal for Remedies Hearings on its claims, and that two weeks ago, on April 10th, the Tribunal held an interlocutory conference to help it decide if it could and should hold those hearings. The written direction of Judge Carrie Wainwright dated 11th April 2008 is reproduced below.

Having heard submissions today, I adjourn this application until Thursday 10th July 2008 to allow parties to progress further negotiations. At the judicial conference on 10 July, the applicant and the Crown will update me on what has occurred in the intervening three months. The applicant will indicate at that stage whether it wishes its application to be further adjourned or withdrawn, or whether it wishes the Tribunal to issue a substantive decision on its application that was the subject of today’s hearing. Meanwhile, if for any reason the Crown is not in a position to focus on negotiating a settlement with Ngati Kahu in the next three months, it should inform the Tribunal as soon as possible. Otherwise the judicial conference will reconvene on Level 2 of the Tribunal’s offices at 10 am on 10 July 2008. The Registrar is directed to send a copy of this direction to all those on the notification list for Wai 45, the combined record of inquiry for the Muriwhenua inquiry.

Following on from this direction Ngati Kahu has initiated a meeting with Minister Cullen for the 2nd May. Interestingly and concurrently, his officials in the Office of Treaty Settlements have been very persistent in trying to get Ngati Kahu involved in a Crown-initiated Muriwhenua regional forum. Why these officials would think it was in Ngati Kahu’s interests to be dragged back into a time-warped morass of non-mandated and divided interests is a mystery. Ngati Kahu is already talking with its neighbouring hapu and iwi. It doesn’t want or need the Crown to impose itself into those discussions, especially before they have even met with Minister Cullen. As Judge Wainwright said in her oral decision on the 10th, “Ngati Kahu is clearly a very well organised and capable group who are wanting resolution.” She is right. If Ngati Kahu think the Crown may be able to assist, it will ask. But until then the Crown would be well-advised to exercise some wisdom and order.

The Tribunal direction of 11th April gave Ngati Kahu and the Crown exactly 90 (ninety) days to progress negotiations. There are now 80 (eighty) days left. The options for both parties are really quite simple and crystal clear. Either focus on progressing negotiations – or not.

OUR DAD - Jim Herbert

Our Dad was born on 28th December 1927 at his grandparents’ (Jim and Ruth Enright’s) home on Kohe Rd. near where my cousin Eddie Tamati now lives. He was the second of Ray and Alma Herbert’s 20 kids – Maude being the oldest.

For the next few years they lived in and around the Hokianga with brief stays in Owhata, Waikeri, Herekino and other places where there was work to be had. Every 2 – 3 years another baby joined them. Millie (Rogers), Alan, Don, Steve and Laurie have all since passed. But George, Dee (Masters), Frank, Bet (Waipouri), Marie (Kite), Ron (Tamati), Jean (Beazley), Margaret (Kaye) and, of course, our Dad, are all still going strong. 5 other siblings were stillborn. Talk about the good old days!

Alma was a fierce woman who did not hesitate to belt her kids (or, for that matter, other people’s kids and even her husband) if they stepped out of line. Ray was softer. But both parents were strong on education and sport, hard work and community service, loyalty and honesty. So our Dad and his siblings all grew up knowing how to work a farm and run a household from an early age.

Eventually Ray and Alma settled over the hill from the Kohe Rd. farm on another family property that is now owned by Averil Sanderson. From there our Dad started school at the old convent which used to be located on the beach at Pawarenga. Alongside his Wikitera and Enright cousins, and under the strict eye of nuns like Sister Cyril and Sister Peters, he learned the three R’s (Reading. ‘Riting and ‘Rithmetic) plus the catechism.

Then in 1940 (aged 12) Dad was sent to St Peter’s Maori Boys’ College (Hato Petera) on the North Shore where his best mate was Tom Topia (brother to Emma Pirini and Rosie Samson). Tragically less than 2 years later Tom was killed in a farming accident on the College farm. That was a hard time for our Dad. However he remained at St Peters and continued to learn the art of farming, which in those days meant everything from animal husbandry to carpentry.

By the time World War II ended Dad was 17. He scored his first paid job under manpower laws as a porter at Rawene hospital. This was not his dream job, and as soon as manpower laws were lifted he was off. Over the next 10 years he worked all over the country on various post-War projects like the dams at Cossyes Creek and Huia. He also did stints as a bushman, a driver and a deer hunter. It didn’t matter how hard the working conditions or how long the hours, as long as a job involved a little travel and adventure and offered reasonable company and pay – Dad was up for it. But eventually the single man’s life lost its hold on him.

Coming from a loving but unsentimental home, Dad rarely returned to Pawarenga for visits during those years. In fact after one 4 year break he came home and was so puzzled at the presence of several little girls in their home that he had to ask his mother, “Whose kids are these?” He was surprised when she snapped at him, “Mine!”

It was on one of his rare return trips to Pawarenga that our Dad first laid eyes on Gloria Rollo. She was home visiting her parents (Andrew and Bunny) who were working for Bunny’s mother (Erina Hunia) on the farm at Te Ahuahu that is now owned by William Hunia. Anyway the rest, as they say, is history.

Dad and Mum married on 23rd December 1955 and initially lived in Auckland. Not long after I was born in 1956 they returned to Pawarenga to work and eventually take over the Kohe Rd. farm. A few years later they bought Mana Muru’s farm in Awaiti where me, my 3 sisters (Cathy Chapman, Pat Stephens and Jenni Herbert) and 3 brothers (Bo, John and Aaron) were all raised, and where Dad and Mum still live today.

It’s impossible to do 80 years of living any justice in 2 pages. But when I think of our Dad there are some key things that come to mind. The second of these things are the words, “Hard” and “Work.” In fact, just this spring I heard Dad say with real joy, “Man! A body loves to work!” I just grinned, because I know none of his kids loves to work anywhere near as much. For sure, none of us can keep up with him, even now.

So now our Dad is about to turn 80. No mean feat for anyone, let alone a Maori man from Pawarenga. Along the way he’s had happy and sad times. I know he blames me and my sisters for his baldness and grey hairs! But, by and large, I think that we (along with our spouses, kids and mokopuna) have brought him more pleasure than pain. Of course he’s also seen his fair share of tragedies.

So, what’s the first thing that comes to mind when I think of our Dad? Our Mum, of course! For 52 years, ALL our Dad’s good times have been made better and all his bad times have been made bearable by having his sweetheart (our Mum) beside him.

Happy 52th Anniversary Our Mum and Dad (23rd December). And a HAPPY, HAPPY HAPPY 80th Birthday Our Dad, Grandpa and Papa (28th December).

From Anahera and Doug, Cathy and Denny, Pat and Hepa, Bo and Chriss, John and Colene, Jenni and Steve and Aubrey, Aaron and Bonita and all your mokopuna and moko-mokos. We love you so much.

To help celebrate our Dad’s birthday, there will be a Mass at Pawarenga on Sunday 30th December. Koutou ma, please come and join us.

PARTNERSHIP PLATFORMS

Many years ago a friend offered to take me to work on his prized 1000cc Yamaha. It turned out to be a horrific ride for us both. In my case the fear factors were – I had no helmet on (they weren’t compulsory at the time), I was wearing only a light summer dress with platform-soled sandals, and he was going really fast. As my wind-whipped eyelids peeled back I remember thinking two things, “OMG – I probably look like Marty Feldman!” and, “Never again!” How right I was.

At the end of the trip I wobbled my way into work. Then I realised – “I’m not wobbling, my sandals are.” A quick look revealed an exhaust pipe-shaped hollow of melted synthetic in both soles that gave my every step the look of the proverbial drunken sailor. “Look at my shoes!” I wailed. But my friend was down on his knees staring tensely at his bike’s exhaust pipes.

Our friendship did not develop any further. In fact it didn’t survive the experience at all. But I learned a key principle from it – whether we’re going to make or break in a partnership depends on how far we’re willing to compromise. Out of those compromises will fall our bottom lines. And where those lie is best found out before we formalize the partnership.

Looking at the potential of the newly sworn in Far North District Council I’m reminded of my Yamaha experience with a few little variations.

The guy at the wheel of the Council bike looks and sounds the part of a seasoned rider (100%). But his pillion partners look like a fashion grab bag – some in leathers, others in chiffon. Still, he seems to be in control. Of course this bike is not blatting freely down the Awanui Straight. Rather, it’s inside a small arena being cheered by a hardened audience that seems prepared to give the bike and its riders a newbie’s chance. But it’s only a matter of time before some of them start lobbing rocks, even explosives, on to the track. And, believe me, this crowd will not be averse to seeing blood on the ground if or when the bike and its riders wipe out. Add to the spectacle one or two rogue riders on their own bikes, running their own races, and there’s always a prang in the offing.

The frame of the Council bike itself is another matter altogether. Instead of resembling high tensile steel, it’s more like bamboo with a bad case of borer. Shoot! How’d you like to try strapping a 1000cc engine on something like that and opening the throttle? To top it all off, waiting in the pit-stop to service the Council bike is a crew who know that the riders will take any glory, while any blame will be theirs. In the words of the immortal Charlie Chan, “Vel-ly intelesting.”

His Mayoralty and partners will have considered all these things, I’m sure. They’ll have plans (either already in place or being scoped) to replace this valve, reinforce that joint, hold everything together, keep it all on course.

My advice to them all is simple. If they want to stay on this particular bike and not get booted off at the next pit-stop, then they’d do well to watch where they put their feet.

Hei konei. Hei kona.

GONE FISHING

You have to give Winston Peters credit for consistency. A year out from the next general election and he’s rat-a-tat-tatting the same boogie-man drumbeat about Maori ‘separatists’ that he’s banged out every election since 1993.

His timing, like his dress sense, is as impeccable as ever. But, unlike his hair, the pool of ready supporters for the message has thinned somewhat. So, has natural attrition amongst the Grey Power generation forced him to go a-fishing in browner waters? Is that behind his recent call for Maori to turn their backs on the Maori Party and, presumably, climb into his open arms?

In a way it’s a backhanded compliment to Tariana and co – a concession that heaps of Maori support them at present. But how could Winston seriously think that he and NZ First would be the natural next choice for any disaffected MP’ers? Sure – his cheeky, Ngapuhi boy from the backblocks grin, coupled with the aforesaid hair and suits, all hold undeniable appeal. So too does the ease with which he chews up and spits out Pakeha reporters. Engari, Hone does Ngapuhi styles, cheek and intimidation even better. So nah … those charms alone wouldn’t win over loads of MP’ers to NZ First.

Could it be that this time round Winitana is offering Maori something more cultural – like, maybe, a claim to being matakite? Why not? Before the police have charged any of the recent detainees as terrorists, even before the solicitor general has released his decision as to whether they’ll be charged with anything more than breaching firearms laws, Winston has fingered them and the Maori Party as “taxpayer sponsored militant separatists” who “represent apartheid and the destruction of New Zealand values.” That sounds quite bad doesn’t it? Barely half a rung removed from terrorism. What perspicacity! What bollocks!

This brand of politics had its heyday during America’s McCarthy era and its name comes in two versions. Either “BOO!” or “oooh” will do. The second is pronounced with an accompanying quaver in the voice and shiver of the shoulders. Winston does both quite well and he may have a potential audience of 1 in 7 New Zealanders for his message. According to a recent UMR poll that’s how many don’t think the recent “terror raids” were an over-reaction. I’ve never heard of UMR before, but I’d be very surprised if their findings reflected the views of Maori voters.

Mind you, not even the Maori Party can afford to be complacent about the Maori vote. It’s a strange beastie, strong on complex loyalties and defiant of logic. Consider this – even though Labour has again ignored, even trashed, Maori issues this term, it will probably still corner a significant slice of that vote next year. Stranger still is this fact – before the advent of the Maori Party, many Taitokerau constituents would approach National’s Northland MP for help and not bother with the Labour member they’d voted in. Yet they’d never change their allegiance to National. Go figure. You can bet Labour will.

Of course that doesn’t stop Winston pretending to look like he wants to buck the trend amongst Maori voters. But his message to them, in the face of their persistent and growing call for self-determination, sounds odd – somewhere between wondrously frank and sadly desperate. The reason for that is simple – it’s not actually aimed at them.

No. Mister Consistent is once again trolling for votes from amongst nga kaki whero me tangata matuku (the red necks and the frightened) and using Maori as the bait.

E rite tonu. E rite tonu.

Cheers

Alcoholism beats me down and makes this a strange, tense time.
My God lifts me up and shows me this new and exciting time.

Alcoholism silences my laughter.
My God shouts "Cheers!" at me and laughs out loud.

Alcoholism puts a brake on me and makes me sick.

My God opens the throttle and sends shepherds to rescue me.

Alcoholism poisons my marriage.
My God heals my marriage with unconditional love.

Alcoholism hardens my heart and deadens my feelings.
My God softens me with true repentance and forgiveness.

Alcoholism perverts my sexuality.
My God gives me straight and great sex.

Alcoholism brings hate, fear and anger to me.
My God gifts me with serenity, courage and wisdom.

Yay for God!

****************************************************

[D & C 68:6] Wherefore, be of good cheer, and do not fear, for I the Lord am with you, and will stand by you; and ye shall bear record of me, even Jesus Christ, that I am the Son of the living God, that I was, that I am, and that I am to come.