vto and me

So it starts when I put a comment on The Standard about Hone's open letter to overseas investors. vto places a reply

vto Btw, I recall last week some coughing and spluttering from yourself when I referred to the military machinations of Ngai Tahu. In the last week I have had cause to visit various tourist sites around the South Island, several of which had informations available regarding Maori history at the particular sites. I was quite appalled at the lack of reference to those who existed prior to Ngai Tahu’s invasions and the dominance of recent history (last 200 years i.e. Ngai Tahu) over longer history. I guess that some things never change – the victor writes the history books.

and on we go, please note many of these quotes are taken from long comments
6.1.1

me. oh vto rest easy the histories are there for those who are able to see them. Look up mana whenua and whānui, they might give you some clue – but seriously stick to the stuff you nearly know rather than things you know nothing about – makes you less stressed and less antagonistic.

vto Fact: Histories at tourist sites around the South Island are excessively slanted in favour of Ngai Tahu, the victors.

me you keep raising the same point in a snide way, such as – “when I referred to the military machinations of Ngai Tahu” and “I was quite appalled at the lack of reference to those who existed prior to Ngai Tahu’s invasions and the(ir) dominance of recent history.” Those statements are ignorant – sorry if that offends you. Just who are you talking about vto? Ngāti Mamoe? Waitaha? Guess what, most Ngāi Tahu whānui, like me, whakapapa to all three iwi – that’s what it means to be part of the iwi – it’s on the front page of their website, not hard to find. Perhaps you are talking about other peoples who inhabited the island – please tell me who you are talking about. Hopefully you don’t bring up some brailsford bullshit.

vto marty mars, this issue began when you raised yourself to some higher moral ground to look down on the european colonists and their military ways, forgetting your own past and its own military ways. The basis of the issue was hypocrisy and it was that which I was pointing out.

vto “… and through inter-marriage and conquest these migrants merged with the resident Waitaha and took over authority of Te Waipounamu.” Ngai Tahu website. LOL, this is exactly what I was referring to. A painting of history at odds with the reality. For example, why write “…through inter-marriage and conquest … took over authority” which implies inter-marriage was somehow equal at the time to conquest? I tell you why – because it makes for a better looking history when compared to writing “though military conquest the Waitaha were conquered and authority assumed by mamoe at the end of a taiaha. … ” As for inter-marriage, how long after the “conquest” was that? Or was it a result of the rape by soldiers?

vto face it marty mars, the history as written is not settled. Why else would it get raised in conversation when in certain parts of the South Island?And as for your moral high ground when referencing european military escapades as compared your own, sheesh, your own website blows that one out of the water. Wake up fulla.

me “at odds with the reality” – your distorted reality vto, “which implies” – only in your head vto, “better looking history” – so you say vto, the knowledge is there vto of what happened in detail the fact is you aren’t ready for it and couldn’t handle it – it not yours and not for you. your bigotry shows through loud and clear with your final ‘fulla’ – you show yourself.

vto to Hateatea I am questioning marty’s point some couple weeks ago that saw him clamber onto high moral ground and look down on the ways and means of the European as if they are / were somehow worse and more morally lacking than those of Maori at times of conquest or colonisation. His own history is the same, as you perfectly point out above. He chooses to ignore this and claim a superiority. That is what grates. An incorrect view of history and a hypocrisy. The line ‘the victor writes the history books’, so true through all of humanity, is entirely applicable.

vto to Hateatea That questioning by me of marty’s view then resurfaced through the example of Maori histories at tourist sites I happenned to come across some days ago, which also painted a view of their history seemingly at odds with other views. To further support this I copied just one part of Ngai Tahu’s website to indicate how the wording has been constructed to paint a more favourable picture than could otherwise have been written. He has not answered any of this except to say I am thick and no nothing. That is all he has said. Read it yourself, it is all there above and around.

me “He chooses to ignore this and claim a superiority.”, no I don’t – please provide reference. “An incorrect view of history and a hypocrisy” In your opinion or do you have backup for your ‘incorrect history’ story. “seemingly at odds with other views” Which other views – come on provide your sources, “to paint a more favourable picture” Once again in your view – favourable is subjective – my point to you is that you don’t know enough to understand the concept or content in relation to these matters, you are still looking through your blurred lense created by your own stuff.

me You started this deliberate attack on me because you know I am part of the iwi. You added comments to my unrelated comments to bring up the point that you strongly wished to say. Yet you still waffle on scared to tell your truth. Here you go – get it out – tell me the real story.

“I don’t like Ngai Tahu”
“I don’t like maori getting special treatment”
“I don’t like maori not fitting in to our country” and so on…

Frankly, if it is actually about indigenous historial narratives and their use in creating perceptions and positioning for marginalised groups, I’ll eat my hat.

So that is a flame war of sorts. Also a bit of fun. I do confess to being sensitive around these matters and when provoked a bit of tiger comes out, but I think vto is totally out of line with his terrible accusations. I cannot stand by and let lies gain traction.

all are insulted by the dipton-dipstick

Divide and conquer is always a strategy employed by those who want to destroy tangata whenua. Robert Guyton was at Te Rau Aroha marae in Bluff and heard Deputy Prime Minister Bill English say this

robertguytonblog

"If the northern tribes could run a marae properly, New Zealand might have a more positive view of the Treaty."

What English is so ignorant of is the interconnectedness of Māori - we are all related. This meme of southern verses northern Māori is common as muck and often used to try and divide - I've heard it a million times and it doesn't work, it does the opposite - it binds us together. The dipstick from dipton has shown us, with this comment on a southern marae, what a lowlife he is and we can be thankful for that, even though anyone of a thinking disposition knows it already.

Hattip - robertguyton

a ramble on asset sales and Iwi

There are many people that oppose the sale of state assets, partial or otherwise. National have been elected and are forming the government and that government will be pushing the asset sale agenda. Iwi are beginning to come out with their views and Mark Solomon, Kaiwhakahaere of Ngāi Tahu has stated the iwi position. I am opposed to the sale of any state assets and I also have doubts about Iwi buying into state assets. This post outlines some of my reasons for those doubts, please note it is a bit of a ramble and some of the thoughts need polishing.

Radio NZ

Mark Solomon says that Ngāi Tahu have never advocated for the outright sale of state assets. And he explains that at a meeting in Feb 2009 with John Key and Bill English when Iwi leaders were told that the government books were rough and ‘cash strapped’ he suggested at that meeting, “When it comes to the settlements have you ever considered a shareholding in some of the SOE’s as part of settlement packages.” Solomon then says that “the government said that they would not consider it in their first term but they would put it up as a question leading into the next election, and have come back with their model of selling off 49% of the asset.”

My opposition to selling these state assets is that - they are already owned by the citizens, and that they are strategic assets which should never be sold, and that the price they think they’ll get is wildly overrated, and that they have already factored in the price they think they will get, and that overseas ownership is inevitable in this type of scenario, and that it leads to higher prices, and that it leads to further privatisation and commodification of natural resources which is designed to increase profit for shareholders, and that profit comes largely from price, but cost cutting is also there. So selling assets just doesn’t stack up, it doesn’t make sense. But that won’t stop national or their support parties.

Buying shares in these companies is an investment decision. As noted by Mark Solomon, “the returns – simple business decisions – good long term investments and allowing us to invest in our own country.”  At no meeting that Solomon has attended has their been any mention of Iwi having preferential shares. No added benefits to Māori like lower power prices because as Solomon says they would be buying a shareholding in a company and they would be a minority shareholder. It is a business deal. As a minority shareholder Iwi won’t be able to influence pricing decisions – or profit. They will reap the rewards and spread that reward amongst their beneficiaries, even though they are the same people that have paid the higher price to get the profit.

The argument is always put that if iwi don’t get into it, someone else will or why shouldn’t Iwi participate. My answer is of course it is up to Iwi to make their own decisions. And those decisions must be made after full discussion, with all points of view noted. For instance – if the benefits to Iwi members are just around the shareholding, why do it? why should generational striving for justice, paid out as a small percentage of the loss, be used to buy shares in companies, could it not be used in better ways. how is tino rangatiratanga advanced when we buy into the system and its values and place profit at a premium.

Māori should own the assets of this country, from within a Māori worldview and through the front door not the back door - through partnership not fakery and tokenism. Iwi that buy state assets will be minority shareholders and as more state assets are sold the more Iwi will dissipate their power, to ensure they have shares in those assets. This will bleed the power of Iwi and dilute their ability to do anything other than sit there and take their profits. They could sell but who to? Whoever has the money is the answer. There are other ways of growing the pūtea – the rebuild of Christchurch being one, anyway the investment team will decide – based on their objectives. I’d like to see the arguments framed around tikanga and illustrating the lessons from our ancestors and highlighting the benefits to the people and alignment with our values, not just the balance sheet.

If the decisions are investment decisions then that is how it will be assessed, no sense in trying to dress it up differently – there is no preferential treatment in allocation of shares or advantage for Māori in their power bills. There is nothing other than an investment decision – to my mind this is a pivotal point because the investment decision may disadvantage the overall group and therefore would be in conflict with our values. If you invest in a company that gets profit from a basic service like power, and if the price is raised then there is more profit but that profit comes from the higher prices paid by the consumers. They are worse off. The overall group has been disadvantaged. The investment decision assumes a position of dominance to the strengthening of the collective. Anything that assumes dominance against the benefits of the group is rejected, at least in my view. The counter is that the profit goes back to the collective but that profit has to come from somewhere and it comes from the collective itself. Another view is that it will happen anyway so at least some profit is made but that is defeatist IMO because it is giving away our power.


It may be that the Iwi has considered the small points I am making - it just seems to me that the debate must be widened. My opposition to Iwi investment is that the overall benefits to Iwi members cannot be guaranteed and that the decision is just a straight investment decision where other considerations relating to te Āo Māori do not impinge and because of that there is a dominance that does not align with our value of protecting and strengthening the collective, the community. When those reasons are added to the long list of other reasons for opposing asset sales, the case for selling and buying them thins out even more.


Now just to be clear I am a proud member of Ngāi Tahu whānui and I know that there are no clear right and wrong answers much as we would like them. I am not disrespecting the efforts to date to secure mana for the Iwi. I am simply putting up some counter views, constructively, so that wider points can be considered.


Everyone sees things differently, these are just some of my thoughts and I realise they may not attract much support but they come from an iwi member who cares.

Hattip - Pip and Maui St

trust me I promise

Ngai Tahu have come out in support of the CERA bill which give wide ranging powers to gerry brownlee to sort out christchurch. Our kaiwhakahaere has said that the "detail of the legislation backs up Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee’s commitment to engage with Ngai Tahu along with local government; business groups and the wider community." I'd be interested to see where that is - might have to read the legislation because I am not convinced the brownlee even understands what consultation is - he deliberately didn't consult with tangata whenua over granting the exploitation licences to Petrobras. He has been under increasing scrutiny in his role and has been found wanting. I wouldn't trust him or his words to consult and discuss - he means "let's work as a team and do it my way."

The Greens, Chris Carter and Hone have opposed the Bill. The Greens have come out with some excellent arguments

“The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery bill effectively gives unbridled power to the Beehive for five years and sidelines councils and local communities. The international evidence shows that community-led recovery efforts work best and we will be seeking amendments to achieve this,” said Dr Kennedy Graham, Green Party Earthquake Recovery spokesperson. “Under this bill the Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee will be able to exercise emergency powers and change any law in the country for the next five years. This is more than is needed for the rebuild and is not consistent with a democratic locally-led recovery effort."

Too much power indeed, as Idiot/Savant notes

 Which means that the big decisions around the future of Christchurch will be decided not by its people, but by Gerry Brownlee. Who while he is a Christchurch MP, isn't exactly in the same position of democratic accountability as the elected representatives of the Christchurch City Council.

Eddie at The Standard is scathing

The power given to Brownlee here is unprecendented and uncontrolled. He will be appointing the CEO or CERA who will report to him. On Marae Investigates last Sunday, a disaster expert, Dr Regan Potangaroa, who has worked around the world said he had never seen such powers put into the hands of a minister, or anyone. He said they are powers that officials have in dictatorships.

Can we trust him to not abuse his powers - the evidence says no, we can't. I have no doubt that brownlee is well below par on any standard. That's right - I don't like his philosophy, what he stands for, says or does. We will see if he consults and works with tangata whenua, we will see if he consults and works with communities.

The Māori Recovery Network - supporting people in Ōtautahi

I don't want to diminish the suffering and loss that the people of Ōtautahi have experienced because of the earthquake. They are still in the middle of it - I have had many conversations with quake refugees and they all are still working through many things - from childrens nightmares to what the hell to do about a job. There are many organisations helping and that is good. I want to make special mention of this outstanding initiative from Ngāi Tahu - The Māori Recovery Network.

A Ngāi Tahu- led collaboration of Māori organisations, formed to support the people of Christchurch following the February 22 earthquake.

The Network's kaupapa (purpose) is to reach out to, support and assist whānau (families) in the worst effected Eastern suburbs of Ōtautahi. The Māori Recovery Network works in a Māori way and is committed to supporting Māori and non-Māori whānau.

The Māori Recovery Network includes Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Te Puni Kokiri, He Oranga Pounamu, Ngā Maata Waka, Māori Wardens, Māori health and social service providers, Māori Party and the wider Māori network— organisations with memberships committed to supporting the recovery effort.

Collaborative, people focused, cooperative, daily updates - this is mana in action and it is awesome to see Ngāi Tahu take a lead role in the recovery of the people and the region. It is making a difference

Total number of contacts as at: 5.00pm Tues 5 April 2011 6795

Whānau with home safety concerns 150
Whanau requesting food parcels 478
Whanau requesting water 496
Whānau needing medication attention 194
Whānau needing clothing / bedding, etc 107
Whānau needing transport 71
Whānau needing assistance with filling out paperwork 30
Whānau needing counselling 95
Whānau needing respite for family 19
Whānau needing assistance with cleanup labour 52
Whānau members registered with Red Cross 1171
Whānau members registered with WINZ 923

Our kaiwhakahaere has come out with some good ideas around upskilling and trades and also using the expertise Ngāi Tahu have in 'Green Building' - this is what we want and i feel pride in seeing the values of manaakitanga, kotahitanga and rangatiratanga being displayed - thank you.

under threat from pollution

I reprinting this open letter published on Frogblog.

Kia ora koutou,

I am writing this message with a heavy heart. I am also aware that the tragedy I refer to is far outweighed by recent events in Christchurch. Nonetheless I felt compelled to write it.

As many people know, our family sources rimurapa/bull-kelp for pōhā from Kaka Point. We pack preserved tītī/muttonbirds into these every April and May. We have visited Kaka Point for this purpose every year since the late 1970s. Before then we mostly got our kelp from the back beaches of Omaui, north-west of our hometown Bluff, until it died from pollution being washed down and dumped in the New River Estuary. The last year that kelp was got from Omaui, it looked fine to the naked eye and to the touch. It was thus opened, inflated and hung to dry as normal. However, when it was softened, it started to break down and rot. It started with little spots that grew and grew until the whole bag deteriorated. As a child, Tiny’s grandparents had warned him—in great detail—what happened when kelp got polluted. Everything they said came to pass, including its localized extinction: the following year every rock at Omaui was bare. It has never returned. The year before the kelp died at Omaui a significant community source of mussels also died there. The area’s Mussel Beach is no longer aptly named. Moreover, when kelp was got that last time at Omaui, the family observed a mass of dead shellfish that included cockles and bubus.

On Saturday 19 February, my poua/grandfather Tiny Metzger and myself, and my brother-in-law Michael “Bob” Bowen, along with Corey Bragg, Thomas Aerepo-Morgan and Delaney Ryan met at Kaka Point and got a large load of kelp. We got more kelp than usual and bigger bags than usual because Thomas and Delaney and some of their Bluff peers were helping Tiny to complete and launch a waka-pahi he had built, which was to be buoyed with large inflated kelp bags.

The kelp looked in really good condition. That said, we observed a large number of dead shellfish, including cockles and bubus. A few days later Tiny remembered the only other time he had seen such a thing. In any event, we sourced kelp from two bays at Kaka Point. The first one was our favoured location until the year 2000 when much of the kelp we cut from there rotted when it was softened, as had happened with the kelp from Omaui two decades earlier. Since then, even though kelp still grew there, we have pretty much got our kelp from a few bays over, nearer to Nugget Point, and further away from the burgeoning township of Kaka Point and where the Clutha River meets the sea. This other bay was the second bay we got kelp from this year.

Once back in Bluff, my Mum, Barbara Metzger, and sister, Lara Stevens, helped Tiny and Bob open and inflate the bags that we needed for this season’s muttonbirding. Although struck down by illness Tiny worked hard inflating, hanging and trimming the bags: they don’t wait for you; they have to be dealt with immediately. Unfortunately, almost all of the kelp from the first bay, and much of it from the second bay, started to show the same signs of pollution. Amazingly though, and even more depressing, it did not break down when it was being softened, but prior to this, when it was still hanging on the line. It was rotting before Tiny’s very eyes. This implies that the pollution that fouled it is recent, and possibly worse than any we’ve encountered before. Tiny has thus now resigned himself to believing that the kelp at Kaka Point is going to die too.

Society at large won’t care. We’re just a bunch of silly Maoris living in the past, right? But given that this kelp provides habitat and food for shellfish such as paua that many in the community have a taste for, more people should care. I’m not going to speculate about what the source or sources of pollution are at this point in time. Prior experience tells me that they probably won’t be investigated, or that if they are, they’ll be determined to be in “acceptable” quantities, or unfortunate but too difficult to do anything about. Whatever would “we” do if rivers and the ocean couldn’t be treated more or less as open sewers?

In the short-term our family is faced with the dilemma of not having any pōhā come off of our tītī island this year. This would be the first time in hundreds of years that that has happened. In the medium-term we are faced with having to try and get kelp from marginal places like Waipapa Point, a long drive to and from the likes of Shag Point, or a boat trip to and from Rakiura. In the long-term we are faced with not having anywhere left to go. Presumably, we can’t keep ahead of pollution forever. The alternative? Plastic buckets. Yay for petrochemicals. It probably doesn’t matter anyway. Compelling data suggests that the tītī population is an overall decline, and many of the reasons for this lie far beyond New Zealand. Soon enough we might all have nothing to worry about.

I’m not going to sign off with a famous pithy quote, a declaration about humanity going to hell in a handcart, or a call to arms. I’m just sad for my Poua; and my kids.

Michael J. Stevens, BA(Hons) LLB PhD (Otago)

Rangaputa – Postdoctoral Fellow

Te Tumu, School of Maori, Pacific and Indigenous Studies; School of Business, University of Otago

A powerful, heartbreaking kōrero. This is a tragedy unfolding in front of our eyes; the pollution that we spew everywhere. This Ngāi Tahu whānau, and the traditions they have maintained, must be supported and the kelp protected. It starts with demanding higher pollution standards and penalties - make them pay so much their eyes widen - when we find them discharging cow shit or industrial waste - make them pay. But it is too easy to blame 'them', the truth is it is up to each of us to reduce consumption and not buy in to their game. I am not sure what we can do to help - any ideas greatfully recieved.

Hat tip - Frogblog

bill deserves contempt and dismissal

Although Hone is being justly lambasted for missing the vote on the 2nd reading of the Bill to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act - he did make a speech and the speech was excellent.

Excerpts from Scoop

...Because Mr Speaker, when the Minister of Treaty Settlements says that “Maori will have to show that they held exclusive use and occupation of the area since 1840, without substantial interruption, and that the area in question was held in accordance with tikanga”, then what he is saying is that the National Party / Maori Party government intends to use exactly the same test in 2011 that 50,000 Maori marched against in 2004.

And when Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister says that “customary title is not going to be easier to achieve, but it’s not the government’s job to make the tests easier…” then what he is doing is spitting in the eye of the Maori Party for backing a deal that is likely to break their backs at the next election.

And when Mr Speaker, the Maori Party actually says in their video, and I quote: "if we were negotiating on what is fair, just and moral, then we would have a very different outcome," then Mr Speaker, please let it be known to all who care to notice, that I am glad that I am no longer a member of a caucus that has finally realised that the price of their coalition with National, is their support for a bill that is unfair, unjust and immoral.

And when Mr Speaker, the Maori Party says “that is the choice facing Maori people, and we will be guided by them” then I have to ask, which people is it that they are talking about?

And when Mr Speaker, the leadership of the Maori Party moves to force me out so that they can say that the Maori Party unanimously supports this racist piece of legislation, do they seriously think that the 50,000 who marched against the confiscation of their rights in 2004 are going to accept the ongoing confiscation of those rights in 2011?

Because this I know Mr Speaker …

1. All 4 Maori Party MPs who voted for this racist piece of legislation, did so without going back to ask their constituents what they thought about it;

2. All 4 Maori Party MPs who voted for this racist piece of legislation, have publicly expressed grave doubts about the bill itself;

3. All 4 Maori Party MPs who voted for this racist piece of legislation, have been told in no uncertain terms by their constituents that they do not support it; and

4. All 4 Maori Party MPs who voted for this racist piece of legislation, have been called upon by iwi in their electorates to withdraw their support for it

And Mr Speaker, the analysis of the submissions makes it quite clear why Maori do not support this bill –

1. it fails to properly recognise and provide for the mana of hapū and iwi

2. it continues the original confiscation via vesting in the ‘common space’

3. it sets the use and occupation tests too high

4. it limits the content of a customary marine title

5. it introduces a costly, adversarial and complicated court process;

6. it remains discriminatory to Māori, and

7. it continues to breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Tikanga Māori, common law principles, and international human rights standards, including the United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Mr Speaker, this bill is deserving of nothing but contempt and dismissal, for it preys on the desperation of the Maori Party to be seen to be doing something about the issue from which it was born, while highlighting the determination of the National Party to ensure that Maori will actually get nothing from the same piece of legislation.

Now that is a speech and an eye-watering contrast to the weak and apologetic speeches from Turia and Sharples. The māori party are dreaming - do they forget that Ngāi Tahu have said we will fight the racist bill for generations, as we fought Te Kerēme.

waiting

These are dark days for Christchurch/Otautahi - the shock is beginning to wear off and the losses are becoming obvious - people have died, people are gone and there are still people fighting for life within the rubble, hoping for rescue - arohanui to all.


It is difficult being far away, thinking of the familar streets walked down, and the buildings paused by. I want to drive down to help, I want to do something but small circles my feet make and there is little I can do. So many waiting to hear who has gone and waiting to recognise a name, a friend, a workmate a person with family and loved ones, a person with hopes and dreams and a life history, a whakapapa.


To all people of Christchurch/Otautahi especially my kin of Ngai Tahu whanui, my thoughts and heart are with you all.

Update - Good Ngai Tahu communication and information on this facebook page

big money = big holes

This information was sent to me by a reader of mars2earth. How anyone could believe that mining Papatūānuku will be good for anyone other than overseas giant corportations is beyond me. The evidence is all around and it is very disturbing indeed.
ODT

Giant Chinese energy company Qinghua Group - with more than $12 billion of mining assets - is assessing several billion-dollar projects across the South Island. The west coasts of both the North and South Islands, with onshore and offshore iron-ore deposits, are being assessed for possible sites for a port purchase and steel mill construction. The South Island West Coast's specialist hard coking coal is a key ingredient for steel manufacturing. Edward LancasterOtago and Southland lignite deposits could be used for petrochemical or briquetting plants. Qinghua's joint venture partners Greywolf Gold-mining, incorporated in March this year, are spearheading project analysis, saying Qinghua has $10 billion to spend in New Zealand in 2011.

"We had hoped to make announcements in the new year, but the [three New Zealand] visits by Qinghua have been attracting attention," said Mr Lancaster, whose company directors include brother Michael and son Jolian.

Mr Lancaster said meetings were being sought through the offices of Prime Minister John Key and Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee, but the Pike River disaster had prompted deferral of meetings "for several weeks", he said.

10 billion to spend - if you just care about money that will be hard to resist but luckily more people care about the environment, global warming and the effect upon all peoples especially our pasifika cousins. Ngāi Tahu must oppose these developments for our children and their children.

Mr Lancaster described Qinghua Group as the largest private Chinese mining company and "the Chinese version of BHP Billiton in Australia", the world's largest diversified resource group. Mr Lancaster said Qinghua was also looking at prospects in Russia, South America and Africa. In New Zealand, Central Otago coal seam gas deposits are also in the mix, possibly for power generation to places such as Queenstown or Alexandra. The group is also thought to be seeking permit holdings in ironsand on the Kapiti coast and Manawatu River. There are also plans to acquire a coking coal field near Collingwood.

The focus of the current negotiations is to buy rights to an estimated 2 billion tonnes of southern lignite, half of which could be converted to petro-chemicals or lignite briquettes. Greywolf has also separately acquired coal permits near Buller, covering about 5000ha. "We [Greywolf] are paving the way for Qinghua. They are the one with the [financial] power behind them," Mr Lancaster said. Qinghua Group bosses have visited Central Otago, the West Coast and Marlborough in recent weeks looking at coal seam gas for electricity generation, hard-coking coal deposits with a view to building a steel mill, and lignite for petrochemical conversion. Chartered flights across the South Island have included meeting several southern mayors and visits to mine sites, Mr Lancaster said.

The process is already underway and yes they would have to get Overseas Investment Office approval and would be compliant with the Resource Management Act, and all regulations applicable to mining in New Zealand but we have heard brownlee say that "we are open for business" and we know how money-hungry these politicians are. Pesky regulations won't get in their way only the people can stop them.

In many countries the indigenous people are at the forefront of opposing mining - I know many individual maori who are also opposed to this but I'd love some iwi to come out strong in defence of Papatūānuku.

Anake moves on

Te Runanga o Ngāi Tahu Chief Executive Officer Anake Goodall has quit his role to pursue other interests. Anake came in at a difficult time for the iwi and has worked for just about 4 years to help bring the Office together. There have been decisions made that I didn't agree with and although my personal dealings with Anake were a little  mixed - I do believe he has made a positive difference for the iwi and I thank him for his mahi and wish him all the best.

The Press - Stuff

Te Runanga o Tribe chairman Mark Solomon said he was reluctant to accept Goodall's resignation as he had ''completed an enormous body of work ... over the past four years''. 'Anake has accomplished the major outcomes that he set out to achieve when he took on the role of CEO, that of consolidating the iwi organisation and delivering dynamic outcomes for the benefit of tribal members. ''He will be difficult to replace.''

Te Runanga o Tribe - classic LOL

Goodall said he was leaving with a great sense of achievement. ''My job was to unify the Te Runanga Group and build the infrastructure that would enable Te Runanga, as our leadership, to have high expectations of the tribal organisation,'' he said. ''It was also my role to embed Ngai Tahu values, voices and faces across the wider portfolio of our work. After four years, I am confident that the foundations I intended to build, have been built.''

I would have liked a more positive strategy for employing iwi members and a better approach to farewelling iwi members that have contributed via their mahi. There are existing Ngāi Tahu in senior roles within the office at the moment but i cannot say that I can see any of them able to step up to the role. That could be an outdated view because I contracted to the Office at the same time as Anake came in and left a year or so after that. But one thing is for sure the role MUST be filled by a member of Ngāi Tahu whanui - there can be no compromises on that.

Footnote - There is a list of Anake's many achievements here and this acknowledgement from our Kaiwhakahaere is good too.

I wish to publicly acknowledge the fact that Anake has dedicated some 25 years of his professional career to our tribal development. He began his journey with us in 1987 as we presented Te Kerēme (the claim) to the Waitangi Tribunal and then, as Claims Manager, was a key member of the team that drove and then delivered the Ngāi Tahu Settlement. Upon taking up the role of CEO, he has worked tirelessly to consolidate our tribal institutions to be ready for the next stage of our intergenerational journey. Thank you Anake.

the greater good

I am against the privatisation, even partly, of state assets. These energy companies already charge too much and bringing more profit motive won't help that. Of course to generate profit you can either increase revenue or decrease costs (in the guise of creating efficiency). Doesn't decreasing costs lead to redundancies and the like. Don't you increase revenue by raising prices?

Key has put the carrots out there of 'mum and dad' investors but they already own state assets and they won't be the investors it will be the corporates. He also mentioned that maori could buy in - and our Kaiwhakahaere has come out very, very, very quickly with a "yes it's a good idea."

Ngai Tahu says it supports the plan because it could be good for iwi investors.

Kaiwhakahaere Mark Solomon says the privatisations of Government assets - such as New Zealand Rail - in the 1980s and 90s were poorly handled. But he says this proposal is a new chapter.

So Ngai Tahu as a corporate investor buy in and prices go up - what then - we make profit from others difficulty, even our own people?

The old 'if we don't someone else will' argument will be put - it is illusion and false hopes. It suits the agenda to have maori capitalists - they just support the system of oppression and make money while their cousins struggle on nothing.

80% oppose state assets - including many Ngai Tahu whanui.

The Standard have come out with some strong posts outling the reasons this selling of the family jewels is crazy. Here, here and here.

Te Waihora is worth more than money

This is a scandal. Ministers of Conservation and Agriculture influencing the decision to extend, on conservation land, a polluting grazing licence that DOC had told the farmer was not going to be renewed - meanwhile no consultation with iwi and the joint management plan for Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere), ignored. The protection of Te Waihora mocked by conservation minister wilkinson. The Greens are on to this, sadly the maori party are nowhere to be seen, as usual.

Stuff

The Green Party has accused Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson and Agriculture Minister David Carter of leaning on the Department of Conservation (DOC).

Greenpark dairy farmer Barry Clark was told by DOC in May that his grazing licence on conservation land near Lake Ellesmere, south of Christchurch, would not be renewed. DOC's decision not to renew the licence was overturned at a meeting in August involving Canterbury-based ministers Wilkinson and Carter, Clark and Mahaanui area manager Bryan Jensen, and a five-year extension was approved. Extending the lease contravened DOC's policy of removing grazing from the lake edge to protect the environment and upset some DOC staff. It also contradicted what Clark was told by the department in 2004 – that the next five-year term of his lease would be his last. Clark's lease is the last for grazing cattle on conservation land around the lake's edge. Internal DOC emails said it was embarrassing and unfortunate Clark was invited to reapply for his concession.

The decision was made without thinking about the environment or conservation of this lake or the relationship that DOC is supposed to have with Ngai Tahu. Within the Te Waihora Joint Management Plan it clearly states

"The rangatiratanga and kaitiaki of Ngai Tahu are upheld by Ngai Tahu and respected by the department within the management of Te Waihora and that that management is in accordance with tikanga and kawa.”

Is this respect for Ngai Tahu?

In September, more than a month after it was decided Clark's lease would be extended, Ngai Tahu contacted DOC to ask why it was not consulted. DOC staff replied "no concession had been processed or issued" and Clark's application would be sent to the Canterbury Conservation Board and Ngai Tahu for comment. Norman said it was extraordinary that the Government "lied" to Ngai Tahu by suggesting the decision had not been made.

No that is not respect - it is the opposite. How can any iwi or hapu have any confidnece in DOC or the dim minister? This joint management plan was the first and it was completely ignored. If there have been lies - then what the hell is going on. The sooner full control of the Te Waihora is given back to Ngai Tahu the better.

our feet are bound

I'm not really interested in smashing Ngai Tahu Property - I think they have a role to play in the success of the iwi but sometimes I do wonder. The 1348 hectare Rakanui station, 10 kilometres south of Kaikoura has just been sold by NT Property to a Californian couple who plan to 'keep Rakanui private for the family'. NT property have taken a half million loss to flick the property on, their plans for a 'residential farm park containing 64 sections of 0.5ha each' was approved but Tony Sewell says they are moving out of 'large scale lifestyle developments'.

From The Malborough Express- Stuff

A sales history of the property shows the then 1348 hectare Rakanui station, 10 kilometres south of Kaikoura, was sold in 2005 for a gross price of $8 million. Last year, the reported 1345 hectares was sold to the American couple for $7.5 million by Ngai Tahu Property Ltd. The property had changed hands in 2004 for $2.3 million, and in 1983 for just $117,500.

So we have sold 1348 hectares of our land and we did it because it was considered another transactional item in the market place. The justifications are/will be many and varied but the facts remain.

There is something wrong with the model if that can happen - there is something in the tension between maintaining the putea and our kaitiakitanga role that needs to be really looked at and considered IMO. This is precious life giving land and i mean life giving in the spiritual as well as the practical sense. If this sale is okay - what next?

Perhaps mana whenua approved this sale, maybe they consider it a good thing - I hope not.

i'm leery

I have been having a real think about this proposal for Ngai Tahu to get into dairying after reading this article in Te Karaka. I don't want to knock ideas but I am not sure about this  - maybe my concerns are illusory, I hope so. I know the arguments in favour of this idea of dairy farms and I agree with some of them but I am one of those who are very leery of this.

Mark Solomon

Ngai Tahu plans a dairy farm totalling nearly 1000 hectares in Canterbury in a bid to develop a "new model" of sustainable farming.

If the pilot is successful, the iwi could develop a dairy operation totalling 16,000ha in Canterbury.

Ngai Tahu chairman Mark Solomon said the three-year trial would be monitored to see whether a dairy farm could be developed that did not pollute water and land.

There are a number of people in Ngai Tahu who are very leery about dairy farming and have a negative view," he said.

Our property firm believes we can run sustainable dairying, so we will have a look and see how they do. If they can show to Ngai Tahu that it's sustainable, then we will do it.

Is it possible to develop a dairy farm that doesn't pollute water or land - surely pollution is inevitable - just the amount is variable. It is a pilot for sure, but I worry about the effects on the land and river. Runanga have been fighting for years to protect the mauri of the waterways and rivers from water use for dairying and pollution. I struggle to see how this proposal and these fights can be reconcilled but apparently they have been.

The sustainability targets are very important - what is success? This is obviously the nub of the 'sustainability' angle and is part of the measurement of the success of the pilot, so a fair bit of work must be going into this area already. The difficulty is words like sustainability which often means different things to different people. "No pollution" is pretty clear though.

If dairy farms are going ahead then surely organic farms, where best practices for the treatment of the cows, water and land are met, should be strongly considered and piloted. Sure organic farms are not perfect but in combination with a permacultural approach they can produce product of high quality that is needed and wanted. Why not create the model within this sector. And plant trees for the cows to shelter under.

Are we potentially putting at risk the land and the river and the downside of getting it wrong is great.

Essential to all

Great news that Te Ana Ngai Tahu's Rock Art Centre in Timaru has just opened. This is so good for everyone. The taonga are respected and treasured and guests can visit, the community are involved and it is bringing all people together. This is the way to do it .

From The Timaru Herald

After years of planning, Te Ana Ngai Tahu's Rock Art Centre has had an emotional opening.

About 200 people gathered for a chance to celebrate the opening ceremony in Timaru yesterday.

 The centre is hugely significant for Ngai Tahu," Mr Solomon said.

"It is the culmination of years of hard work and devotion to protecting and preserving this important cultural and historical taonga for the iwi and now we have the perfect showcase for sharing it with the world."

One look was not enough for locals Tewera King and Koriana Waller, who said they were not the only ones popping back for another look.

"It's our taonga. Not all of us have been out to see the rock art. For a person who knows nothing about the local iwi, it's all there," Mrs Waller said.

"It's just an awesome resource for the local community and our visitors to learn about taonga and resources."

Not only did the centre present the rock art, but it also showed other practices in the area such as eeling and collecting kai. "I thought it was just the rock art, but there's more in there."

Mr King said the centre was brilliant and had a good balance of information and activities.

I can't wait to visit the center. Congratulations to Gerard and the team for this kaupapa. The centre is open to all and that is the way it is done.

influencing the spin

Ngai Tahu Kaiwhakahaere Mark Solomon has responded to farrar at kiwiblog via a letter. He outlines where farrar just got things wrong. It is good that Solomon is getting into the blogs and reading up - I am disappointed that he can take the time to reply to the gnats spinmeister (who often has disgusting comments on his posts) but he can't be bothered replying to some of the posts made here which ask some tough questions - like where is the mandate to consider mining on our land - was it debated at Hui a Tau? Kiwiblog is this countries favorite blog - but I think it is poor - well short of The Standard in terms of quality of posts and comments.

It could be that Solomon agrees with everything being said here - I am pretty sure that he knows this blog exists :)

Hat tip - Kiwiblog

cut the line

Awesome submissions from Ngai Tahu and Te Atiawa against the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. This must be sending a message and a half to the maori party - when you get an iwi confirming that it may become an intergenerational battle - you know this is deadly serious.

From Claire Trevett NZH

Ngai Tahu's submission quotes the iwi's kaiwhakahaere, Mark Solomon, as saying it would be better to leave it to future generations to take up the battle of fixing the injustices caused by the 2004 Act "rather than shouldering the burden of a history that alleges Maori support for a 2011 Act that is equally as unjust".

Te Atiawa rejected the bill saying the tests were "unreasonably high" and if they were not changed, it should not go ahead.

This bill is opposed by most maori - no ifs, buts or maybes - the only thing keeping it going is the maori party. If you have a monster fish on the line and it's dragging you under - you cut the line to live.

Ngai Tahu said the test for title and rights should be based on Maori custom and the intensity of each iwi's relationship with the coastline, rather than on exclusive use and occupation of the coastline.

The submission rejected the argument of the Maori Party co-leaders that while the bill was not perfect, it was all the current political climate allowed and it should be for future generations to try to improve upon it.

The maori party can't spin this, they can only accept or reject it. Cut the line!

Kahu aged three

What can I say - I'm a proud dad. Kahu is three and he loves his bike and the skatepark - here's why

beware the mining beast

What would really happen if maori land was opened up, by iwi for mining. Well other indigenous peoples have experienced this, for instance the Takla Lake First Nation people in British Columbia.

These are quotes from the Executive Summary of "Bearing the burden the effects of mining on First Nations in British Columbia. International Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School. Full report here.

While Takla has good relations with some mining companies, it has generally been ambivalent or even hostile to new projects. This attitude stems largely from the fact that community members feel excluded from the process that reviews proposals and inundated with mining claims and projects on their traditional territory. In addition, Takla—home to exploration sites, a major open-pit mine, and several abandoned operations—has seen the range of harms caused by different stages of mining. Members of Takla widely report destruction of habitat, a decrease in wildlife, and a fear of health problems from contaminants. Because of Takla’s close

ties to the land, these effects cause cultural as well as environmental injury. Finally, even those members who are willing to accept mining say that they have not received the benefits that are supposed to accrue from the industry—in particular, revenue sharing and employment opportunities.

The players in this industry do not care about indigenous peoples or the environment - they really have just one responsibility and that is to generate a profit for shareholders. They crush their opponents, break their promises and laugh as the walk across broken land and bodies, all the way to the bank. They are mean and serious and they eat indigenous rights without blinking. It is too late once they are in, once they sniff a profit and the door is opened - much too late then.

Takla’s traditional governance structure reflects this close relationship to the land. Known as the potlatch system, it is centered around keyohs, families’ traditional tracts of land. A family leader represents the keyoh at community gatherings and is commonly described as “speaking for the land.” The names these keyoh holders inherit often indicate their responsibilities to the environment. The name “wise fish,” for example, belongs to a man who must protect the water so that fish can safely spawn. The Canadian government, however, banned the potlatch system for many years and created an alternative governance structure—an elected chief and four council members—that still survives. The existence of two types of spokespeople sometimes creates tensions because government officials communicate primarily with chief and council as representatives of the whole community while ignoring keyoh holders who “speak for the land.”

There are many similarities between indigenous peoples. I hope our 'speakers for the land' are making their voices heard - we need to hear them.

During interviews, Takla’s members voiced particularly adamant criticism of the lack of consultation. Because free entry does not require consultation, they often only learn about claims registered on their traditional lands through chance encounters with miners. These encounters have become rare since the advent of online registration, yet the number of claims has skyrocketed. Takla’s leaders said they are overwhelmed with NOWs for exploration proposals. They have neither the time nor the financial resources to conduct in-depth studies to supplement the superficial information they receive and to identify any problems before the deadline. Even when they do respond, their former mining coordinator said, “99.9 percent of the time” the government dismisses their objections.

When the floodgates are opened the flood comes.

Mining also threatens Takla’s culture and spiritual life. The registration of claims without consultation may be viewed as culturally insulting to Takla given their historic occupation and claims to traditional lands. At later stages of the process, environmental degradation interferes with Takla’s subsistence hunting, food gathering, and use of medicinal plants, and with the transmission of cultural knowledge that accompanies those activities. Finally Takla members generally feel a spiritual connection to the land, and some told IHRC that they experience personal pain when they see the environment injured by mining.

The time to halt these talks is now, before any momentum is generated, before it gets out of control and un-turn-round-able. We must learn the truth from those that have already suffered the consequences of letting the mining beast off it's chain.

Have you considered Papatūānuku?

News that some iwi leaders including Ngāi Tahu's Mark Solomon have been in talks with the government on mining is beyond disturbing. They argue that they want to be at the table and that they already have expertise in utilizing natural resources. They also say it is just talks, they will go to their iwi for consultation if any plans are developed. It all starts with talks and I just don't think this group are gullible enough not to understand the political implications of their move. But have they considered the cost to maori and the values that have sustained us for generations. Have they considered Papatūānuku?

Solomon says , NZH

"It's about getting all the best information you can and acting responsibly as kaitiaki (caretaker) for protecting the land and if there is an economic spin out of it, that is good because that also goes back into the community."

Protecting the land does not include mining, no matter how much money you get for it. There are lines and this is one and it is unbelievable that they don't see this - it is further evidence for those that believe they have been subsumed by the power and become part of the problem, not the solution.

There is no mandate from manawhenua for this, whether it's talks or plans - none! The lines about building economic status are complete bullshit if that status is built on the cutting and drilling of Papatūānuku for money - that is not following the kaupapa, that is the opposite of the kaupapa. There can be no wealth without the whenua and will mining support or destroy the mauri of the whenua? There is no mana in this - just a wasteland where mana is absent.

TV3

"Ngai Tahu would look at anything, as long as it's sustainable," says tribe leader Mark Solomon. "If the environmental impacts are negligible, then we would look at it."

Really, anything?

For some iwi to even begin the process of considering mining Papatūānuku for money is a demonstration of an unwell mentality. A well mentality is one that is centred in the maori world view of interconnection, mana, tapu, mauri, wairua and whakapapa. How does this activity fit with our values? It doesn't! Why have we fought our claim - so that we can desecrate our mother? NO!

This will be fought tooth and nail I promise you that.