the drip continues

It has indeed been interesting watching the debate about the indigenous rights of Māori and water. Key the prime minister calls the claim by The Māori Council, "opportunistic" and that shows what a dim he is - hey key, how long have Māori been fighting for equality? Don't bother answering bankster I wouldn't believe what you say anyway. Perhaps key should heed Annette Sykes advice that key should, "either get a law degree or stay quiet about Maori water rights issues". 

Yes STFU because this following comment from key is outrageous

NZH

and I think that there's no merit in the case that the Maori Council is bringing.

No merit? How the fuck would you know key. Read all the evidence already have you?

The pressure is building on The Maori Party.  Maanu Paul

Maori Council spokesman Maanu Paul said it was "crunch time" for the party and co-leaders Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples, who have argued they need to stay at the Cabinet table to make a difference.

and

“In a Maori world, they should act like Maori – defend their mana, not the money.”

and from Annette Sykes

I beg Tariana, who I've got the hugest respect for, to sit back and reflect and in the spirit of Che Guevera who obviously influenced her last week, position herself for freedom and the rights of our people rather than to take money as a Prime Minister's friend at the table.

Initially i thought they would never walk but now I dunno, they actually could and I hope they do - for all of us.

 

Key has made a blunder with this whole fiasco and part of that blunder was to insult Tariana and Pita by not seeing them sooner. But i'm not worried about them, they have made their bed and if they did resign from their agreement with national, well that would be good, a final positive to add to the mix.

 

The wheels are starting to fall off - time to up the pressure!

mad, bad and sad

Evidence can be a terrible thing. We know that Māori and pasifika peoples are more likely to come to the attention of the police and now we also know that they get tazered by the police a lot more than others - how much more?

NZH

ETHNICITIES
During the 11 months to August 9, police tasered 88 people including:
* Maori: 35
* Pacific Islanders: 16
* Europeans: 35
* Asians: 1

The introduction of Tasers was bitterly opposed by the Maori Party and the Greens with the Maori Party's Hone Harawira and the Greens' Mr Locke both raising concerns their use would reflect police "racism". Mr Locke yesterday said the latest statistics raised a number of issues about the weapons. "Certainly they're being fired disproportionately at Maori. The reasons for that are something we should look into."Mr Locke was also concerned that police were too quick to use Tasers on people with mental health issues - 58 during the 11-month period.

Mana Party spokeswoman Annette Sykes said that despite Mr Harawira's warning "there has been this disproportionate outcome for Maori and Polynesian individuals which is a sad indictment on us".

But police and their minister, Judith Collins, say the figures merely reflect the "sad fact" that Maori are over-represented in crime statistics.

Yes it is a 'sad fact' but what does that fact mean and where does it come from. For collins it means add more police, more weapons, more jails and more arrests but those responses do not address the issue. There is fundamental institutional racism at play here - and if you know that there is an issue and you choose to ignore it then you are actually supporting it. Governments know about this issue, highlighted by these tazer statistics, and have not addressed it because it does not suit their agenda to. They prefer this situation and you may wonder why - blame is one reason, it is always good to have a group to blame for things and the distorted history of this country offers the indigenous people as an established blameworthy group, as happens in many colonised countries. It is not us, it is them - it is those 'others'. To fix this situation requires more than a band aid.

I am sick to death of our people getting tazered and arrested, fingerprinted even though they have no conviction, and put in prison. I am sick to death of this institutional racism and the compounding effects of the Crowns continuted ignorance of their role as a true partner to Māori. We need to change some things and change them fast. Politically I am putting my faith in Mana - they will put a stick in the spokes to stop this and create opportunities to work on solutions. And I see constituitonal change as being essential.

reviewing what

I agree with Annette Sykes on the so called 'constitutional review' that it is actually an 'institutional review'. We can't deal with the issues unless we actually look at them and the terms of reference directs the panel in certain directions (even though they argue that this hasn't happened) - they may come up with great recommendations  but under this government, as evidence has shown, that will be it. Meanwhile our situation gets worse - how bad? Check this out.

Anyway back to Annette Sykes

"The only issues that will be explored by this panel will be what the term of office should be for the Government, the size of the electorates and whether or not there should be more Treaty provisions within future legislation. The parameters of the review stipulate that rather than recognising the Treaty of Waitangi as this country's constitution, the Crown would much rather tinker with what already exists, a system that was forced upon our people and gives Maori no voice as was envisaged under the Treaty. Our people will have certain expectations that will not be met due to the 'institutional' nature of the review".

The voices will be heard but will they be listened to - they certainly weren't when they changed the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It will be difficult for the members of the review to hear all the input, offer their recommendations - to see them fall by the wayside as the Government continues on it's merry way. 

Mr English says he hopes many Maori who have strong constitutional views take the opportunity to air them because often those types of discussions are held between the Crown and Maori.

That is a good point - that these discussions are held between the Crown and Māori - but which Māori, and do they represent the wide variety of views that Māori have. Luckily there is also another process occuring where the people can really give their views and have them heard, as Annette explains

"I would much rather our people engage with the Independent Constitutional Working Group - Aotearoa Matike Mai, being led by the most prominent Maori expert on constitutional matters, Moana Jackson. That process is Maori-led and will be able to fully explore the true potential of the Treaty of Waitangi as our country's constitution. MANA will encourage people to participate in hui that will be held around the country by the Independent Constitutional Working Group, rather than being disappointed because of the limitations of the Crown's process".

O'Sullivan (2003) in 'Beyond Biculturalism: The politics of an indigenous minority' sums it up well for me

"The absence of self determination is the foundational cause of resource alienation and collective political and economic marginalisation."... "Self determination challenges the systemic and ideological foundation of post-colonial notions of sovereignty and government. It aims to decolonise the indigenous relational status to the nation state. it seeks an equality that can only be achieved by the recognition of group rights and it requires the withdrawal of the state from domains in which it would prefer to intrude."

We need a constitutional review and we need it to be focus on the real issues. The maori party may claim another win for them in getting the review underway but it is a hollow victory and they know it.

Wai 262 - it's big

Well the Wai 262 report has been published and it is a wide ranging long document that unfortunately I have not been able to read yet. But I have read the fact sheets and I’m getting my head around what the report is saying. So this is just an initial reaction and I’ll continue to add thoughts and other commentary as it comes along. I don't mean to be too negative with the report as it was needed after such a long wait, but some of the language makes me feel a little uneasy - have I got it wrong and are seeing shadows? 

Waitangi Tribunal

It is time for the Crown–Māori relationship to evolve from one based on historical grievance to an ongoing partnership based on mutual advantage. This partnership must secure the place of mātauranga Māori in New Zealand law, and in government policy and practice. This partnership is what the Treaty of Waitangi envisaged. But it is also necessary for New Zealand’s future – for its prosperity and its sense of nationhood.

This term ‘historical grievance’ is a problem for me – it seeps some sort of blame and is a loaded term. Yes there is a ‘historic’ nature to the claims and relationship but the same exploitation is happening today to Māori. As it always is in the Māori world the past is there, and the future, within the now.

‘Mutual advantage’ is a nothing term  and I just don’t feel very good about the language and tenor of that whole bit.

This lack of a place for Māori culture in contemporary law and policy compounds a wider picture of social disparity, reflected for example in educational performance, employment and incomes, and the current crisis in Māori health. It also continues a national story in which the Crown, either deliberately or through neglect, has largely supported one of New Zealand’s two founding cultures at the expense of the other.

Hang on, ‘one of two founding cultures’ what the hell does that mean? I’m sorry but that is not right IMO. That is diminishing the mana of Māori. The Treaty of Waitangi was signed by rangatira and the Crown. There was no settler government or culture. Yes the kiwi culture has developed since then but the Treaty was with the Crown. There is Māori culture, the indigenous native culture of this place and then there is everyone else. All others who have come and made this place home, all those who have been born here and died here, who have loved here and cried here. All have been welcomed, all are welcome to come to this place of Māori.

Yet these concerns mask the underlying good will and respect that characterises the relationship between Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders. This good will is making the settlement of historical injustices possible. And once those injustices are resolved, it can provide a basis for the nation to move forward, for the Crown and Māori to establish a relationship based on mutual benefit, and for New Zealand to develop a new national identity based on the partnership between our founding cultures.

I’ve already talked about the ‘founding cultures’ bit. The ‘goodwill’ is an amazing term considering the whole process from start to finish is designed and managed by the Government to help achieve their aims. Is this term supposed to imply some choice in the matter? The Government offers the settlement and the Iwi says yes or no – that isn’t choice or consultation or discussion or partnership – it is the same old same old.

The Treaty of Waitangi gave the Crown the right to govern and enact laws, but that right was qualified by the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (full authority) for iwi and hapū over their ‘taonga katoa’ (all their treasured things). The courts have characterised this exchange of rights and obligations as a partnership.In this context, tino rangatiratanga means that iwi and hapū are entitled to exercise authority over their mātauranga, and to exercise authority over their relationships with taonga such as cultural works and parts of the environment that are significant to their culture and identity, so that they can fulfil their obligations as kaitiaki.

That is good and I have found while reading the documents that there are many good bits.

Ko Aotearoa Tēnei provides a framework for Treaty partnership in 21st century New Zealand. It makes recommendations for forms of partnership in many areas of Crown activity, including education, science, culture and heritage, conservation, resource management, indigenous flora and fauna, language, and patents.

Another good area but the next bit is not so good in my view.

This framework does not seek to elevate Māori cultural interests inappropriately above the interests of other New Zealanders. In a modern, democratic New Zealand, the ‘full authority’ envisaged by the Treaty will no longer be possible in every case. But the framework does seek to ensure that Māori interests are at least at the table when decisions are made – so they can be fairly and transparently balanced alongside other interests, rather than sidelined as they often are now.

I just don’t understand this language – ‘inappropriately’ WTF are they writing this with Don Brash in mind or what. I’ll goddam ‘transparently balance’ some other interests all right cos at least I’ll be at the table. I thought the Waitangi Tribunal had more grunt than this pacifying stuff – just be quiet or you’ll upset people.

The path that embraces partnership recognises and values Māori culture as one of New Zealand’s founding cultures. In so doing, it provides Maori with a positive platform from which they can address social issues and contribute to national prosperity; it moves the Crown-Māori relationship from one based on grievance and negativity to one based on mutual advantage; and it provides the basis for future in which all New Zealanders can look forward with optimism to a shared future. It is, the Tribunal says, time to perfect that partnership.

What can I say that I haven’t already said – told off I have been, I’m negative and just saturated with grievance, along with many if not most of my brothers and sisters – we just have to get off our arses and give it a go – instead of hitting the bottle, the bong or the kids – then we can have some mutual advantage and we can optimistically look forward to shared future – yay

As usual the Waitangi Tribunal can only recommend and the Government will decide what, if any, to accept and put into practice.

This is just the introduction because the other fact sheets are intriguing too – what do they mean when the say Māori don’t own indigenous fauna and flora? What do they mean by ‘own’? Lots of questions but lest it seem that I am completely down on this report – I’m not, I am pleased it has been released and it covers so many important areas – I thank the authors and researchers and I only wish that it could have been sped up because the time taken has been a disgrace.

Good response from these politicians

NZH

But Maori Party MP Rahui Katene, daughter of one of the original claimants John Hippolite, said the report had been watered down and politicised. "The claim is about tino rangatiratanga or Maori control of things Maori," she said. "The report goes nowhere near dealing with that." The tribunal identified only one breach of the Treaty of Waitangi - the Tohunga Suppression Act, 1907, which banned rongoa (traditional healing). The act was repealed in 1962. But Katene was scathing: "To say there is only one breach is really ignoring the reality of what happened to each of those claimant iwi, and iwi all around New Zealand."

Lawyer Annette Sykes, counsel for one claimant group, said her claimants had asked Mana Party leader Hone Harawira about taking their concerns to Parliament.

  Good stuff also from Joshua and Simon

how many heroes?

I've often wondered about the question - who are your heroes? When I think of people that inspire me and are heroes to me, one name stands high and that is John Minto. I have blogged about him here and the words that Hone has spoken about him are my sentiments exactly.

Stuff

"In terms of a New Zealander, he is what I call a great New Zealander," Harawira told the Sunday Star-Times.

"He will be formally invited to be a candidate for Mana, first of all on the list.

"I have people talking about me being the leader of the Mana Party. But when I decided to chase Annette Sykes, I knew full well that she is a leader in her own right and in her own world.

"And John Minto is another person like that. People like that don't work around proclaiming their leadership... they are naturally leaders in the field they are involved."

The naysayers don't get it - how can they all be leaders and work together? But, to me it is the way Rangatira have always worked and make no mistake they are leaders and heroes and that is why I have sent my membership into the Mana Party, and like John Minto I have never joined a political party before, but the time for sitting on the fence is over - now is the time to seize the opportunity and create history. 

Harawira said he was "genuinely over the moon" that Minto would consider any offer.

"What he did during the Springbok tour, particularly for us Maori and Pacific Islanders, was impressive," he said.

The Party List for Mana is building and it is heroes 1, 2, 3 for me. Harawira, Sykes, Minto - a dream team for social activists and those who believe in equality and tino rangatiratanga and a nightmare team for the powers that be - they will cut through the bullshit like hot knives through butter. 

Mana Party

The Mana Party has launched and what a launch. Well done to everyone and I am very excited about what we can achieve this year. Now we have a vehicle to get behind and lend our passion and energy to. The values of the party are being developed but already we are seeing a strong social justice focus and that is great. This is part of the kaupapa that will attract support from all those who care about the disadvantaged, and there are many who do. The bigger picture is the main election so the by-election is a good opportunity to build the story and tighten the lines. The big emotion to invoke is hope - hope for the present and the future. Be positive in deriding their schemes - ridicule them and get people laughing at their idiocy.

Chris Ford says, "Hone Harawira brings Mana to the left" - which is a line I really like in an article that is worth reading

There has long been talk, but no action, on the need to form a new left wing party. Hone Harawira has thrown down the gauntlet. The wider left outside of the Mana Party needs to meet that challenge and talk with Hone and his leadership team. And the first thing that fellow Left wingers can do is at least endorse Hone's campaign for re-election at the forthcoming Te Tai Tokerau by-election. That's what I am also doing here, straight off. I look forward to seeing other left wing activists do.

Yes The Mana Party can represent all people who believe in the kaupapa. And we have seen some awesome support from some very influencial activists today. People who dedicate themselves to creating a better world for those less fortunate or disadvantaged. Tino rangatiratanga can be reconciled with social justice - they are both about equality.

There is much to do and it will be done and this movement will grow and gain momentum. The powers that be are afraid of Hone and people power so they will go hard to discredit everyone but they will lose. And we will win.

hope springs eternal

Well the maori party have got their constitutional review and the terms of reference include reviewing

From Stuff

Maori representation, including the Maori Electoral Option, Maori electoral participation and Maori seats in Parliament and local government.

The role of the Treaty of Waitangi within New Zealand's constitutional arrangements.

Whether New Zealand should have a written constitution.

Bill of Rights issues.

Based on maori party progress to date I am not confident that this review won't be used to reduce rights for maori and further the oppression. These sentences outline why

''Of course, we will keep in mind that enduring constitutional changes generally require a broad base of support. Significant change will not be undertaken lightly and will require either broad cross-party agreement or the majority support of voters at a referendum,'' Deputy Prime Minister English said.

Yes the majority must support any change and will they endorse change that empowers maori and acknowledges Maori status as tangata whenua, the indigenous people of this land?

Why is change needed?

From Annette Sykes

Statistics continue to reflect the poor socio-economic state of most Maori. The Maori unemployment rate is twice as high as non-Maori, and 1 out of 4 Maori recieve a benefit compared to one out of 10 non-Maori. Maori are 3 times more likely to live in overcrowded household compared to non-Maori. Only 2 out of 5 Maori are completing secondary education with a Level Two certificate compared to 2 out of 3 non-Maori. While maori currently represent around 13% of the general population we make up 51% of the prison population. In 2006 Maori accounted for 43% of all police apprehensions. Maori life expectancy is 10% lower than for non-maori and maori are twice as likely to be obese. our suicide rate is 1.6 times higher than non-Maori and our youth suicide rate is twice that of non-Maori.

We need change and I hope that this review will bring it but I am not confident that the review won't be usurped by devious people looking to feather their own nest.

threat recognition

I have just posted this comment up on Maui Street in response to Muzza's latest post on corporate iwi elite - based on Annette Sykes Bruce Jesson lecture. Why would I bother arguing against such a thing as corporate iwi elite when I cannot stand injustice and inequality? Well for one thing the line is too pat, too easy to roll off the tongue - what does it actually mean?

The other main reason is I want to effect change and villifying people won't do that.

I’ve been considering this issue of corporate iwi elite for a while - I’d like to put a counter argument almost as a devils advocate.

Maori as people have all sorts of ideologies – they have evolved as we have and they are valid because at the core they incorporate Te Ao Maori. Do we really believe that Tuku Morgan or Mark Solomon have plans to make themselves billionaires whilst their people starve and suffer. Are the members of the ILG and all of the other ones scum who are betraying themselves and their people? Or is it that they are doing their best under an oppressive capitalist worldview, combined with the monumental effects of colonisation, to gather power and influence for maori. What influence do they actually have? What jet airplanes are they flying around in? Mark Solomon’s pay is in Ngai Tahu’s annual report along with all of the various ways the money is being spent to empower maori. So what is the story? They are victims like all maori because they are maori. They aren’t some powerful elite – they are ex truck drivers and school teachers who have been elevated to positions within their iwi. They didn’t ask the government to set up the corporate iwi structures – they were given them and we have seen the scrutiny they get and the ridicule when mistakes are made. By defining maori via class or some other western construct, we devalue our own heritage and kaupapa. We are maori that is the beginning and end of the story. We use whatever to further the empowerment of maori as we always have done. We use the throwaways they give us and we tunnel away and undermine their paltry agendas and when the dust is settled, maori are empowered.

So I let myself rant on a bit there - aroha mai. Just remember that IMO empowerment of maori, will empower us all and bring us all together - we are all connected on the same waka.

My point around the ranting is that the real enemies for all of us are capitalist, commodification, individualist, selfish and greedy ideologies - they are not maori constructs although some maori follow those false gods with vigour.

I oppose those false gods with vigour.

Iwi Leadership Group - good article by Martin Kay

Why has this country still not endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

The Declaration was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly Sept. 13, 2007 with 143 states voting in favor, 11 abstaining, and four – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the U.S. – voting against it. Australia has since adopted the Declaration.

Ngai Tahu has been pursuing an advocacy programme through the UN for the past five years to address this issue.

There is an interesting media release from 13 May 2009, well worth a read.

And what a powerful article in the Dom today (Saturday 20-2-10) about the Iwi Leadership Group. I encourage you to go and read the whole article it is very good indeed.

As Martin Kay puts it

"But there is mounting unease among many, including Maori, that crucial decisions about the shape of the new law are being left in the hands of a small but extremely powerful and influential Iwi Leadership Group that is operating behind closed doors."

Who are they?

"The group is headed by Ngai Tahu chairman Mark Solomon and has about half a dozen members, including Tainui chairman Tukoroirangi Morgan, Ngati Porou chairman Api Mahuika, Whanau a Apanui chairman Rikirangi Gage and Ngati Toa negotiator Matiu Rei."

Annette Sykes,who is legal adviser and foreshore and seabed spokeswoman for Ngati Makino, says

"The leaders aren't unpopular. I want to be really clear - I have great respect for Mark Solomon. What is unpopular is the processes of co- opting and de facto negotiation that is being perceived by the Maori community as a result of the Crown wanting a one-stop shop. They don't want to deal with 40 people."

and

"The [Iwi Leadership Group] are corporate Maori. They're not ordinary Maori. They're the corporate entities, so what they [the Government] are doing is they're setting up a sounding board of corporate Maori. That is by no means an inclusive approach to the Maori position.

The Iwi leadership Group is appointed by forum of 50 Iwi.

"Questions about how prescriptive the "framework" put forward by the group for future negotiations will be have also been raised by the emergence of a document written by technical adviser Sacha McMeeking, who is also Ngai Tahu's manager of strategy and influence.

It floats a model under which the foreshore and seabed would be treated as a "shared" space, with any new law silent on the issue of ownership.

But iwi and hapu would also have the right to assert title in the courts, according to a new test based on Maori custom and traditions and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which would include the power to review and injunct decisions over the foreshore and seabed, and impose rahui (a ban on access).

The paper's status is unclear, but it has been dismissed by Attorney- General Chris Finlayson, who described it this week as "fantasy".

Hone in a recent speech to parliment said,

"It is us, the Maori Party members of Parliament, who have been asked to carry this battle. It is us who have the honour of speaking up for our people. And we do our people a grave disservice by passing this on to somebody else to handle; and I have no intention of treating my people with such disrespect."

Tariana said,

"the Maori Party is right to support the group as they are working on behalf of iwi and hapu that lost their rights in the Foreshore and Seabed Act."

So, some major considerations - is the Iwi Leaders Group the right group to set up the framework and if not them then who. Is Annette Sykes, who I totally respect, correct in talking about corporate and elite maori or is Tariana correct when she says,

"This is not an elite group. I get tired of this whole use of the word elitist. They are ordinary people who have struggled when there was no money around to fight for the rights of their hapu and iwi and they continue to do that."

big year coming up.