This report by NZ Herald reporter Claire Trevett is highly contentious. Where does she get her information from? It implies an internal leak from someone in the Maori Party. Who did the Herald pay off for this? What purpose does she have for writing this article? Despite I'm sure her clear calls for transparency to the public of the processes involved in this week's hearing, this article seems to do nothing more than add fuel to the fire without due respect to the process they wish to follow. Although I am not a Hone supporter and this article seems to argue against him I do feel that some parts of the media have played a hugely unjust role in fuelling unwarranted noise and ire over an issue that they really have no real aroha or care for. Leave the Maori Party to sort things out for themselves and out whoever was the person or persons responsible for breaking the party's own stance on not talking to the media or drop the 'investigative journalist' approach to your reporting that accesses (legally/illegally?) the confidential statements that are purportedly mentioned here. But I'm sure that doing this would be of little benefit to the NZ Herald. I am wondering if this is part of the plan of a media stalwart that would love nothing more than the Maori Party to be fractured even more than they already are.
The Government's arch critic, Hone Harawira, wanted to become a minister when the Maori Party first went into coalition with National in 2008, according to a confidential statement by caucus colleague Te Ururoa Flavell.
In his submission to today's disciplinary committee hearing against Mr Harawira, obtained by the Herald, Mr Flavell said both he and the Te Tai Tokerau MP were prepared to take up ministerial positions - belying Mr Harawira's recent strong criticisms of his party for staying in the coalition.
"Put it this way: If he was to have received a ministerial position, would he still be writing to criticise the relationship? Answer: I doubt it."
Mr Flavell laid a complaint against Mr Harawira a month ago over a column the MP wrote in a Sunday newspaper in which he criticised the coalition and questioned the Maori Party's leadership and direction.
Mr Flavell revealed Mr Harawira's ministerial hopes to counter the MP's claims that the party had gone off the rails and sold its people out by dealing with National.
Mr Flavell was also scathing about Mr Harawira's criticism of National as "anti-worker" and "anti-environment," saying the MP had had difficulties with his own staff and once told the caucus he did not believe in climate change and nobody would tell him to drive a smaller car.
"So he champions the cause and yet abuses the cause as he feels."
Mr Flavell said Mr Harawira had backed the relationship with National at the time. He described the newspaper column as "lies, mistruths, misleading statements about everything but himself and his part in things".
In the often-emotional submission, Mr Flavell said it was not easy laying a complaint against his friend of more than 40 years and it had taken a toll on his whanau, the party and the other MPs, who had suffered personal abuse.
However, Mr Harawira appeared to have a deliberate strategy to cast the other Maori Party MPs in a bad light.
He depicted the maverick MP as "talking himself up" and "big-noting" by constantly painting himself as the only true voice of Maoridom. "That strategy is aimed at putting the rest of us down."
Mr Flavell also depicted brattish behaviour, saying Mr Harawira "spits the dummy" if he doesn't get his way and had a "Hone's view is right and everyone else is wrong" attitude.
He questioned Mr Harawira's conviction, saying co-leader Tariana Turia Rebel 'eyed minister's job'
left the Labour Party over the first Foreshore and Seabed Act.
"She is comfortable enough to support this [latest] bill. If it is that Hone is so vehemently opposed, then surely a belief in that principle would result in his walking as well."
Mr Flavell indicated things were past the point of no return, saying the other MPs "have lost any semblance of trust in Hone and clearly, he in us."
"I am clear that more hui with Hone or an electorate will not change things. He is his own man."
Last week, party president Pem Bird banned all of those involved in today's hearing from talking to the media, after Mr Harawira apparently breached an agreement by appearing on TV One's Marae.
Mr Bird did not return calls yesterday but has previously said the national council will meet tomorrow to decide on any disciplinary committee recommendation made today.
However, it is understood the Te Tai Tokerau electorate wants another extension, claiming many could not attend today's hui because of Waitangi Tribunal hearings in the Far North.
(Claire Trevett, NZ Herald online - 'Rebel MP wanted job as a minister' 21/02/2011)
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Saturday, 19 February 2011
Would protests be counter-productive during the RWC?
I'm with Selwyn Muru on this one. An article from the Sunday Star Times.
What do you think though?
Disgruntled Maori have warned that Rugby World Cup celebrations could be disrupted if their grievances – including those over the foreshore and seabed – aren't addressed.
Prominent Maori say the tournament, just 200 days away, would be a "grand opportunity" to make a political statement.
Long-time Ngapuhi activist and Maori Council executive member Titewhai Harawira said she was determined to "expose" New Zealand's treatment of Maori to the large foreign media contingent covering the event.
"We are going to use the international media to expose what is going on in this country," she told the Sunday Star-Times.
"I want to be telling international media that all those reports they get that say we are well looked after and our land is intact are rubbish. We are going to be talking to the international media, absolutely."
Harawira said she hoped to provide visitors with a "whole chronology of what has happened in this country".
"I will talk about how legislation has taken away and denied us," she said. "We have time to put it all together, hand it out and talk about it."
The tournament has previously been used as a vehicle for protest.
In 2003, Aborigine and refugee groups held a series of marches to coincide with cup games across the Tasman. Members of the Aboriginal community made anti-racism speeches and waved placards outside Townsville's stadium before the Scotland and Japan match.
In France, railway and metro strikes disrupted the last two weeks of the 2007 tournament.
Maori Council executive member Ngaire Te Hira said Maori had a lot to be frustrated about in world cup year, including anger over historical mining on ancestral Tainui burial grounds, proposed mining in Northland, and the foreshore and seabed bill.
The world cup will also be held during the trial of those charged after the so-called "Tuhoe terror raids" in 2007.
Te Hira – who is backing a proposed hikoi to protest at the Maori Party's stand on the foreshore and seabed legislation – said the event was an ideal forum for Maori to make a stand.
"I think it is a grand opportunity for us to expose things. I am worried about my status as a Maori mother and grandmother, and about the future for my grandchildren and the children coming after them.
"I am worried about the nation New Zealand should be proud of too, and that we are a first-nation people who have been willing to share and be patient, but I'm afraid some of us are running out of patience."
Te Whanau-a-Apanui kuia Lillian Howe said she would support peaceful protest action during the cup, and said it was inevitable.
"Where else can they make a stand? There is no other way, is there? I guess those who want to make a stand, that is the only place to do it, because the government is just not listening."
PROTEST WARNING
Maori have been warned it would be "counter-productive" to protest during the Rugby World Cup.
Rugby NZ 2011 chief executive Martin Snedden said he was unaware of any proposed protests during the event and would be disappointed if Maori or other groups used the event for political gain.
But he doubted they would take to the streets during the seven-week celebration of rugby, warning it could be "counter-productive".
"I think they will recognise that this is such a one-off opportunity, for them to use it as leverage for something risks a pretty strong backlash.
"We saw that in that whole thing around The Hobbit. Sometimes protest, of course, is perfectly legitimate. But where the country is trying to put its whole collective foot forward, I don't think you will find people want to spoil that," he said.
Ngati Kuru kaumatua Selwyn Muru also warned of a backlash if Maori used the event as a protest vehicle.
"I am not into that. We shouldn't spoil this for thousands of New Zealanders," Muru said.
"That is one way of turning the country back against us. That is my personal view. We need to be fair to our Pakeha brothers and sisters.
- Sunday Star Times
What do you think though?
Disgruntled Maori have warned that Rugby World Cup celebrations could be disrupted if their grievances – including those over the foreshore and seabed – aren't addressed.
Prominent Maori say the tournament, just 200 days away, would be a "grand opportunity" to make a political statement.
Long-time Ngapuhi activist and Maori Council executive member Titewhai Harawira said she was determined to "expose" New Zealand's treatment of Maori to the large foreign media contingent covering the event.
"We are going to use the international media to expose what is going on in this country," she told the Sunday Star-Times.
"I want to be telling international media that all those reports they get that say we are well looked after and our land is intact are rubbish. We are going to be talking to the international media, absolutely."
Harawira said she hoped to provide visitors with a "whole chronology of what has happened in this country".
"I will talk about how legislation has taken away and denied us," she said. "We have time to put it all together, hand it out and talk about it."
The tournament has previously been used as a vehicle for protest.
In 2003, Aborigine and refugee groups held a series of marches to coincide with cup games across the Tasman. Members of the Aboriginal community made anti-racism speeches and waved placards outside Townsville's stadium before the Scotland and Japan match.
In France, railway and metro strikes disrupted the last two weeks of the 2007 tournament.
Maori Council executive member Ngaire Te Hira said Maori had a lot to be frustrated about in world cup year, including anger over historical mining on ancestral Tainui burial grounds, proposed mining in Northland, and the foreshore and seabed bill.
The world cup will also be held during the trial of those charged after the so-called "Tuhoe terror raids" in 2007.
Te Hira – who is backing a proposed hikoi to protest at the Maori Party's stand on the foreshore and seabed legislation – said the event was an ideal forum for Maori to make a stand.
"I think it is a grand opportunity for us to expose things. I am worried about my status as a Maori mother and grandmother, and about the future for my grandchildren and the children coming after them.
"I am worried about the nation New Zealand should be proud of too, and that we are a first-nation people who have been willing to share and be patient, but I'm afraid some of us are running out of patience."
Te Whanau-a-Apanui kuia Lillian Howe said she would support peaceful protest action during the cup, and said it was inevitable.
"Where else can they make a stand? There is no other way, is there? I guess those who want to make a stand, that is the only place to do it, because the government is just not listening."
PROTEST WARNING
Maori have been warned it would be "counter-productive" to protest during the Rugby World Cup.
Rugby NZ 2011 chief executive Martin Snedden said he was unaware of any proposed protests during the event and would be disappointed if Maori or other groups used the event for political gain.
But he doubted they would take to the streets during the seven-week celebration of rugby, warning it could be "counter-productive".
"I think they will recognise that this is such a one-off opportunity, for them to use it as leverage for something risks a pretty strong backlash.
"We saw that in that whole thing around The Hobbit. Sometimes protest, of course, is perfectly legitimate. But where the country is trying to put its whole collective foot forward, I don't think you will find people want to spoil that," he said.
Ngati Kuru kaumatua Selwyn Muru also warned of a backlash if Maori used the event as a protest vehicle.
"I am not into that. We shouldn't spoil this for thousands of New Zealanders," Muru said.
"That is one way of turning the country back against us. That is my personal view. We need to be fair to our Pakeha brothers and sisters.
- Sunday Star Times
Thursday, 17 February 2011
A Statement by the Maori Party on the Takutai Moana Bill
I encourage you to read it in light of all other information you have on the Marine and Coastal Areas Bill. This is taken directly from the Maori Party website.
Keeping our Promise
Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Bill
Tena koe, nga mihi nui ki a koe
We made a promise during the 2008 elections to repeal the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act and restore access to the courts.
When we entered into a relationship with the National Party, our promise became a milestone in that agreement.
That milestone has been a key priority of our work in Parliament over the last 18 months.
The Bill, which delivers on our promise, is at a crucial stage and the public has been bombarded with negative messaging that has gained traction.
We hope you will be able to take the time to read through the points we make below. It is imperative that our constituents get information directly from the Maori Party that is not skewed with misinformation but instead focuses on what the Bill is trying to achieve and what outcomes there will be for tangata whenua and all New Zealanders.
Kia ora.
KEY FACTS
Abolishes Crown title and recognises customary interests (mana tuku iho) of all coastal iwi
Customary interests include a right to protect wahi tapu; and a right to be consulted on conservation and resource management.
Allows iwi to claim customary title
Customary title is a property right that includes customary interests plus all minerals except gold, silver, uranium and petroleum; all newly found taonga tuturu, development rights, and a right to develop a plan which regional councils must recognise and provide for.
Restores the right of access to court
If negotiations with Ministers do not reach agreement, tangata whenua can take their title claims to court.
The Crown has to prove customary rights were extinguished, not iwi.
KEY STATEMENTS
The Attorney General will be recommending the House amends the Bill to require any recognition of customary title through negotiated agreement be given effect through legislation. This means that every such agreement will be subject to full Parliamentary and public scrutiny. This will dispel any concerns ab! out future governments doing shoddy deals.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Can the Government decline customary title over lands that have been confiscated?
If an iwi is declined title, it will not be because their land was confiscated, so no the Government and Court can not decline title solely on the basis of confiscation. Iwi who have had their land confiscated are still eligible to claim customary title.
Is there funding available for claimants seeking customary title and if so, what funding is available, how can you apply for it and how much is available?
Yes. The Crown has said funding will be made available to iwi in a manner sim ilar to how claimant funding is provided in the Treaty settlement negotiations process. It has also said that funding will be made available to iwi and hapu who opt for the court process.
Can the current foreshore and seabed that is not privately owned be bought and sold?
Under the Bill the foreshore and seabed cannot be sold, unless it is "reclaimed land" where the rights of fee simple title apply.
Can a moratorium be placed on the foreshore and seabed not in private ownership until iwi have exhausted their claims?
Yes, but it will require the political will of the Government. Also, some iwi including Ngati Porou do not want to wait for other iwi before they c! an progress their foreshore and seabed claim. The Maori Party has asked the Government to place a moratorium on mining licences but it has declined our request. Iwi/Hapu can file claim with High Court/Waitangi Tribunal and or Government requesting customary foreshore and seabed to be "land banked" or "for it to be investigated" until claims are exhausted - the same as dry-land cases.
Why can't we just repeal the Seabed and Foreshore 2004 Act and create a Marine and Coastal Bill to replace the 2004 Act with conditions that are more acceptable to Maori?
Repealing the Act but not replacing it will cause uncertainty and the law cannot allow uncertainty. Therefore Parliament cannot repeal the Act without replacing it with legislation.
Why can't Maori get tupuna title to the foreshore and seabed?
The Maori Party asked for this but the Government declined it - saying there was no legal precedent for tupuna title.
Can a moratorium be placed on mining licences that affect the foreshore and seabed?
The Maori Party asked for this but the Government declined it.
For any clarification of this information or if you have further questions please email maoriparty@parliament.govt.nz
Keeping our Promise
Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Bill
Tena koe, nga mihi nui ki a koe
We made a promise during the 2008 elections to repeal the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act and restore access to the courts.
When we entered into a relationship with the National Party, our promise became a milestone in that agreement.
That milestone has been a key priority of our work in Parliament over the last 18 months.
The Bill, which delivers on our promise, is at a crucial stage and the public has been bombarded with negative messaging that has gained traction.
We hope you will be able to take the time to read through the points we make below. It is imperative that our constituents get information directly from the Maori Party that is not skewed with misinformation but instead focuses on what the Bill is trying to achieve and what outcomes there will be for tangata whenua and all New Zealanders.
Kia ora.
KEY FACTS
Abolishes Crown title and recognises customary interests (mana tuku iho) of all coastal iwi
Customary interests include a right to protect wahi tapu; and a right to be consulted on conservation and resource management.
Allows iwi to claim customary title
Customary title is a property right that includes customary interests plus all minerals except gold, silver, uranium and petroleum; all newly found taonga tuturu, development rights, and a right to develop a plan which regional councils must recognise and provide for.
Restores the right of access to court
If negotiations with Ministers do not reach agreement, tangata whenua can take their title claims to court.
The Crown has to prove customary rights were extinguished, not iwi.
KEY STATEMENTS
- To turn our back on this Bill, would be to break the promise we made to our people in 2005.
- If the Bill isn't passed, the law that deprived our people of their day in court, of their mana moana will remain in force. Is this what the people want? Is this why we marched?
- The Bill does not give us everything we wanted, but it is a step forward. If others have a better plan for repealing the FSSB Act, let's see it.
- The Bill reopens the door that was slammed shut in 2004, and allows tangata whenua to have a longer discussion on customary rights.
- The Bill does not settle the issues, but it keeps them alive.
- The Maori Party can advocate for customary rights and tikanga, in the Bill, but only tangata whenua can negotiate and settle matters of mana tuku iho.
- The decision to support or oppose the Bill is a matter of strategy: do we take a step forward, knowing we still have a long way to go? Or do we retire from the battlefield, and try to rejoin the fray some time in the future? That is the choice facing Maori people, and we will be guided by them.
The Attorney General will be recommending the House amends the Bill to require any recognition of customary title through negotiated agreement be given effect through legislation. This means that every such agreement will be subject to full Parliamentary and public scrutiny. This will dispel any concerns ab! out future governments doing shoddy deals.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Can the Government decline customary title over lands that have been confiscated?
If an iwi is declined title, it will not be because their land was confiscated, so no the Government and Court can not decline title solely on the basis of confiscation. Iwi who have had their land confiscated are still eligible to claim customary title.
Is there funding available for claimants seeking customary title and if so, what funding is available, how can you apply for it and how much is available?
Yes. The Crown has said funding will be made available to iwi in a manner sim ilar to how claimant funding is provided in the Treaty settlement negotiations process. It has also said that funding will be made available to iwi and hapu who opt for the court process.
Can the current foreshore and seabed that is not privately owned be bought and sold?
Under the Bill the foreshore and seabed cannot be sold, unless it is "reclaimed land" where the rights of fee simple title apply.
Can a moratorium be placed on the foreshore and seabed not in private ownership until iwi have exhausted their claims?
Yes, but it will require the political will of the Government. Also, some iwi including Ngati Porou do not want to wait for other iwi before they c! an progress their foreshore and seabed claim. The Maori Party has asked the Government to place a moratorium on mining licences but it has declined our request. Iwi/Hapu can file claim with High Court/Waitangi Tribunal and or Government requesting customary foreshore and seabed to be "land banked" or "for it to be investigated" until claims are exhausted - the same as dry-land cases.
Why can't we just repeal the Seabed and Foreshore 2004 Act and create a Marine and Coastal Bill to replace the 2004 Act with conditions that are more acceptable to Maori?
Repealing the Act but not replacing it will cause uncertainty and the law cannot allow uncertainty. Therefore Parliament cannot repeal the Act without replacing it with legislation.
Why can't Maori get tupuna title to the foreshore and seabed?
The Maori Party asked for this but the Government declined it - saying there was no legal precedent for tupuna title.
Can a moratorium be placed on mining licences that affect the foreshore and seabed?
The Maori Party asked for this but the Government declined it.
For any clarification of this information or if you have further questions please email maoriparty@parliament.govt.nz
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Tariana Turia on the Takutai Moana Bill on TangataWhenua.com
Bill is one small step in a long journey
Tuesday, February 15th, 2011Hon Tariana Turia, MP for Te Tai Hauauru
The Bill addresses two fundamental rights violated by the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act – the right to access justice through the courts, and property rights. If negotiations with Ministers do not reach agreement, tangata whenua can take their title claims to court.
Following the select committee process, the Attorney General will be recommending that the House amends the Bill to require any recognition of customary title through negotiated agreement be given effect through legislation. This means that every such agreement will be subject to full Parliamentary and public scrutiny. This will dispel any concerns about future governments doing shoddy deals.
The Bill abolishes Crown title and recognises customary interests (mana tuku iho) of all coastal iwi. Customary interests include a right to protect wahi tapu; and a right to be consulted on conservation and resource management.
The Bill allows iwi to claim customary title. Customary title is a property right that includes customary interests plus all minerals except gold, silver, uranium and petroleum; all newly found taonga tuturu, development rights, and a right to develop a plan which regional councils must recognise and provide for.
This Bill transfers the burden of proof, so the Crown has to prove customary rights were extinguished, rather than iwi having to prove they were not.
It sets new threshold tests for customary title, unlike the 2004 Act. The tests incorporate tikanga, allowing for variations among iwi, transfers of rights between hapu, and for tikanga to evolve. For example, allowing others to fish, and overlapping rights of neighbouring hapu, will not disqualify claims (manaakitanga is part of tikanga). Spiritual or cultural associations, as well as traditional usage, are also parts of the test.
The tests do NOT require claimants to own adjoining land (so raupatu iwi can claim customary title).
To support claimants in their applications, the Crown will provide funding in a manner similar to how claimant funding is provided in the Treaty settlement negotiations process.
We believe that to turn our back on this Bill, would be to break the promise we made to our people in 2005 that the Maori Party would repeal the 2004 Act. If the Bill isn’t passed, the law that deprived our people of their day in court, of their mana moana, will remain in force. Is this what the people want? Is this why we marched?
The Bill does not settle the issues, but it keeps them alive. It is our contention that the Maori Party can advocate for customary rights and tikanga in the Bill, but only tangata whenua can negotiate and settle matters of mana and rangatiratanga.
Iwi accept that in their treaty settlement negotiations they will likely receive between one and three percent of what was originally taken. Given this, it seems unrealistic to expect a political party of five to get back everything taken through the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act.
We know that the Bill does not give us everything we wanted, but it is a step forward. It reopens the door that was slammed shut in 2004.
For me its simple – do we take a step forward, knowing this is but one small step on a long journey?
Or do we withdraw to the sidelines, and wait for another day, risking all our hopes on a possibility that Labour or National will want to have another go, somewhere along the line. I can’t take that chance – our progress and our development is too important to put on hold.
In the past week there has been a lot of information including a substantial amount of misinformation about the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.
Rather than adding to the noise I want to instead focus on the positive outcomes that there will be for all New Zealanders, and in particular the significance of this Bill for tangata whenua.The Bill addresses two fundamental rights violated by the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act – the right to access justice through the courts, and property rights. If negotiations with Ministers do not reach agreement, tangata whenua can take their title claims to court.
Following the select committee process, the Attorney General will be recommending that the House amends the Bill to require any recognition of customary title through negotiated agreement be given effect through legislation. This means that every such agreement will be subject to full Parliamentary and public scrutiny. This will dispel any concerns about future governments doing shoddy deals.
The Bill abolishes Crown title and recognises customary interests (mana tuku iho) of all coastal iwi. Customary interests include a right to protect wahi tapu; and a right to be consulted on conservation and resource management.
The Bill allows iwi to claim customary title. Customary title is a property right that includes customary interests plus all minerals except gold, silver, uranium and petroleum; all newly found taonga tuturu, development rights, and a right to develop a plan which regional councils must recognise and provide for.
This Bill transfers the burden of proof, so the Crown has to prove customary rights were extinguished, rather than iwi having to prove they were not.
It sets new threshold tests for customary title, unlike the 2004 Act. The tests incorporate tikanga, allowing for variations among iwi, transfers of rights between hapu, and for tikanga to evolve. For example, allowing others to fish, and overlapping rights of neighbouring hapu, will not disqualify claims (manaakitanga is part of tikanga). Spiritual or cultural associations, as well as traditional usage, are also parts of the test.
The tests do NOT require claimants to own adjoining land (so raupatu iwi can claim customary title).
To support claimants in their applications, the Crown will provide funding in a manner similar to how claimant funding is provided in the Treaty settlement negotiations process.
We believe that to turn our back on this Bill, would be to break the promise we made to our people in 2005 that the Maori Party would repeal the 2004 Act. If the Bill isn’t passed, the law that deprived our people of their day in court, of their mana moana, will remain in force. Is this what the people want? Is this why we marched?
The Bill does not settle the issues, but it keeps them alive. It is our contention that the Maori Party can advocate for customary rights and tikanga in the Bill, but only tangata whenua can negotiate and settle matters of mana and rangatiratanga.
Iwi accept that in their treaty settlement negotiations they will likely receive between one and three percent of what was originally taken. Given this, it seems unrealistic to expect a political party of five to get back everything taken through the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act.
We know that the Bill does not give us everything we wanted, but it is a step forward. It reopens the door that was slammed shut in 2004.
For me its simple – do we take a step forward, knowing this is but one small step on a long journey?
Or do we withdraw to the sidelines, and wait for another day, risking all our hopes on a possibility that Labour or National will want to have another go, somewhere along the line. I can’t take that chance – our progress and our development is too important to put on hold.
Monday, 14 February 2011
Why I am against the proposed hikoi
Some Maori are proposing to hikoi against the Takutaimoana Act. I agree with Turia when she says that Maori ought to read it and understand it before they take to the streets. The article from the Radio New Zealand website outlines her position on the suggestion of a hikoi.
'Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says Maori should read the Marine and Coastal Area Bill before they march against it.
Waatea News reports that Auckland District Maori Council is threatening another hikoi against the bill, which is expected to have its second reading in the next couple of weeks.
Mrs Turia says the bill the Maori Party has contributed to is significantly different to the 2004 Act which sparked the first hikoi.
While the new bill does not go as far as the Maori Party wanted, Mrs Turia says it is an improvement on the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson says people taking court action under the Marine and Coastal Area Bill will be able to seek funding from a special fund administered by the Minister of Maori Affairs, rather than being eligible for legal aid.' (Radio New Zealand News, February 15th, 2011)
This proposed hikoi will, if it does actually go ahead, cause much more contention than the hikoi of 2004. Collectively Maori were more united in stance against the Foreshore and Seabed Act and to this day (nearly 7 years later) there remains widespread animosity to it from both Maori and non-Maori alike. As I have stated in a previous post, the new act is still in a lot of ways similar to the Foreshore and Seabed Act and yes there are problems with it and yes it doesn't go as far as properly acknowledging the rights that the Maori Party wanted but I believe that the new act is a step in the right direction. Harawira, Turia and Sharples all want the same thing but their methods, about how best to approach it and attain it, are different.
The method of change being advocated by Turia and Sharples is one of gradual change with the inclusion of mana tuku iho in the phrasiology of the new bill and the ability for funding to be sought through the Ministry of Maori Affairs. Turia has noted that if things don't work for Maori then we can change things again, as she argues that nothing is set in concrete, laws change and develop as we seek improvement. Harawira wants to do it in an 'all-or-nothing' manner which demands rather than dialogues and which threatens rather than talks. Harawira is to be commended on his 'no compromise' position but I'm scared of his overtly religious overtones on his own website which states that the Maori Party ''are no longer being seen as active defenders of the faith." Defend away but I believe that if the hikoi does go ahead it will then contribute to an exacerbation of the binaries; 'pono' vs the 'plastic' Maori, 'those who defend' vs 'those who do not', those who are 'true Maori' vs those who 'play Maori'. This is what I am scared of developing after seeing the heckling that Sharples got last week where he was labelled a 'plastic Maori'. I believe that the proposed hikoi will not only be about the Marine and Coastal Bill but it will cut to the core of Maori identity. Such a hikoi will be a symbolic slap on the hand to those Maori who propose gradual change rather than the expediency and almost revolutionary-like change others are seeking.
'Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says Maori should read the Marine and Coastal Area Bill before they march against it.
Waatea News reports that Auckland District Maori Council is threatening another hikoi against the bill, which is expected to have its second reading in the next couple of weeks.
Mrs Turia says the bill the Maori Party has contributed to is significantly different to the 2004 Act which sparked the first hikoi.
While the new bill does not go as far as the Maori Party wanted, Mrs Turia says it is an improvement on the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson says people taking court action under the Marine and Coastal Area Bill will be able to seek funding from a special fund administered by the Minister of Maori Affairs, rather than being eligible for legal aid.' (Radio New Zealand News, February 15th, 2011)
This proposed hikoi will, if it does actually go ahead, cause much more contention than the hikoi of 2004. Collectively Maori were more united in stance against the Foreshore and Seabed Act and to this day (nearly 7 years later) there remains widespread animosity to it from both Maori and non-Maori alike. As I have stated in a previous post, the new act is still in a lot of ways similar to the Foreshore and Seabed Act and yes there are problems with it and yes it doesn't go as far as properly acknowledging the rights that the Maori Party wanted but I believe that the new act is a step in the right direction. Harawira, Turia and Sharples all want the same thing but their methods, about how best to approach it and attain it, are different.
The method of change being advocated by Turia and Sharples is one of gradual change with the inclusion of mana tuku iho in the phrasiology of the new bill and the ability for funding to be sought through the Ministry of Maori Affairs. Turia has noted that if things don't work for Maori then we can change things again, as she argues that nothing is set in concrete, laws change and develop as we seek improvement. Harawira wants to do it in an 'all-or-nothing' manner which demands rather than dialogues and which threatens rather than talks. Harawira is to be commended on his 'no compromise' position but I'm scared of his overtly religious overtones on his own website which states that the Maori Party ''are no longer being seen as active defenders of the faith." Defend away but I believe that if the hikoi does go ahead it will then contribute to an exacerbation of the binaries; 'pono' vs the 'plastic' Maori, 'those who defend' vs 'those who do not', those who are 'true Maori' vs those who 'play Maori'. This is what I am scared of developing after seeing the heckling that Sharples got last week where he was labelled a 'plastic Maori'. I believe that the proposed hikoi will not only be about the Marine and Coastal Bill but it will cut to the core of Maori identity. Such a hikoi will be a symbolic slap on the hand to those Maori who propose gradual change rather than the expediency and almost revolutionary-like change others are seeking.
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Maori Party Never Going to Please All
Follow the link below to a NZ Herald online report by journalist Tapu Misa. She articulates the issues involved in the Maori Party being a minor coalition partner alongside the realisation that it is impossible for the Maori Party to be all things to all Maori. She does not see this as a bad thing but as an awakening into the acknowledgement of the diverse political positions we as Maori hold.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10706014
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10706014
Critiquing Harawira's stance on issues
Harawira has made statements on the TVNZ show 'Marae Investigates' which aired in NZ this morning (13th February, 2011) in which he apologises for his past misbehaviour and inappropriate comments and manner. His TV interview today sees Harawira break into tears, asking people not to judge him on his behaviour but on the issues that he stands for, arguing that no-one has pulled him up on his stance on issues. So let's take a look at a few of the issues Harawira outlines on his own website (7th February, 2011) which from what I can read into them, he believes that the Maori Party has sold out on or lacked conviction in calling for action on the following;
'...recent proposals indicate that there has been no change in the Government’s attitude to Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed since the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Neither does this Bill indicate any such change. Unfortunately, the Bill maintains many of the discriminatory aspects of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It still, explicitly, treats Maori interests as a lesser form of title than freehold title. Until the Government’s attitude to Maori customary interests changes, it is going to be difficult to achieve a durable resolution of these issues and impossible to achieve one that is just.'
Jones also argues that he is underwhelmed by how 'mana tuku iho' is recognised in the bill but suggests that such a statement may open up a more productive discussion of Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed than in the previous bill. He states,
- We should not only be saying we want GST to be taken off food in the next budget, we should also tell the PM publicly that we did not support the last GST increase, and that any further increase in GST will be a coalition-breaker.
- When Tariana Turia’s voters say that the most important issue for them is the Maori language, then we should be calling for Maori to be compulsory in all primary schools.
- When government says that 60,000 children started school last week, 12,000 of them will leave without being able to read and write, and that most of them will be Maori, we should be demanding that government cancel any further bailouts for big business, and instead spend the money on ensuring that all Maori kids can read well, write well, count well and speak well by the time they’re 10, and that we will achieve that by 2014.
- We should oppose the government’s Marine and Coastal Areas Bill because it does not give us the title that our people marched for, and because most of our people do not support it. We should instead ask that the 2004 Bill be repealed and a moratorium be put on the FSSB for a couple of years to see if we can come up with a deal acceptable to Maori, while accommodating the wishes of other New Zealanders. This bill does not do that and we should not feel embarrassed about opposing it.
'...recent proposals indicate that there has been no change in the Government’s attitude to Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed since the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Neither does this Bill indicate any such change. Unfortunately, the Bill maintains many of the discriminatory aspects of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. It still, explicitly, treats Maori interests as a lesser form of title than freehold title. Until the Government’s attitude to Maori customary interests changes, it is going to be difficult to achieve a durable resolution of these issues and impossible to achieve one that is just.'
Jones also argues that he is underwhelmed by how 'mana tuku iho' is recognised in the bill but suggests that such a statement may open up a more productive discussion of Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed than in the previous bill. He states,
'I am also pretty under-whelmed by the way that mana tuku iho has been recognised. The explanatory note states that “the mana tuku iho of iwi and hapū is explicitly recognised in the Bill”, though the only reference to mana tuku iho in the Bill is contained in Clause 4, which sets out the purpose of the legislation. This may be symbolically important, which is not to say that this inclusion in the purpose provision has no teeth whatsoever. In any case, as I have previously suggested, even primarily symbolic changes may help to open up a more productive discussion of Maori interests in the foreshore and seabed, However, the fact that this reference is not supported by more specific provisions, laying out some of the practical effects of the recognition of mana tuku iho suggests that the Government is not yet ready to engage in that more productive discussion.'
Yes, there are issues with the new bill and yes there are problems with the practicalities of how provisions for Maori might be fully recognised by the new act, but rather than bolster through and demand, demand, demand until it gives Maori the title that they marched for in 2004, I believe the current leaders of the Maori Party are being more intelligent in their approach to change-making for good in Aotearoa.
Harawira, based on his actions has shown himself unable to compromise and dialogue. He claims to be for Maori interests but I believe his approach will hurt more than mend, ruffle rather than repair and cause more division rather than the reciprocity and understanding that is needed in New Zealand.
Saturday, 12 February 2011
NZ Herald questions Harawira over need for Kaupapa Maori protocols to be followed
I have just read an article by the NZ Herald's chief political editor (John Armstrong) dated 12th of February 2011. The title of his article reads, 'No special protocol for Harawira's demise' which highlights in a minute part the issue I've raised here in my first blog post. While I support this aspect of his article in principle and believe that he has used Harawira’s case as a headline grabber rather than any real critical insight into the issue of kaupapa Maori process and politics, the only real issue I have with Armstrong’s article is in his first paragraph. It states,
'Ignore the flowery twaddle being talked up in Maoridom about how the prosecution of Hone Harawira ought to have proceeded according to the principles of kaupapa Maori from the very start.'
While I'm not sure of Armstrong's exact meaning in his use of the phrase, 'being talked up in Maoridom' it gives the impression to me, as a Maori, that a large or even significant amount of people in te Ao Maori (the Maori world) are in support of Harawira's claim to cultural protocol processes needing to be followed during the latest wranglings in the Maori party. I may be wrong, but his article also gives me the impression that only those who are not a part of Maoridom can see through Harawira's twaddling nonsense (perhaps as a Maori I was not his target audience and he needed to pitch it right (pun intended with the term ‘right’). If this is what he intends I am saddened by his argument. If he was to articulate that there are some Maori (rather than capitulating the position as nestled ‘in Maoridom’) who are calling for cultural processes to now be followed in Harawira's suspension case, I would be more satisfied.
But my critical head tells me that his argument unfortunately resigns itself (again!!) to lumping us Maoris (excuse the bad English) into one homogenous thought-pot. Armstrong should know better to realise that not all of Maoridom hold the same position on the issue being raised, we do not all believe the same things, nor are we all aligned politically, economically or for that matter culturally.
Following the article are two public comments/responses, one by a supporter of Harawira and one from a non-supporter. I will attach the response posted by the latter as it articulates a view reminiscent of my own.
We have heard several times Hone calling for Kaupapa Maori/Tikanga Maori process and dump the Pakeha Process. The non-Maori and for that matter many Maori themselves do not know what that process is. I would actually love for Hone to explain it. Most importantly I would like Hone to explain if he has followed Maori Kaupapa and Tikanga when he spoke and wrote about his friends and leaders -in Maori terms his whanau- Most importantly he did that in the Pakeha median (news papers, radio and TV) along with social media. He even called them d********. Man up and explain Hone. I am sure you are man enough and have some mana left in you. (Public post by Phantom Jr – New Zealand Herald (Online) February 12th 2011.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Hone Harawira and Following Kaupapa Maori Cultural Processes
Hone Harawira has been suspended from the Maori Party and as reported in the media, he still seems to be scrambling to survive despite the clear intentions of other members, including the co-leaders Dr Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia, that unless he toes the party line, he might as well leave. Despite all the shenanigans there is one particular aspect to Harawira's argument that rings empty in my Maori ear that needs analysis.
Harawira cites the Maori Party's accommodating relationship with National as being problematic, that they have compromised their manifesto and cheated Maori people at large with a number of national policies. Harawira bemoans the very sad state that his party has succumbed to and believes that Kaupapa Maori processes are being negated in relation to how his suspension and surrounding incidents have been handled. Taken from a public statement Harawira made following his suspension from the Maori Caucus on Tuesday 8th February 2011, he states;
'The process of Kaupapa Maori has been ignored, the constitutional process has been ignored, communication has clearly broken down right across the party, and I think that what most Maori Party members would want is for this whole mess to be set aside, cancel the lawyer, save the money, drop the disciplinary procedures, set the suspension aside, disappear onto a marae somewhere with a clear directive - and don't come out till its all been sorted out properly.
It's what my kaumatua and kuia have been saying since day one; it's what the constitution says; I'd be happy to do it...'
He said again: 'The process of Kaupapa Maori has been ignored.' I find it totally contradictory of Harawira to NOW be claiming to be a true follower of Kaupapa Maori processes. In November 2009 in an email response to criticism of the way he skipped off to Paris while on a parliamentary visit to Brussels, Harawira told former Waitangi Tribunal director Buddy Mikaere: "White motherf...kers have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullshit?"
In July 2010 Harawira was also widely criticised for comments made in an interview with the Weekend Herald, where he said he wouldn't feel comfortable with his children dating Pakeha. I guess that includes me too! Though I have brown skin and a long-winded Maori handle thanks to one of my tupuna, another of my tipuna comes from England, is white and a Pakeha living in Aotearoa!
Since Harawira is 'clearly' an ardent follower of Kaupapa Maori processes, which processes do these appalling actions follow? Does he carry out such statements and actions in the name of Kaupapa Maori? I'm struggling to figure out which process it might be...whakawhanaungatanga???...surely not!? Kaupapa Maori is said to engage with all forms of oppression and those structures that maintain and perpetuate those oppressions. Does a leader who uses public monies to fund a side trip to Paris not count as someone abusing and maintaining opppresion against those he serves by using their money for personal reasons?
Kaupapa Maori to me is a way of life, not a 'turn it on', 'turn it off' self-absorbed convenience that Maori in power can play 'God' over the rest of us Maori people. We need leaders with integrity, who speak and live the truth they espouse i nga waa katoa!! Leaders who contradict themselves, who use the same tools of political clout and political right used by the colonial powers of the past to get their way in the world, need nothing more than a reality check through the Kaupapa Maori window.
Harawira cites the Maori Party's accommodating relationship with National as being problematic, that they have compromised their manifesto and cheated Maori people at large with a number of national policies. Harawira bemoans the very sad state that his party has succumbed to and believes that Kaupapa Maori processes are being negated in relation to how his suspension and surrounding incidents have been handled. Taken from a public statement Harawira made following his suspension from the Maori Caucus on Tuesday 8th February 2011, he states;
'The process of Kaupapa Maori has been ignored, the constitutional process has been ignored, communication has clearly broken down right across the party, and I think that what most Maori Party members would want is for this whole mess to be set aside, cancel the lawyer, save the money, drop the disciplinary procedures, set the suspension aside, disappear onto a marae somewhere with a clear directive - and don't come out till its all been sorted out properly.
It's what my kaumatua and kuia have been saying since day one; it's what the constitution says; I'd be happy to do it...'
He said again: 'The process of Kaupapa Maori has been ignored.' I find it totally contradictory of Harawira to NOW be claiming to be a true follower of Kaupapa Maori processes. In November 2009 in an email response to criticism of the way he skipped off to Paris while on a parliamentary visit to Brussels, Harawira told former Waitangi Tribunal director Buddy Mikaere: "White motherf...kers have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullshit?"
In July 2010 Harawira was also widely criticised for comments made in an interview with the Weekend Herald, where he said he wouldn't feel comfortable with his children dating Pakeha. I guess that includes me too! Though I have brown skin and a long-winded Maori handle thanks to one of my tupuna, another of my tipuna comes from England, is white and a Pakeha living in Aotearoa!
Since Harawira is 'clearly' an ardent follower of Kaupapa Maori processes, which processes do these appalling actions follow? Does he carry out such statements and actions in the name of Kaupapa Maori? I'm struggling to figure out which process it might be...whakawhanaungatanga???...surely not!? Kaupapa Maori is said to engage with all forms of oppression and those structures that maintain and perpetuate those oppressions. Does a leader who uses public monies to fund a side trip to Paris not count as someone abusing and maintaining opppresion against those he serves by using their money for personal reasons?
Kaupapa Maori to me is a way of life, not a 'turn it on', 'turn it off' self-absorbed convenience that Maori in power can play 'God' over the rest of us Maori people. We need leaders with integrity, who speak and live the truth they espouse i nga waa katoa!! Leaders who contradict themselves, who use the same tools of political clout and political right used by the colonial powers of the past to get their way in the world, need nothing more than a reality check through the Kaupapa Maori window.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)