I’ve had a gut’s full too, Hone

Written By: - Date published: 8:59 am, October 20th, 2010 - 88 comments
Categories: foreshore and seabed, Maori Issues, racism - Tags:

I get Hone Harawira’s anger over National’s pandering to rednecks over the Foreshore and Seabed new legislation. That was the same anger that led to the Maori Party being formed in the first place (ironic that they’re voting for the new law). But I can’t abide by the racist language and actions he resorts to.

ACT’s campaign to get a clause in the new law that explicitly says access to beaches must be free, despite the fact that this was already obviously the case in the Bill, was a dog-whistle to redneck New Zealand (the Paul Henry-ites). The dog-whistle went: those lazy, greedy Maori are going to take away your beaches and then charge you to have a swim.

I can understand Harawira’s anger at that. I’ve had a gut’s full of the political Right nurturing Pakeha racism. They’ve been at it a long time, of course, but it has been worse in recent years, ever since Don Brash’s cynical and divisive Owera speech.

But none of that gives Harawira the right to paint all Pakeha with the brush of the racist Right. Duncan Garner reports that yesterday at Parliament Harawira “refused to speak to Pakeha journalists today – and refused to speak in English.”

Of course, Harawira can choose to speak only in Maori if he chooses and to whom he chooses. But his actions can only be taken as a slight to all Pakeha, and come on top of his comments about not wanting his daughter to date a Pakeha and ‘white mofos’-gate. I’ve had a guts fill of these race-based slurs.

I’m not going to get on my high horse about this – it’s not like Harawira said to the Prime Minister that all non-white Kiwis aren’t real New Zealanders while the PM giggled. Harawira is engaged in a political battle against Pakeha racists but he has it wrong when he lumps all Pakeha with the racist Right, and he risks becoming as bad as the racists he fights.

PS. I wrote this last night. This morning’s Herald suggests that the Maori Party might drop its support for the new Foreshore and Seabed legislation. I hope they do, because it is simply inadequate. But I’ve got my hopes up too often (ETS anyone) to think that Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples won’t sell out again.

88 comments on “I’ve had a gut’s full too, Hone ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tigger 1
    20 October 2010 at 9:35 am

    So when will he stop the histrionics and make a stand? He’s part of this government. He’s ‘the man’. So stop acting like a child, Hone. You’re unhappy, great! Do something, vote against it, leave the party…but enough with the posturing tantrums.

    By the way, speaking in Te Reo is fine. Refusing to talk to someone because of thecolour of their skin is sick.

    PS.

  2. Carol 2
    20 October 2010 at 9:42 am

    I also agree with Hone’s anger at ACT and their bigotted dog whistling, but don’t agree with Hone’s choicce of language. I wasn’t keen on the “fat, little” description. I would be the first to jump up and down if someone had used such language in criticising a woman politician. And I think it also has connotations ridiculing Hide’s masculinity as well.

    I like that Hone gets angry at such bigotry by the right. It doesn’t bother me at all that he spoke only Maori around the journalists.

  3. Shona 3
    20 October 2010 at 9:48 am

    Having lived in Hone’s electorate for more than 3 decades and been part of his immediate community for 2 decades his behaviour neither surprises nor offends me. I know how it feels to be part of the only pakeha family at the local school and how the children who were there who are now adults are some of Hone’s most fervent supporters. What does surprise me is the expectation that pakeha have that he would behave in an intelligent statesman like and visionary manner. He is an ignorant, uneducated, idle separatist . Those of us who valued and worked for the whole community in the north knew him to be such. Those of us who know him expect him to achieve fuckall while in parliament.Why are any of you surprised is it because so few of you actually know any Maori?

    • Bright Red 3.1
      20 October 2010 at 9:58 am

      don’t slur all Maori (as you do in your last sentence) for the behaviour of Harawira. That’s called racism.

    • The Voice of Reason 3.2
      20 October 2010 at 10:06 am

      You were doing so well up until that last line, Shona. It’s a shame you would assume such a thing when there surely is nobody living in NZ who doesn’t ‘know any Maori’? Friends, family, neighbours, workmates. If you’ve been on this blog before, you’d have spotted that some of the commenters here are Maori, many more are evidently sympathetic to Maori causes and the vast majority are inclusive, thoughtful people who go out of their way to understand the politics of the sovereinty debate.

      If what you are saying by the line that we ‘don’t know’ Maori, that, like you say of Harawira, they are all ‘ignorant, uneducated and idle’, then I recommend you join ACT and take your bigotry down the gurgler with them.

      • lprent 3.2.1
        20 October 2010 at 10:48 am

        I have first cousins who are Maori. There are Maori throughout my extended family. Far back in my family tree in the early 1800’s there is Maori in my ancestry. A high proportion of my friends are Maori. Shona is just being a ignorant idiot – a type that is also present in my family and even a few of my friends.

        Hone is pretty much Hone, and probably representative of his constituency. That is what an MP is for.

        What Shona is really saying is that the constituency that Hone serves with its different cultural values doesn’t have the same values as Shona. That is hardly surprising Shona sounds like they’d be a minority in any community – most people don’t spend as much time whining about other people being different, they just get on with living with them.

    • Adele 3.3
      20 October 2010 at 10:19 am

      Teenaa koe, Shona

      I know Hone, I know his whanau. He is not ignorant, he is highly educated in two worldviews – Maaori and Paakeha, he is definitely not idle as he has been actively working for his people since forever. Definitely he wants tino rangatiratanga for Maaori – that is, he wants the guarantees afforded to Maaori by Te Tiriti o Waitangi honoured.

      I know many that work for community in the Tai Tokerau would not agree with you and that an overwhelming majority of Maaori support Hone is testament to his hard work on their behalf.

    • Vicky32 3.4
      20 October 2010 at 5:27 pm

      I know Maori, I have them as part of my family, and you can’t say ‘all Maori are a’ and ‘all Chinese are b’ it’s just absurd…(although you may well be right about Hone as an individual.) I dunno…

  4. Adele 4
    20 October 2010 at 10:01 am

    Why be outraged that Hone would not speak to ‘white’ reporters. White reporters are hardly unbaised in their reporting of a Maaori voice. The media in NZ contributes to the conflicts between Maaori and Paakeha NZ in their sensationalist reporting of things Maaori – the most recent example being over Te Papa and taonga.

    • nzfp 4.1
      20 October 2010 at 11:17 am

      The media in NZ contributes to the conflicts between Maaori and Paakeha NZ in their sensationalist reporting of things Maaori

      Ae – ka whakae au ki tenei whakaaro. I believe that the media uses Maori/Pakeha disharmony as a distraction to keep the wider New Zealand population from focusing on real issues.

      For example there is zero debate in the media as to why NZ soliders are dying in Afghanistan – the Taliban have never attacked or threatened us so why is Apiata killing Afghani resistance?

      The SCF bailout resulted in a debt to the wider NZ community of 1.7 Billion dollars – 700 million more then the fiscal cap on the Waitangi claims. Every man woman and child in this country is tagged with a $400 bill to cover speculator loses. The SFO is now investigating the loans made by SCF in the run up to it’s collapse. Despite this – the debate centers on Kahui twins and Hone Harawira.

      The media sensationalizes Maori/Pakeha issues to distract us – it is exactly the same as a Matador using the red cape to distract the bull – or a parent using a dolly to distract a toddler – look at the dolly – look at the dolly while I take the rest of your toys away from you.

      The dolly is the Maori/Pakeha – Iwi/Kiwi – Male/Female – Middle class/working class false dichotomy used to distract us so that we are too busy with the minutiae of bullshit to be concerned with the real issues.

      The media should be asking why foreign Australian banks create from nothing 98% of our money supply – while the elected Government creates less then 2% – the private Australian banks have created over 5000% more money in our economy then the Government – can you spell I N F L A T I O N.

      The media isn’t asking why our nations money has been privatised and rented back to us at 6.34% interest.
      Source: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/monfin/c3/data.html
      Source: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/monfin/c7/data.html

      The media should be asking why the National Party leaders are all former or current bankers – Don Brash, John Key… The media should be asking if this is a coincidence – instead they are too busy telling us what colour Lindsay Lohan’s undies are and what expletive Harawira used today – because obviously Lohan’s nickers and Harawira’s choice of words are far more important then the fact that we do not live in a democracy and that our leaders are the same bankers that control our money supply and consequently our nation for their own private interests.

      Captcha:frames – because the media will not frame the questions that the public need answered.

  5. roger nome 5
    20 October 2010 at 10:06 am

    Hone doesn’t have to placate no white mo fos though. He’s got his seat so far on lock down, he can call for fluency in Maori language as a pre-rec to uni, and still be assured of victory. Not that i think his race-based outbursts further the political discourse in this country at all, but hell, if all my extended family had been beaten at school for speaking the language of my whakapapa i’d probably still feel a little raw – particularly given the likes of Paul Henry and Michael Laws enjoy imminence popularity amongst the insular white suburbanites of this country, to this very day.

    No need to be so precious about your race when it has near complete social hegemony in NZ. We have no need to feel victimised and insecure as the Maori do. This is is the stupidity of outrage over “reverse racisim”. Power must be read into the context that the words are spoken. Maori have been in an abusive relationship with Pakeha for near on 200 years now. European culture has abused and abused its position of dominance. Do you really begrudge the anger of a victimised person? I don’t – and hell the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” brigade on the right sure as hell don’t. Hypocrites.

  6. Shona 6
    20 October 2010 at 10:07 am

    What my beef is is the unrealistic expectations of well meaning sympathetic pakeha of the Maori Party. In my experience those Maori who are achievers and community orientated do not support the Maori Party. Alot of ignorant pakeha in their insulated midlle class suburbs do.

    • HitchensFan 6.1
      20 October 2010 at 10:39 am

      Sorry Shona, but reading between the lines of your posts, sounds like Kiwiblog is a better forum for you.

    • hateatea 6.2
      22 October 2010 at 2:18 pm

      I would be considered an achiever by many, although of modest means. I am a community based person, and I support the Māori party.

      Your comments seem to me to be based on supposition and sweeping generalities.

      Those pākeha that I know who support the Māori party are neither ignorant nor living in insulated middle class suburbs.

      captcha: cross as I am reading your tripe. (I am sure captcha has a sense of humour, probably irony)

  7. roger nome 7
    20 October 2010 at 10:14 am

    “In my experience those Maori who are achievers and community orientated do not support the Maori Party.”

    That’s the opposite in my circles – but then that’s the silliness of assuming that the behavior of your social group has any statistical relevance when applied to the general population.

    That said – many “successful Maori” i know are pissed off at the Maori Party leadership assuming a nice cuddly wuddly position on the Nat’s laps.

  8. Lanthanide 8
    20 October 2010 at 10:16 am

    “and come on top of his comments about not wanting his daughter to date a Pakeha”

    That is pure and simply mis-reporting by the media. What Hone *actually* said that that he “wouldn’t feel comfortable”, not that he would disallow it or stop them.

    I posted a comment on this with a link to a Media Watch story on it, search through the comments if you want to find it.

    • Bright Red 8.1
      20 October 2010 at 10:20 am

      seems like ‘not wanting’ is a fair paraphrasing of ‘wouldn’t feel comfortable’ to me. neither imply a ban.

      • roger nome 8.1.1
        20 October 2010 at 10:25 am

        But surely it’s about culture to Hone. He wants his children and yet-to-be-born grandchildren to be proud of their whakapapa, and the more Maori are assimilated in to the white gene-pool, the more they have their culture diluted. I do think he’s playing a little king Canute with that, but i do have sympathy for his position.

        • KJT 8.1.1.1
          20 October 2010 at 11:48 am

          How do you dilute culture?

          When my Aunt married into Hone’s Iwi my Grandfather was “uncomfortable” (Until he found his new son in law liked rugby, racing and beer just as much as he did). Hone’s mother was blatantly hostile accusing my Uncle of “betraying the race”.

          I thought we were getting over this sort of cr–p.

          • roger nome 8.1.1.1.1
            20 October 2010 at 12:45 pm

            kjt:

            Culture, is of course never a static thing, but it is possible for a culture to evolve in an empowered way. There are various forms of normative behaviour within the group of people that call themeselves Maori. The more those behaviours are varied in response to and replaced by Anglo-American culture (as it is the hegemonic one in NZ) the more the Maori identity(ies) loses its distinctness. That is not an empowered way for Maori to develop as a culture. It is anchorless recipie for an existential anxiety, grounded in a lack of an historical narrative. Without an historical narrative, a people is lost and so is their culture.

            This is how culture is diluted, and this is a big problem for Maoridom.

            • KJT 8.1.1.1.1.1
              20 October 2010 at 1:14 pm

              I think Maori have been reasonably successful in diluting English culture. When you work with a whole bunch of people from Oz, US and UK you can see how really different we are.
              I would hope we are building a new culture that combines the best of both.

              • roger nome …
                20 October 2010 at 1:38 pm

                oh yeah – Maori culture(s) has/have seriously influenced euro-NZ culture (perhaps not so much in the south island). But it’s definately problematic to claim that any distinctness from other anglo cultures is due to that influence.

                I don’t think it’s contentious to claim that euro-nz culture has impacted Maori culture much more than the other way around. That’s the problem. Maori have a very fractured identity because of this – and it makes it difficult to find a position to move forward from. It leaves one in no-man’s land, to some degree.

              • Vicky32 …
                20 October 2010 at 5:35 pm

                IMO, NZ has almost nothing to do with English culture! (My English father, and English friends have all been baffled on coming here, to discover the kind of amalgam of Scots/Irish and American that white New Zealand culture is and AFAIK has been for 60 years!) NZ is a hostile environment for English people and things… 🙁
                Deb

            • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1.1.2
              20 October 2010 at 1:21 pm

              When you get two cultures living in close proximity to one another in peace eventually you will have one culture which will be an amalgam of them both (hopefully the best parts of both with the removal of past cultural bigotries). This isn’t dilution but merely change which is a normal part of personal and societal development.

              Will Maori culture lose it’s distinction? Yes but so will the European culture that has been imported and what we will have left over will be a distinct NZ culture. Trying to prevent this, which is what some Maori seem to be trying, is the same as King Canute standing on the sands telling the tides to stop.

            • insider 8.1.1.1.1.3
              20 October 2010 at 2:08 pm

              “It is anchorless recipie for an existential anxiety, grounded in a lack of an historical narrative.”

              Phew. Did you have to take a deep breath before typing that? 🙂

              “Without an historical narrative, a people is lost and so is their culture.”

              Or it evolves into a new culture?

              OK it’s easy for me to glibly say that as part of the hegemony, but maybe that is what will happen, and maintenance of the ‘old’ culture will not be the driving force in the new.

              Interesting Waitangi Tribunal report today on Maori language. One view could be that even Maori are opting out of their own culture.

              • KJT …
                20 October 2010 at 4:17 pm

                I haven’t noticed any anchor less existential anxiety around me from Maori or Pakaha.
                A lot of anxiety about living on very little.
                Some from Maori and Pakeha relations about what MPNACT are going to charge us to use the foreshore for yacht and Waka clubs.
                A lot more about where the economy and the job situation are going.

                This is just a sideshow. When I stay with Rellies on Marae the Maori culture looks pretty robust to me.

              • bbfloyd …
                20 October 2010 at 4:22 pm

                Insider…i really hope you aren’t attributing your writing techniques to others.. you make it sound like writing a comment for you is akin to laying a stool.. which may explain why the second half of it flows better than the first….

      • felix 8.1.2
        20 October 2010 at 10:56 am

        I don’t think it’s a fair paraphrase at all. What does it save, one word? So why bother?

        Why change someone’s words if you’re not saving a significant amount of ink by doing so?

    • prism 8.2
      20 October 2010 at 10:33 am

      Still means that Hone doesn’t want his daughter to go out with Pakeha Lanthanide. He made that quite clear in ““wouldn’t feel comfortable”. The distinction is that he might put up with it if she was determined but he is not forbidding, stopping it.

      • roger nome 8.2.1
        20 October 2010 at 10:36 am

        No prism – it means he wouldn’t feel comfortable. That doesn’t necessarily mean he wouldn’t get over it. It just means it would make him feel uncomfortable.

        • prism 8.2.1.1
          20 October 2010 at 11:37 am

          Well roger nome – This may be closer to the meaning of he “doesn’t feel comfortable” – he is uncomfortable with the idea. It’s a generic negative to all Pakeha men. The opposite would be – he does feel comfortable with the idea.

          • roger nome 8.2.1.1.1
            20 October 2010 at 1:03 pm

            nah – he’s actually just expressing an anxiety about something. Quite candid for a politician actually.

            • pollywog 8.2.1.1.1.1
              21 October 2010 at 9:01 am

              you know that feeling when you’re welcomed onto a marae and you’re not down with teh protocols ?…that’s how i feel in a room full of fatcat white mofo suits.

              imagine how Pasifikans more ignorant than i feel at something even less stressful like a lending institution or gov’t dept ?

              corporate culture and values are so alien to me.

      • Lanthanide 8.2.2
        20 October 2010 at 12:29 pm

        Find my comment, listen to the Media Watch story about it, where they quoted from Hone’s own response to the media uproar.

        He was clearly trying to say that it would just seem a little uncomfortable for him to see his daughter bring home someone white. That’s it. Nothing about not wanting them to.

        • prism 8.2.2.1
          20 October 2010 at 3:55 pm

          Just to go contrariwise in the matter. Why shouldn’t someone from a minority group with a proud heritage want to carry on the racial genes and features into the future? It’s racist to pass judgment on his preference being not a Pakeha isn’t it? I have heard young Maori women being envious when a nice Maori man married a Pakeha and sighing “What a pity he didn’t find a nice Maori woman”.

          • Bored 8.2.2.1.1
            20 October 2010 at 4:15 pm

            Yeah, you have a point Prism, where I call Hone a racist was that he was deciding the issue for other people. I am quite happy for him to quietly practice genetic selection for himself, demanding it of others including his children is to my mind racist in the most stupid way.

            PS I dont really believe in race, we did some genealogy on our families and found every “race” represented in the last century, I reckon we could all pretty much find other “races” in our blood.

          • Colonial Viper 8.2.2.1.2
            21 October 2010 at 12:39 am

            Sighing? I’ve heard Maori women expressing these sentiments and they definitely weren’t doing so in a way which could be described as “sighing”.

  9. Pascal's bookie 9
    20 October 2010 at 10:17 am

    They’ve been at it a long time, of course, but it has been worse in recent years, ever since Don Brash’s cynical and divisive Owera speech.

    Wee gripe: Orewa speech changed nothing about National’s rhetoric and implying it did just helps feed dpf’s superbly crafted mendacious bullshit that far too many people take for gospel. Here’s the Herald’s piece on the initial court case quoting Smith which completely refutes farrar’s bullshit.

    Here’s the report on Bill English’s speech to the 2003 party conference which is pretty much the same speech Brash gave at Orewa in terms of content.

    Here’s what else they were doing well before Brash’s speech allegedly changed anything.

    Sorry for the side track but the ease with which national has been able to rewrite history on this pisses me off.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      20 October 2010 at 10:47 am

      Re-writing history seems to be Nationals speciality – they can’t do anything else.

  10. M 10
    20 October 2010 at 10:21 am

    My concern with Hone addressing the media in Maori is that his message won’t reach the widest possible audience.

    The thought of having to be a junior partner with ACT must gall him immensely but he needs to get his message out with some cleverly crafted humour which I believe is always far more effective.

    I have long given up the hope of being referred to as a European which the way I class myself. I have always referred to Maori as Maori and was brought up in a home where racial slurs weren’t allowed. My dad was born in the most racist country on earth (south east USA) and how he wasn’t contaminated with the entrenched hatred there I’ll never know but then he always regarded himself as a citizen of the world and if anyone came out with any bull he’d just silence them by saying “There’s good and bad in everyone” and mum would always say to people if they went on about someone’s colour that if God had one fault, it was that he was colour blind. Doesn’t really give buggers like that, especially fundies, anywhere to go.

    I think Hone would be really effective if he kept beating the drum for Maori to be lifted out of poverty and misery through education and a good welfare system which he won’t get with National. Irish Catholics raised their own children out of the slums because they realised the ticket out of poverty was education and as they were despised by many ghettoised as a form of support and protection.

  11. ianmac 11
    20 October 2010 at 10:37 am

    I always take it that Hone is mirroring the blatant racism directed at him and his people for a hundred years or so. We sensitive white folk get angry that an uppity Maori should be so rude. But the sometimes subtle, sometimes overt racism must get to be a bit wearying don’t you think? (Henry gained apparently 50% support for his racism.)

  12. roger nome 12
    20 October 2010 at 10:41 am

    Eddie – A minor point:

    Shouldn’t “I’ve had a gut’s full” be “i’ve had a guts full”?

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      20 October 2010 at 10:52 am

      Wooop! Wooop! Punctuation Nazi!

      (Actually you’re correct, rn).

    • felix 12.2
      20 October 2010 at 10:59 am

      Yep, but I would’ve also accepted “a gut’s fill”

      • roger nome 12.2.1
        20 October 2010 at 11:03 am

        yeah – you’re right. It isn’t necessarily grammatically incorrect, but when you undo the contraction it sounds weird.

        • Red Rosa 12.2.1.1
          20 October 2010 at 11:06 am

          Norm Kirk had it as ‘gutsful’ – mind you, he was referring to the Cooks and Stewards’ Union.,

          Showing my age here, I suspect.

        • felix 12.2.1.2
          20 October 2010 at 11:23 am

          “a gut’s full” doesn’t work because there’s no such thing as a “full” so there’s no way I could’ve had one.

          But a fill (n) can mean the amount it takes to fill (v) something, so “a gut’s fill” should be ok.

          Big Norm’s version just works better though I reckon.

    • bbfloyd 12.3
      20 October 2010 at 4:26 pm

      R.N.. the spell checker is american i think… it’s not very versitle(intentional spelling)

      • Vicky32 12.3.1
        20 October 2010 at 5:43 pm

        The default is always American, but you can switch to English NZ or UK, on Word and Open Orifice (I always do)… 🙂
        Deb

  13. KJT 13
    20 October 2010 at 10:51 am

    I’ve had a gut’s-full too. Of Hone, Henry and other ranting racist gits getting free publicity.

    The Maori party does not represent Maori. They represent the Maori Moneyocracy who want to be free to rape resources for quick money just like Pakeha rich gits. It was formed over the right to put fish farms all over the sounds.

    One idea of Hone’s I do like is that ALL foreshore and seabed become unsaleable commons. With proper compensation to anyone who can prove ownership rights. Equal treatment of all foreshore and seabed owners. Both Maori and Pakeha. That would be in conformance with the European tradition of the commons and the Maori one of taonga and tiaki.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.1
      20 October 2010 at 1:31 pm

      That’s what I would like to see and then we could all have equal say in it’s use through a democratic system which takes into account the need to care for those commons first and foremost.

  14. roger nome 14
    20 October 2010 at 10:56 am

    Why doesn’t anyone argue with me. RN feels neglected 🙁

    Oh and – cheers viper. My grammar used to be appalling, and it wouldn’t have ever gotten any better if it weren’t for the grammar Nazis out there. We do have our purpose 🙂

    • The Voice of Reason 14.1
      20 October 2010 at 11:26 am

      My grammar used to be appalling too, especially the way she abused my grandpa!*

      * joke blatantly stolen from the Two Ronnies (or was it Dave Allen?)

    • bbfloyd 14.2
      20 October 2010 at 4:46 pm

      we’re still waiting for you to say something silly so that we can

  15. prism 15
    20 October 2010 at 11:31 am

    Good to read your post M. Like the points you made.

    Hone when he gets angry unleashes abuse, we know that. He is just an extreme version of the regular ‘We have been disadvantaged by colonialism and that’s the reason for everything bad we do’ refrain. It’s repetitive and tiring to this and many Pakeha. But just when you think ‘Not that again’, the government steps in with another tricky move and you realise that the dirge is justified.

    It is so difficult for Maori. They felt let down by Labour, and allied themselves to National on the promise of better consideration as befits tangata whenua. Then they find that they have no standing and are second-runners to neoliberal gits who have no wish to serve the interests and the people of the country, not mentioning tangata whenua. It’s ironic that people whose main interest is to enrich themselves at the cost of the vast majority of NZs then put up a straw man objection about the possibility of Maori charging for beach access.

    Maori already sour about Pakeha government’s treatment will feel justified in nursing anger, whether the Maori Party feel they must refuse to support NACTs foreshore measure which has become increasingly unsatisfactory, or whether they do support it in an attempt to salvage something from the years of politicking. They will then have won the concession of being able to take a case to Court for areas of foreshore governance based on customary use under very limiting conditions.

    This is nearly impossible for most iwi, because they must show uninterrupted use since 1840 using Maori tikanga of ahi-ka-roa (long-burning fires or occupation) against them as usually Maori were prevented by Pakeha from maintaining the uninterrupted use of their marine rohe. The measures to meet are –
    The Government has proposed that the new legislation will set out how the courts will determine and recognise the customary interests. It is proposed that the legislation will state that a customary title will be awarded where the following elements are proven:
    In order to establish the necessary connection/interest the relevant foreshore and seabed area must be held in accordance with tikanga Maori;
    This connection/interest must be of a level that accords with the applicant having ‘exclusive use and occupation’ of the relevant foreshore and seabed area;
    This ‘exclusive use and occupation’ must date from 1840 until the present without substantial interruption.
    The test for customary title will be a mixture of tikanga Maori and the common law.
    Report on law

    David Clendon of the Greens wrote on 15/9/2010 “The Marine and Coastal Area Bill being introduced to Parliament today does not guarantee public access to the foreshore and seabed owned under private title and does not stop these private titles being sold. It also outlines that Maori customary title can be overridden by mining interests whereas private title interests cannot.”

  16. millsy 16
    20 October 2010 at 11:47 am

    “The dog-whistle went: those lazy, greedy Maori are going to take away your beaches and then charge you to have a swim.”

    If the left really wanted the average New Zealander to come back to the fold, then it should be snatching that dog whistle of ACT, and start blowing the crap out of it.

    I have no idea why the left are so anti the idea of public ownership of the recreational estate and universal access for all?

    • insider 16.1
      20 October 2010 at 1:00 pm

      Is it a dog whistle? Why is Hone objecting to the failure to create a right to charge flowing from customary title? It seems we keep getting rassurances that Maori won;t charge and then various Maori Leaders pop up their heads seeming slightly more equivocal on the subject. Kelvin Davis did it on Red Alert just the other day – although to be fair he seemed to be completely ignorant more than anything else.

    • mcflock 16.2
      20 October 2010 at 2:03 pm

      If it’s stolen, you never truly own it. The same reason capitalists don’t have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to crying about progressive taxation.

      But more to the point, blowing a dog-whistle for the sake thereof is stupid – only ACT have a constituency dumb enough to scream so loudly about a “threat” that is so blatantly non-existant. And they’re such a narrow base these days that they don’t need to worry about alienating other potential voters with their rabid dog act.

  17. Peter Martin 17
    20 October 2010 at 1:02 pm

    ‘I have no idea why the left are so anti the idea of public ownership of the recreational estate and universal access for all?’

    For a start let’s remember that the land in question is the foreshore…the bit that is between the high and low tides.The land that is above it can indeed be in private hands and use of it can and is charged for.
    Maori have stated that they won’t charge anyone for the recreational use of that bit of the shore. Perhaps folk could show why Maori cannot be taken at their word.
    It would be good too, if it were shown that the rest of the public do indeed own ALL of the rest of the foreshore and that it is currently illegal for it to be sold from public ownership.

  18. green jobs for climate justice 18
    20 October 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Maybe Hone should join the green party of Aotearoa?

    It is hard for the Maori Party, labour hasn’t made them warm to the idea of a Green/Maori/Labour Government. Shane Jones and Phil Goff haven’t made the Maori Party want to get closer to Labour. What is Hone meant to do?

    Tariana Turia is close to the Act party, but if Act goes.. then what..? Maori Party could leave national, but they will only do it if they feel it is the right move. What does Labour have on offer???

  19. Red Rosa 19
    20 October 2010 at 3:36 pm

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/government-stuck-in-the-foreshore-sand-again

    These nuances of language are best left to the Nats and the MP to explain. One side says nothing given away, the other side says yes there is. And which side is which? The average voter’s eyes are going to glaze over within ten seconds. May as well stick with what Labour spelt out last time.

  20. green jobs for climate justice 20
    20 October 2010 at 6:33 pm

    Rodney Hide’s last attempt to stay in parliament – some racist scaremongerin maori bashing???

  21. Bill 21
    20 October 2010 at 9:30 pm

    Just a few idle reflections.

    What is a member of the Welsh Assembly was to speak only Welsh? Would that be racist? Don’t think so. (Welsh has the same legal status in Wales as Maori does here.)

    And what if they were refuse to speak to with some or a few or all English journalists because of their ethnicity? Wouldn’t the report that this was the case be taken with a pinch of salt, insofar as it would be quite a party trick to pick English journalists by sight alone? Just as it would be quite a party trick to pick Pakeha journalists by sight alone?

    ‘Course, if the ‘refusal’ to speak to English or Pakeha journalists was as a natural extension of the fact that no english was being spoken, then the racism…or the bigotry… lies with the perpetrator of the report, no?

    • Maynard J 21.1
      21 October 2010 at 5:18 am

      So if I could, in all my pasty white-skinned glory, speak Maori, do you think Hone would’ve taken an interview with me?

      Nah.

      • Bill 21.1.1
        21 October 2010 at 9:28 am

        Bearing in mind that I am relying on Garners written piece…

        All I know for sure is that he (Garner) made an assertion and made no attempt to explain underlying reasoning.

        He simply said that Hone “refused to speak to Pakeha journalists today – and refused to speak in English.”

        Turn that statement round and put the ‘refusing to speak in English’ first and you get a number of Pakeha journalists excluded from dialogue as an automatic consequence of the tongue being spoken. No big deal. Maybe more a reflection of the mono culturalism of Pakeha than anything else.

        And you might notice from Garners written assertion that we have no idea how many Pakeha journalists were excluded from dialogue. We are meant to assume that it was all…but it could have been one or two..or just those not conversant in Te Reo.

        Looks to me like by framing the assertion in the way he did, Garner was deliberately seeking to create and stack negative perspectives…shit stirring.

        edit. And I still don’t get where this idea that you can pick Pakeha by sight alone comes from. That would seem to be as racist as the other accusations of racism flowing from Garners original piece.

        • hateatea 21.1.1.1
          22 October 2010 at 2:30 pm

          Picking pākeha by sight is probably as difficult as picking all māori these days. Many of us are blue eyed blondes or redheads!

  22. green jobs for climate justice 22
    21 October 2010 at 12:48 pm

    Activist Thinking – by Hone Harawira

    My own entry into parliament came off the back of a massive protest march that I lead from Te Rerenga Wairua to the steps of parliament itself in 2004, a huge outpouring of Maori anger at Labour’s Theft of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and a conscious Maori decision to say “no longer will we accept the back benches of a party that has taken Maori for granted for far too long.”

    And as an activist, I felt a little at odds with my role in parliament, and indeed my role in the newly formed Maori Party, and it took a while before I came to terms with what that role should be.

    I have been an activist most of my adult life, a strong believer in the rights of Maori, a strong supporter of the rights of indigenous people all round the world, and I like to think that I am also a person who is prepared to take a stand against injustice as well…..

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1010/S00363/general-debate-activist-thinking.htm
    General Debate – Activist Thinking
    Wednesday 20 October 2010; 4.10pm Hone Harawira, Maori Party Member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau

Links to post