kyle's stuff

Last week the hikoi descended on parliament by various means, 15000 crowded into the grounds to protest the foreshore and seabed legislation. Tariana Turia indicated that she would quit the Labour Party, and "things Maori" were all over the media. It feels like a series of events if merging together to create what will be a chapter in our history books, and before the chapter closes, I would like to contribute my footnote to the pages.

Let me start by saying that I don't think I've ever read anything as insightful and close to my own thoughts on the matter as this by Pat Snedden, particularly the first half.

On the same site Russell Brown asks "Am I entitled to be annoyed when a Tainui hikoi spokesman appears on Holmes and declares that Maori own the whole coastline and I'm to go there only by invitation?" The answer Russell is simple: no. Or at least, you're only entitled to be if you also think that National Front director Kyle Chapman represents all people of European descent simply because he's the one that ends up on TV. And your own poster on Public Address, Pat Snedden tells you why:

"A reasonable observer in touch with a range of our national media could be forgiven for thinking that it is open season on Maori. If it isn't alleged corruption with the setting up of a new prison, it's naked self-interest in parliamentary voting. If it is not Maori holding up developers over resource consents relating to waahi tapu sites, it's the distraught medical student's mother who has complained that a less talented Maori student has taken her child's place in medical school. If it's not the school that allows for the wearing of pounamu but not Christian crosses as jewellery then it's the primary health organisation that has 50% of its governance as Maori representatives even though the population of Maori is much smaller than that in the area."

I have to say that I get annoyed with some things that Maori say on television. There was this chap arrested last year when he was caught red-handed, poaching native, endangered birds. He was inevitably charged and convicted, and so he should have been. A female supporter - I believe a family member - spoke to the cameras, basically saying that Maori should be allowed to poach, because it's a right protected under the treaty, and Maori would never harm the environment or drive a species to extinction. Well, I think the evidence points the other way - Maori are just as capable of destroying the environment and killing off endangered species as anyone else - the record of pre-European settlement in New Zealand proves that.

However one Maori spouting something which I think is rubbish on TV, doesn't mean I shouldn't be listening to what other Maori are saying. It certainly doesn't take away the right for Maori to be involved in the processes where rangatiratanga is used to decide the future directions of this country. That right was guaranteed by the treaty and should be protected. The fact that undoubtably some Maori might say foolish things doesn't invalidate that right any more than Kyle Chapman being a bigot invalidates my vote in an election, just because we might have the same ethnic identity.

Maori have a valuable contribution to make to all areas of decision-making in New Zealand - conservation being just one of them. Not just by right as a treaty partner, but because some Maori do indeed see things differently in a "world-view". Not all Maori, but then not all Pakeha are colour coordinated, we don't remove their right to paint their own house as a result.

While I get annoyed with some things that Maori say, sometimes I am also tremendously impressed. Two that have impressed me the most are Mike Smith (of One Tree Hill chopping fame), and Annette Sykes, though I have not heard them speak for some time. Various others though have struck me with the clarity of their vision and their drive to achieve it.

I have a six year old son. One of his best friends is only about two months younger. Ninety percent of the time they get on like a house on fire, the other ten percent of the time they make the New Zealand Wars look like a minor skirmish. Once a toy, or a disagreement over the game comes to the fore, all hell breaks loose. My son is bigger - much bigger, just genetics really - and when occasionally it gets to pushing and shoving, my son turns out to be the victor most often. Part of my job as a parent is to make sure that when it reaches the disagreement stage, it doesn't get into the pushing and shoving. Learning to solve conflict in a mature way is part of growing up - something George Bush could learn a little more about I think.

To often the power dynamic in this country, which for close to 150 years now has been strongly leaning towards the Crown/Pakeha, has worked similarly. Maori have only been listened to when they say the right things, otherwise they get pushed around and 'we' get what we want anyway. The voicing of a Maori opinion, whether agreed with or not, is not new. The careful listening to, and consideration of that opinion, is very new, and an important part of growing as a nation. We cannot stop listening to Maori, just because we do not agree with some. If there is to be a commitment to partnership, and I believe there should be, whatever form that takes, then listening to Maori as a community, and debating these issues with them, is key to the vision included in the treaty.

I think part of the problem is that we tend to see Maori as a community of homogenity. Indeed, this is not unusual, as we often get it presented as this by the media, and indeed, often by Maori themselves. I can understand why Maori, consciously or subconsciously, do this. When as a race you are under attack - for over 150 years - strength can be found in iwi banding together, and in a Maori kingship movement, in a Maori rennaissance movement, and Maori land march, a Maori hikoi over the foreshore and seabed debate. When 'they' band together, it becomes easier when one of 'them' stands in front of the camera and says something, to apply it to the whole group.

I'm not adding anything to the debate to say that it's probably a reasonable accusation to say that the media are quite happy to jump all over anything controversial that a spokesperson for Maori says, or anything Maori which could be presented in a bad light in the public. They are often not so quick to point at the good things that Maori and Maori organisations say and do. Over the past thirty years the Maori community has undergone a revolution in culture, in economic power, in education. The revolution has a long way to go - in some areas it has yet to start - but it is also a quiet, non-sensational revolution, that isn't seeing much air time or column inches in the popular press.

It's not new to say that the media, or indeed a lot of Pakeha, have this view of Maori. It is something that does need to be challenged however. Lastly, Maori are a diverse group of diverse opinions. They are traditionally very difficult to organise into political forces or parties. All the more reason, when fifteen thousand of them turn up on your doorstep, that maybe you should take it as a sign and listen to them.