Reflections on the Invasion of Te Urewera

September 9, 2011

I remember 15 October 2007 as clearly as if it were yesterday.  The horror of what our Tūhoe whanaunga were being subjected to that day will always remain as a dark stain on the fabric of this nation.   An entire community was placed in lock down as police in full riot gear, armed to the hilt with weaponry which would make even a member of our SAS wince at using them on an enemy, let alone a fellow countryman, went from house to house and forced our koro, kuia and tamariki to lie prostrate before them in the ultimate show of submission to authority.  Arrests were made, and in the Pākehā psyche the people of Tūhoe will forever be linked with terrorism, much like the people of Islam are throughout the United States.

I joined the protest marches in Auckland. We marched on the police station and on the Mt Eden Prison, with Tūhoe in front expressing their anger over police action on that fateful day.  The anger was not over the arrests, but at the conduct of the New Zealand Police force.  It was a situation unprecedented in modern-day New Zealand, but for Māori it echoed the dark days of the 1800s when the armed constabulary marched down the Waikato Road raging war on Tainui, descended upon Parihaka, and scorched the whenua of Ngāi Tūhoe.   History, it seems, was hell-bent on repeating itself.

At its core, the invasion of Te Urewera was motivated by power.  It was never about terrorism or national security.  The New Zealand Government, fearful of rising Māori nationalism, needed to send a very clear message to Māori that their place was one of subjugation and submission.  That by sheer force of numbers, the Pākehā had the sole right to rule this land.  The invasion of Te Urewara was the action of a desperate government seeking to legitimatise its tenuous claims to the sovereignty of Aotearoa.

The great irony of the invasion of Te Urewara is that the Clark Administration was at the same time actively engaged in the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan.  On the one hand, it was committed to the ideological pursuit of freedom for the oppressed in Afghanistan, yet sought to maintain the oppression of Ngāi Tūhoe within its own territory.  Delving deeper into this hypocrisy, the Clark Administration actively supported the rights of Palestine over the oppressive Israeli regime.  The Government looked to support the existence of dual and overlapping sovereignty in the Holy Land, yet was determined to destroy any attempts to have a similar position recognised in relation to Aotearoa New Zealand.

Ngāi Tūhoe never signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi and at no time in their history have they recognised the legitimacy of the English Monarch as Rangatira over their rohe.  The Government of New Zealand has made a sustained effort to force Ngāi Tūhoe into submission yet the iwi have not swayed from their determination to uphold their mana over their whenua.  The Government’s invasion in 2007 only served to strengthen Ngāi Tūhoe.  It’s sovereignty remains intact.

Shane Jones: New Labour Leader?

September 1, 2011

I was planning on writing a long article today on the prospects of the frontrunners to replace Phil Goff as leader of the Labour Party, especially in light of recent indications by Shane Jones that he is ambitious to step up, take charge, and become New Zealand’s first Māori Prime Minister in 2017.  But frankly, with the Labour Party in free fall I have began to question the need for any great analysis of the leader of the movement.  The Party has problems that go far beyond its leader, although that in itself is problematic.  Simply put, Prime Minister Key is seen as a genuine, good Kiwi guy and Labour’s negative politicking is being roundly punished by the electorate.  John Key is the goofy Uncle who makes you laugh and cringe at the same time, whereas Labour comes across as the grumpy next door neighbour who is always yelling at the kids to get out of his yard.  In a sporting sense, they are Quade Cooper – sometimes flashy, but often dropping the ball, and lacking the requisite humility to be at least respected, if not supported, by both sides.

Given the problems facing Labour, it is no surprise that Shane Jones has come out and made a clear statement of his intent to contest the leadership after the election.  Having learnt the art of humility after the pornography scandal, yet possessing the strength to weather such a storm and come through relative unscathed, he possesses the unique characteristics required of the leader of one of the two major parties.   What is most interesting about Jones’ recent musings is his non-committal to remain an MP should he fail to win Tamaki-Makaurau from Māori Party Co-Leader Pita Sharples.  This is a very risky, and very brave move by Jones.  He is sending a clear message to the voters of Tamaki-Makaurau that he is serious about representing them and the mana that will come from un-seating the current Minister of Māori Affairs will make him the frontrunner for the Labour Party Leadership.  His cause will be helped immensely by Andrew Little’s likely loss to National Party back bencher Jonathan Young in New Plymouth.  Even if Young is only keeping the seat warm for Peter Tennant’s eventual election to Parliament, he should still retain what is a very National seat.

And if not Jones, then how long will we have to wait to finally see a Māori elected as Prime Minister in this country? It would say a lot about the state of race relations in this country if not only a Māori, but a MP holding a Māori Electorate Seat was elected Prime Minister.  As far as I am aware, no indigenous person has been elected as Prime Minister/President of any country still dominated by the colonisers.  That is a shameful indictment on British Colonisation.  The rise of Shane Jones might put an end to that.  However, he must first overcome Dr. Pita Shaples – a task that might prove to be next to impossible in itself.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 643 other followers