Showing posts with label Aotearoa resistance to neo Liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aotearoa resistance to neo Liberalism. Show all posts

1/26/11

Workers urged to resist National's privatization plans

Wednesday, 26 January 2011, 3:12 pm 

Press Release: Maritime Union of New Zealand

Maritime Union urges workers to resist National's privatization plans

Maritime Union of New Zealand media release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday 26 January 2011

The Maritime Union says the planned privatization of key public assets must be stopped.
The Prime Minister announced today the National Government were planning partial sales of key state assets.

Maritime Union of New Zealand General Secretary Joe Fleetwood says the loss of further public assets would be a disaster for working people.

He says the Maritime Union would campaign to protect the assets that generations of New Zealand workers collectively contributed towards and built up.

"There is no way we can allow the National Government to flog off any more public assets to their rich mates."
Mr Fleetwood says public assets such as energy and electricity generators and Solid Energy should remain in public ownership.

He says that previous claims the privatization of assets would benefit "mum and dad investors" were nonsense.

"All New Zealand mums and dads are already shareholders in these public assets. The only beneficiaries of privatization will be overseas investors and a minority of the very wealthy."
"Privatization is not a one off, it is a process, and National are trying to get the process underway that will end in the sell off of the last remaining assets we own."

He says that guarantees that majority ownership would remain in New Zealand hands were not worth the paper they were written on.

Mr Fleetwood says that asset sales together with free trade deals would soon reduce New Zealanders to tenants in their own country.

He says the Maritime Union would be mobilizing in election year to ensure all New Zealanders were aware of the threat of privatization.

ENDS

12/20/10

Wikileaks Exposes NZ Government Duplicity on TPP




19 December 2010
For immediate release

Critic Calls for Honesty after Wikileaks Exposes Government Duplicity on TPP
“The government should stop its propaganda campaign to sell the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement to unsuspecting New Zealanders and tell them what it has told the United States government itself,” said Professor Jane Kelsey, author of a book of academic essays critical of the proposed deal.*

US diplomatic cables that reveal the views of New Zealand’s lead negotiator Mark Sinclair are included in Wikileaks documents analysed by Nicky Hager in today’s [19 Dec] Sunday Star-Times.
As recently as February this year, New Zealand’s own chief negotiator Mark Sinclair conceded to US officials there was little in a TPP Agreement for New Zealand. The only real “pay-off” was a remote long-term prospect to “put the squeeze” on Japan and Korea to stop protecting their agricultural markets.

Sinclair reportedly pointed to “a public perception that getting into the US will be an ‘El Dorado’ for New Zealand's commercial sector. However, the reality is different.’”
Professor Kelsey observed that this “false perception” has been scripted by the government itself.
“When our book was released, the Prime Minister and private sector cheerleaders peremptorily dismissed the same kind of criticisms that officials have voiced behind closed doors.”

“The cable confirmed that US firms have our GM regulations, restrictions on foreign ownership of land and mineral resources, and intellectual property laws, including Pharmac, squarely in their sights.”
A second set of cables from 2004 analysed by the New Zealand Herald show the US diplomatic post has been working with its pharmaceutical companies to undermine the world-leading Pharmac drug purchasing regime that makes medicines affordable to New Zealanders, claiming this would enhance New Zealanders’ access to health care.

The cable suggests the US drug industry helped foment the furore over Herceptin and Alzheimers medicines as part of campaign to “fire up pressure from below”.
“The cable confirms that ‘US Big Pharma’ will use a TPPA to target Pharmac and other intellectual property laws”, said Professor Kelsey.

“Equally worrying is the revelation that officials saw the extension of patent terms, which would increase medicine prices, as bargaining chips if the US agreement to negotiate FTA.”
“In the February 2010 discussion with US officials, negotiator Mark Sinclair talks about “managing” New Zealanders’ expectations from a TPPA.”

“That’s not good enough. It is time the government came clean to Kiwis that it sees no tangible gains from a deal and justify why it is continuing with negotiations that have potentially serious costs for our health system, consumer laws, ultimately for our sovereignty”, Professor Kelsey said.

ENDS
* No Ordinary Deal. Unmasking the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement, Jane Kelsey, ed, Bridget Williams Books, 2010.

11/28/10

ORGANISING AGAINST THE “FREE TRADE” ECONOMIC SUICIDE PACT

ORGANISING AGAINST THE “FREE TRADE” ECONOMIC SUICIDE PACT – MEETING 6PM TUES NOV 30, UNITE UNION, 6A WESTERN SPRINGS RD, KINGSLAND, AUCKLAND
From 6 December a week of free trade negotiations for a mega-free deal between NZ, the US, Australia and six other countries will be held in the Sky City Casino. This agreement (known as the TPPA) will tie the hands of NZ governments to the failed neoliberal agenda for the next century.
A meeting to discuss actions and strategies will be held at Unite offices at 6a Western Springs Rd, Kingsland on Tuesday November 30 at 6pm. Please come!
You can also register to be inside the venue along with the media, business people and maybe even delegates (???) on http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trans-Pacific-meeting/0–stakeholder/ . There are guaranteed to be about 500 big business lobbyists for every 1 people’s representative inside the Casino venue, so …
Another occasion for debate: Jon Mayson, Chair, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
invites you to help mark the opening of The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations, Round four Monday, 6 December, 6.00pm-8.00pm, Voyager Maritime Museum, Corner Quay and Hobson Streets, Viaduct Harbour, Auckland. RSVP essential by Wednesday 1 December
tpprsvp@nzte.govt.nz telephone (04) 816-8196

11/12/10

Women of Aotearoa, Philippines Share Wisdom







12 November 2010
Women of Aotearoa, Philippines Share Wisdom, Affirm Solidarity for Women’s Rights and Self-Determination:

No To Further Sell-Out Of Land, Sovereignty In The Name Of ‘Free Trade’
While foreign and trade ministers attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Japan discuss further opening of economies for ‘free trade,’ women activists say no to further sell-out of land, culture and sovereignty. They denounced APEC, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and other trade deals that ensure huge profits for big business at the expense of women, workers, indigenous peoples and other disadvantaged sectors.

“WISE WOMEN SPEAK,” an intergenerational - inter movement korero (forum) on the liberation of women and self determination featured Coni Ledesma, International Spokesperson of Makibaka: Patriotic Movement of New Women together with Ngapuhi leader Titewhai Harawira and activist lawyer Annette Sykes at the Auckland University, New Zealand, 10th November.

“In 1975 we marched to demand not one more acre of Maori land to be sold. Now more trade agreements are being negotiated above our heads without our participation,” activist lawyer Annette Sykes says as she points out that the capitalist neo-liberal agenda is the new form of colonization. Sykes challenged the participants, mostly students and young women to speak out and revive a strong women’s movement in defense of land, rights and self-determination. “With the Terrorism Suppression Act and Search and Surveillance Bill that allows installation of listening devices into our homes, the state’s actions are meant to silence us and tell us that it’s not right to demand land, rights and liberation.”

Ledesma, senior member of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) Peace Negotiating Panel was invited to NZ along with Luis Jalandoni, Chair of NDFP Peace Panel for a peace speaking tour from 26th October to 12th November hosted by Auckland Philippines Solidarity (APS), Philippines Solidarity Network of Aotearoa and Wellington Kiwi Pinoy.

Welcoming Ledesma, distinguished Maori woman leader Titewhai Harawira says, “I remember coming to the Philippines in the ‘80s where I was shocked at how women were treated. At the same time, sharing the pain of struggling indigenous women in the Philippines gave me a lot of strength.” Denouncing the latest news on mining exploration projects in NZ, Harariwa says, “Enough is enough. Neo-liberalism means theft of land, theft of identity, theft of culture. Corporate giants spend billions to save the whales. They save the whales while they shoot natives and grab their land.”

According to Ledesma, “It is important for women to find the correct analysis and understanding of the cause of oppression of women. Women's oppression is not a problem between men and women, but a matter of class oppression that began when classes in society emerged. The oppression of women will be fully eliminated, and the real liberation of women achieved when the system of exploitation and oppression of one human being by another will be abolished. Today, global monopoly capitalism operates on insatiable greed for profits at the expense of women, indigenous peoples and other marginalised sectors. Socialism will remove the conditions that have made women unequal to men.”
At the forum, Ledesma also appealed for solidarity for women activists in the Philippines currently detained on trumped-up charges including Angie Ipong, a 65-year-old church worker and veteran social justice activist who has been jailed since 2005.

Ms Ipong was arrested by the military while she was giving a seminar to peasants and women leaders on the Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), one of the landmark bilateral agreements reached in the government-NDFP peace talks. She was missing for 13 days during which time she underwent torture while undergoing interrogation. She began a hunger strike from day one of her illegal arrest to force her captors to surface her and allow her to have access to her lawyer.

Looking at the photographs of Filipino women detainees Angie Ipong and the two nursing mothers among the Morong 43 health workers, Harariwa notes, “I’m sad to see you’re still carrying placards for these women to be free. I believe that no one is free until everyone is free.”
The forum organiser says Maori have learned a lot from cross cultural korero. Helen Te Hira from Auckland Philippines Solidarity says, “Maori have been to the Philippines over the years, learnt and discussed about colonisation, militarism, deforestation, so this is women from different communities talking and exchanging their experiences and hopefully from that we will get sense of where we have come from and where we're going.”

“With the governments of New Zealand and Philippines both selling off the people’s ancestral domain and sovereignty to foreign powers and local business elite, Maori and Filipinos share a common struggle to defend the rights of women, indigenous people and all disadvantaged sectors in the face of large-scale mining and other destructive projects against the people and environment,” Te Hira noted. The forum participants affirmed solidarity on common struggles of Maori and Filipinos especially against mining corporations and big business causing massive community displacement and loss of ancestral domain in Aotearoa and Philippines. “In building women’s networks, we need to find linkages to strategies with those who have common desire to eliminate poverty and violence against women” Sykes adds.

“One hundred years after the declaration of the first International Women’s Day, the International Women’s Alliance (IWA) was founded on 16th August 2010 in Montréal, Canada immediately after the successful Montreal International Women’s Conference attended by more than 350 participants from 32 countries. Faced with global concerns including indigenous struggles, developmental aggression, violence against women, racism, discrimination and genocide, resistance to wars and imperialist aggression, IWA aims to foster the creation and coordination of local, regional and international campaigns, to promote mutual support and the sharing of resistance strategies, and to mobilize women around the world in the struggle against imperialism, violence and capitalist globalization,” Ledesma shared with the forum participants.

Ledesma enjoined the women of Aotearoa to join the first assembly of the International Women’s Assembly in July 2011 in the Philippines. The forum closed with the signing of the international petition calling on Philippine Pres. Benigno Aquino III to effect the immediate release of Morong 43 community health workers who have been illegally arrested, tortured and detained since 6th February, including 26 women, two of whom gave birth recently. Around 30 signatories include Titewhai Harawira – Ngapuhi, Maori Council NZ Annette Sykes – Lawyer and Activist, Catherine Delahunty - Member of Parliament, Green Party of Aotearoa, Lena Henry – Iwi Have Influence, Helen Te Hira - Auckland Philippines Solidarity, Ann Pala - Ethnix Links, students of Auckland University and members of various groups. #

Reference: Helen Te Hira aotearoasolidarity@gmail.com 09 280 3372 or 0272888894



5/25/10

Free Market Fundamentalism in NZ



Gary Clail - Privatise The Air




Tapu Misa: When money and ethics collide

4:00 AM Monday Sep 22, 2008

But timing is everything and this is not a good time to preach the virtues of unfettered capitalism, to tell us regulation is bad but the free market is good, to insist business does it better, or wonder why many don't want to see public utilities in private hands.


If we've lost faith in the ability of the free market to deliver a decent society that puts the public good before private profit, it's because we've had good cause.

It's not just that private enterprise's claim to efficiency looks a little suspect against the taxpayer rescues of the BNZ and Air New Zealand and the buyback of TranzRail. We know when private profits collide with the public good we are the losers.

 

9/18/09

The Prison: A Sign of Democracy?



UC Santa Cruz professor Angela Davis explores the range of social problems associated with incarceration and the generalized criminalization of those communities that are most affected by poverty and racial discrimination. She urges her audiences to think seriously about the future possibility of a world without prisons and to help forge a 21st century abolitionist movement. [2/2008] [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 13826]

4/7/09

Now is not the time to be signing away NZ's sovereignty

Thursday April 2 2009

Media Release: Professor Jane Kelsey

Now not the time to be signing away NZ’s sovereignty

At a time when New Zealand needs the flexibility to respond to pressing domestic economic priorities, and with fresh questions being raised in Australia about the value of their free trade agreements, now was not the time to be signing away New Zealand’s economic sovereignty, Professor Jane Kelsey told a select committee this morning considering the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement.

“The current crisis was largely generated, and was certainly fuelled, by light handed regulation of financial services operators. Now New Zealand is locking in the deregulation of financial services throughout South East Asia through this agreement.”

“While New Zealand may have reiterated its existing commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the ASEAN FTA has the potential to wreak havoc in East Asian countries that suffered a devastating financial meltdown just a decade ago.”

These agreements don’t come without a cost, and neighbouring Australia is now raising questions over the value of their free trade involvement, Jane Kelsey said.

In recently published analysis of Australian FTAs,* the Australian Parliamentary library found that despite the benefits being talked up, Australia’s FTAs have been followed by massively higher Australian trade deficits, and the anticipated gains for Australian exporters have fallen well short of estimates.

Professor Kelsey challenged the major parties to adopt a moratorium on further negotiations so their impacts on New Zealandcould be better understood.

“These FTAs are expansive and complex and bind the hands of future governments in ways that are poorly understood and often unanticipated. Yet the government has already signed the agreement, which renders the select committee process all but useless.”

“The implications of Free Trade Agreements are especially worrisome at a time of international economic crisis,” Jane Kelseysaid. “This is not the time to be signing agreements that tie the hands of governments and remove the flexibilities that are essential to respond to domestic priorities.”

* Australian paper: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/2008-09/AustFreeTradeAgreements.htm

3/12/09

Save Sealord Workers

SAVE SEALORD WORKERS
Put people before profits!

More than 160 workers at Sealord’s fish processing plant in Nelson are to lose their jobs through restructuring. 
 
The announcement came within days of the Job Summit called by NZ Prime Minister John Key to work out how to save jobs!

At a time when unity and collective cooperation between unions, employers and the Government is making headlines, Sealord have demanded that their employees must accept a reduction in wages to increase profits or face dismissal. 
 
“Sealord intends to lay off around 160 staff immediately, and have indicated to us that they may close the processing plant in the near future unless staff agree to what is effectively a $70 a week cut in wages across the board.” says Neville Donaldson, SFWU Assistant National Secretary. 
 
“At a time when most businesses are saying they are prepared to make less profits in order to secure employment, Sealord have demanded that workers increase the company profits by $1.8 million through wage and condition cuts.” 
 
“If staff don’t agree to the proposed cut in wages and conditions within the three week consultation process, Sealord management have advised us that the board may take an option to close the processing facility in Nelson which currently employs over 500 workers.” 
 
The company plans to process fish on factory ships out at sea.

Send an email to Sealord Chair Robin Hapi here

2/2/09

Waitangi



the tino rangatiratanga movement of the 1990s

The British invaded Aotearoa in the 1800s. In comparison to many indigenous societies overseas, Maori were offered a Treaty – the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 – that guaranteed Maori access to, and control of, traditional resources such as land, fishing areas, and so on. The Treaty was then systematically ignored by the English state. Maori were forcibly dispossessed of almost all their former resources. Because of this dispossession and near genocide, Maori have a long tradition of rebellion against the “colonial state.”

After 1945, many Maori migrated to urban areas, and consequently became more integrated into the working class. Maori became disproportionately employed in low-paid blue-collar manual labour and service industries, occupations such as freezing workers and timberworkers. Maori became a significant sector of the working class. Most blue-collar industries were “restructured” in the 1980s, and thus working class Maori bore much of the brunt of neoliberal reforms; indeed, Maori suffered significantly higher levels of unemployment and poverty than Pakeha from the 1980s.

Some commentators claimed Maori represented the biggest threat to the imposition of neoliberal regime of accumulation on the working class. Maori had a long tradition of autonomous resistance, were opposed to the colonial state, had only relatively recently been incorporated into capitalism, and had a distinct culture which valued communalism rather than individualism. For many Maori, neoliberalism was the continuation of long-standing theme of theft and colonialism. For Jane Kelsey, “It was not surprising, then, that the most (some would say the only) sustained political resistance to the structural adjustment programme had come from” Maori.25 Kelsey’s view is romantic because, as seen above, many working class Pakeha – together with working class Maori and Pacific Islanders – opposed the benefit cuts, ECA, and closures of hospitals and other rural services. The biggest threat to the imposition of neoliberalism, in my view, came from the self-activity of the working class as a whole, not just working class Maori. Yet Kelsey is correct in stating that a major form of resistance to neoliberalism came from Maori, although she overlooks the fact that the wave of Maori protest in the 1990s mostly came from disenfranchised working class Maori. While Maori protest is undoubtedly a reaction to colonialism and Pakeha racism, and cannot be reduced to class struggle, I argue that a clear division emerged between working class Maori and “corporate warriors” or capitalist Maori in the protests of the 1990s. Hence a class based analysis of this rebellion is relevant and useful.

From the late 1960s, Maori protest activity renewed. It was given impetus by the New Left, anti-Vietnam War movement, anti-apartheid movement, new social movements and the strike wave of the late 1960s and 1970s. The Tino Rangatiratanga (or Maori self-determination) movement had two major wings, both with substantial support. One wing was “middle-class” dominated and aimed to gain concessions from the state through legalistic activity; the other was firmly opposed to the state, and more focussed upon direct action to achieve its aims. This flaxroots based self-activity culminated in direct action in the form of land occupations in the late 1970s at Raglan and Takaparawha/Bastion Point in Auckland. Bastion Point was a particular highlight as it saw a fledging class based alliance between local iwi (tribes), trade unions, and Pakeha sympathisers. Unions placed a “green ban” upon construction at the site to support local iwi.26

In response, capital and the state aimed to co-opt and divert this movement. It attempted to achieve this through the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal (in 1975) and Maori Language Commission. From 1985, Labour allowed Maori grievances lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal to date back to the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Thus from 1985 Treaty claims became a route for Maori to place pressure on the state to demand monetary compensation for the colonial theft of resources. The Labour Government of 1984 to 1990 also sought a policy of co-opting of Maori elites into the state, a policy that it called “biculturalism.” The result of this policy was the enrichment of a few Maori who controlled the neotribal capitalist businesses created by treaty settlements. Correspondingly, working class Maori were made much worse off.

In the 1980s most of the Tino Rangatiratanga movement was focussed upon reviving Maori culture and language. Hundreds of autonomous Maori schools were established, cultural groups were formed, and people fought to have Maori studies introduced into the state education system. However, this cultural nationalism often led to an exclusive focus on cultural change rather than a more holistic approach. As Teanau Tuiono states,

By focusing on cultural issues this allowed the co-optation of a Maori elite within the structures of the state and forced many Maori leaders to straddle the uneasy gulf between pushing the Maori struggle forward and maintaining the existing state of affairs. The prestige and wealth that went with such privileged positions in the settlement process meant that Maori leaders became increasingly removed from the concerns and vitality of the flaxroots Maori struggle. Tino Rangatiratanga could be then seen as economic independence because we were free to enter the ‘free market.’ Capitalism with a smiley (Maori) face. Bullshit.27

The National Government of the early 1990s saw the Maori movement for self-determination as a threat to its neoliberal policies. The National Government was concerned that the backlog of Treaty claims created a climate of uncertainty for capitalists because it left the ownership of a number of key resources in doubt. Treasury officials called major Treaty claims an “unquantifiable fiscal risk.”28 National thus attempted to put a lid on these claims by negotiating a final settlement of all claims – at minimal cost to themselves.

As a result, National offered a $1 billion deal in secret negotiations with a number of “corporate warriors” and “tribal executives” called the fiscal envelope. It also brokered a deal with middle class Maori to end fisheries claims through the Sealords Deal. The 1992 Fisheries Settlement Act included a settlement between the state and some Maori to purchase a $150 million share in a major New Zealand commercial fisheries business, Sealord Products Limited.

As the state publicly admitted the existence of the fiscal envelope in 1994, Maori protest swung into action. On Waitangi Day in 1995, a militant protest of 500 Maori turned into a full-scale battle with police. The protest group Te Kawariki explained their grievances:

The recent deals struck by Maori leaders have done nothing to reverse that trend, and in fact those deals have been disasterous for all future generations of Maori people. These so-called leaders must be sidelined, and ALL Maori given a chance to have a say in determining what our destiny will be…We were conned by false Maori leaders into thinking we were on the road to success. We were told that Maori were ‘coming out of grievance mode and into development mode.’ We were touted as the ‘New Corporate Warriors’. Maori graced the covers of all the ‘right’ [wing] magazines…It seemed that after 150 years of oppression, we’d finally made it. Unfortunately, for Maori people, all the promises, all the hype, turned out to be a load of BULLSHIT!!!…There are Maori for whom cutting a deal with the Crown has been a sweet little number. These people are traitors and sellouts. They sold the Sealords Deal to our people, and picked up a cool million bucks for their treachery…As we prepare to fight against the Crown Proposals, we must also exposethe treachery within our own ranks.29

Whanganui Maori occupied Moutoa Gardens in Wanganui for 79 days in early 1995. They renamed it Pakatoire, after the site of a Maori pa that was located in the gardens. Pakatoire had been a disputed site between local Maori and the state since 1887, especially over control of fishing rights in the Whanganui River. This occupation “was to emerge as the Bastion Point of the 1990s and represented the single largest collective act of ‘civil disobedience’ since the anti-Springbok Tour protests of 1981.”30

The occupation involved thousands of Maori from all walks of life – church groups, gang members, trade unionists, as well as Pakeha sympathisers. Evan Poata-Smith paints a picture of the hive of self-activity during the occupation:

The gardens resembled a motor camp with tents and caravans set in place, with work crews responsible for different tasks throughout the day. Cooks prepared meals for a steady stream of visitors who arrived to give their support to the tangata whenua. A makeshift kitchen was constructed and the dining room was able to hold up to 150 people a sitting. Rented ablution facilities were placed at one end of the gardens and electricity was supplied with a generator. Security surrounding the gardens was tight [there was the constant threat of forcible removal by the police, as well as constant police harassment] with people rostered on shifts throughout the day and night. There were people stationed at every entrance and corner of the gardens.31

Hundreds of people visited the occupation. Far from being “separatist”, the occupation was open to the public.32 When the Wanganui District Council, who formally “owned” the gardens, gave the occupiers a deadline to leave, numbers swelled from 150 to 2000. A festive atmosphere ensued on the day of the deadline. Occupiers organised an impromptu concert and sung waiata until the deadline past.33 The result was that the Council decided not to force the eviction, and entered a process of negotiation. Numbers of occupiers declined. The Council then acquired a court order requiring the occupiers to remove all the buildings they had erected and leave the site. On 18 May 1995, almost three weeks after the failed attempt at eviction, protesters voluntarily left the site “saying they did so reluctantly but in preference to being moved on by the police.”34

The occupation of Pakaitore triggered a series of occupations by Maori in the North Island. By April 1995, there were six major occupations in progress. Many Maori saw that the legalistic framework set up in the 1980s for treaty grievances was not delivering any real benefits to working class Maori and hence took direct action. There were occupations of schools, Marae, courthouses, farmland, railway yards, airports, and even the site of the Taumaranui police station. The police evicted protesters from some of these occupations, resulting in dozens of arrests. The 25-week occupation of the former Takahue School near Kaitaia in 1995 resulted in the occupiers burning the school down after police moved in to evict them. Children set alight tyres that had been stockpiled outside the school. Sixteen arrests resulted. As well, some more novel forms of autonomy were established, with the Tuhoe tribe setting up their own embassy at Tanetua in the East Cape of the North Island, and issuing property owners with eviction notices.

Many of these occupations and protests led to direct and open conflict between Maori capitalists and working class Maori. For example, the occupations of Coalcorp land at Huntly and the Waikato University Marae were in direct opposition to the $170 million Raupatu settlement between the state and the Tainui Trust Board. Iwi were transformed into corporate bodies (such as the Tainui Trust Board for the Tainui tribes) to manage settlement assets and negotiate with the government, but everyday Maori were excluded from having a say in these boards. They claimed they were not being “represented” by the corporate bodies, but being “sold out” by them. Maori were placed under intense pressure by capital and the state to choose commodified forms of iwi. Hence while corporate warriors were (and are) in control of corporate iwi, these new governance structures are also largely shaped by the Office of Treaty Settlements. As such, corporate iwi ought to be seen as the creation of capital and the state.

Working class Maori often occupied land in direct protest against proposed settlements between their local corporate iwi and the state. Their protest was directed at their own capitalists as well as the state. For them, the hapu (which can be loosely translated as sub-tribe) and not the neo-tribal capitalist elite was the legitimate kaitiaki (guardians) of the land.35

Rata has called this new Maori capitalism created by treaty settlements a “neotribal capitalist regime of accumulation.”36 This regime centres on the transformation of tribes into capitalist enterprises, and the creation of a new tribal based capitalist elite. This elite emerged in the treaty negotiation process of the 1980s and 1990s: namely, those Maori lawyers, leaders, and bureaucrats who used their privileged positions to become the chief executive officers of neotribal capitalism. Yet Maori iwi as a whole were guaranteed access to their traditional resources, fisheries, land and so on under the Treaty of Waitangi. Under neotribal capitalism, this access to what paltry resources have been returned to Maori is effectively exclusively controlled by the new tribal capitalist elite. Even if ownership of resources is nominally owned by the whole tribe (the corporate tribe, and not an individual, is the legal owner), and even if iwi members have a shareholding in the business, the undemocratic nature of neotribal capitalist business ensures that working class iwi do not have any real say in the corporate iwi head office.

The link between economic development and wealth accumulation meant that economic development could not occur without commodity production, and commodity circulation must occur within the capitalist sphere of accumulative exchange. Commodification, with its intrinsic split between buyers and sellers of labour-power in the creation of surplus value (i.e., of wealth that can be used as capitalist investment), means class exploitative relations and not communal relations [prevail], despite the existence of communal ownership of the means of production. 37

Such a claim is somewhat debatable as the means of production is effectively owned and controlled by tribal capitalists.

Initially, many working class Maori supported neotribal capitalism because they saw it as a means to economic independence, a route out of poverty, and the basis for a revival in Maori society in general. Yet overall neotribal capitalism has amounted to a new dispossession of working class Maori. “The neotraditionalist ideology of communal kinship relations, originating in the pan-Maori ethnificiation and indigenisation movements of the 1970s and 1980s, has become the means of access and privileged relationship to traditional lands, waters and knowledge by particular groups of retribalised Maori…Communal relations of families and kin-based communities revived within the prefigurative movements are conceptualised as ‘softening’ and humanising counters to the dehumanising class relations.”38 As well, detribalised Maori, who make up the majority of the Maori population and are primarily concentrated in working class urban areas, have been excluded from corporate iwi.

Class relations within tribes are concealed by an ideology of a revived Maori culture and community. Working class Maori are encouraged to identify with their tribe as a whole, overlooking exploitative class relations within their own tribe. Thus working class Maori are encouraged to identify culturally with Maori capitalists. Maori capitalists can falsely claim that working class Maori resisting their business are resisting traditional Maori society and culture. However, many working class Maori, especially in rural areas, use Maori culture as a card to undermine capitalist Maori who they see as having ‘colonised thinking’. Corporatism is often associated with ‘Pakeha colonised’ thinking and therefore as ‘bad’. In that respect, Maori culture is used by both capitalist and working class Maori. Capitalist Maori use it to mask their own privileged position within tribes, and working class Maori use it to criticise capitalist Maori.

Corporate iwi claim to be the legitimate inheritors of the traditional iwi that were dispossessed by the English state since 1840. This is highly questionable, as traditional iwi were not corporate in structure. In fact, they practised some aspects of anti-state communism. For example, traditional iwi had a moneyless gift economy and communal ownership of property; however, early Maori society was still some form of class society, complete with chiefs, commoners, and slaves. Perhaps this hierarchy within Maori society meant it was easier for the Pakeha elite to co-opt Maori leaders in the 1980s and 1990s.

By the late 1990s, the occupation movement had largely died down, although disgruntlement and a number of occupations directed against the state and sometimes the new Maori capitalists continues to this day. Militant Maori had become isolated and temporarily defeated. Protest against neotribal capitalism became increasingly difficult as it was so personalised, as often working class Maori opposed Maori capitalists within their own extended family. Yet the massive Hikoi of May 2004 against the privatisation and commodification of the seabed and foreshore, attended by 20 000 to 30 000 people, even more than the land march of 1975, shows that working class Maori resistance is alive and kicking.

8/13/08

Excerpted Rac-ing & Engendering the Nation State in Atoearoa

Nan Seuffert

Excerpted Racing & Engendering the Nation State in Atoearoa
/ 10 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law 597-618, 599-612 (2002)
(127 Footnotes)

Centering Maori women activists in an analysis of the convergence of policies of structural adjustment and political claims for self-determination and redress of colonial injustices suggests that the settlements were an alliance of men across race to silence these women. The political activism of some Maori women, gaining momentum from the 1970s, operated to disrupt the illusion of unity of the nation. Regaining the illusion of unity, and in particular reaffirmation of the dominance of the minority of privileged white men, required erasing these Maori women activists as serious political subjects. This move required the cooperation of at least some Maori men in a temporary alliance among men across race in a process of "settlement" of historical colonial injustices. This part examines Maori activism's disruption of New Zealand's illusion of national unity, and the resultant configuring of a national identity as bicultural. It then briefly discusses policies of structural adjustment and the corresponding emergence of a national identity of global entrepreneurs. The production of these two national identities resulted in tensions that were resolved through the settlements process, with the assimilation of some Maori men to the new national identity of global entrepreneurs. This resolution restored the illusion of national unity, silencing and erasing the activism of Maori women.

A. Disrupting New Zealand's Illusion of National Unity: The Nation as Bicultural


The dominant story of the founding of Aotearoa/New Zealand is a simple one of cession of sovereignty by the indigenous Maori people to the British in the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 ("Treaty"), resulting in one unified British New Zealand. Contrary to the dominant story, it has been argued persuasively that the Maori version of the Treaty, signed by most Maori leaders, did not cede sovereignty to the British. Historical data suggests that, in the Maori version of the Treaty, Maori people agreed to the British coming into the country to govern the British while Maori retained their traditional control over their land and people. The "appropriative mistranslation" of the English version of the Treaty, which clearly ceded sovereignty, into a Maori version that envisioned power sharing, was followed by the repression of the Maori version in the dominant foundation story. The textual and material violence necessary to this repression produced an illusion of national unity. Simultaneously, however, repression results in return. There have been repeated disruptions to the myth of national unity throughout New Zealand's history.

Discourses of biculturalism, which gained momentum in the 1970s, developed out of the most recent disruption to the illusion of national unity in New Zealand. Political activism on the part of Maori, often initiated and led by Maori women, increased and diversified. The local context of Treaty protests was framed by the global development of discourses of multiculturalism and indigenous, self-determination claims. The 1984 Labour Government promised prior to the election to honour the Treaty and to settle Treaty grievances. Initially the Government's discussions of these issues occurred in terms of multiculturalism and even broader equity considerations.

The broad discussion of equity and multiculturalism was not satisfactory to many Maori people, who responded with claims that biculturalism was the appropriate relationship for Maori and non-Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. Some argued that a focus on multiculturalism was an excuse for "doing nothing" and a means by which the state could silence Maori demands and placate mainstream New Zealand. Perhaps the most powerful explication of biculturalism appeared in Moana Jackson's 1988 report on Maori and the criminal justice system, which critiqued both the system's basis in a monocultural philosophy and the substantive outcome of criminal convictions. Jackson concluded that parallel legal systems for Maori and non- Maori in Aotearoa were mandated by the Treaty. While Jackson's report was quickly sidelined and repressed by the government, his analysis resonated powerfully with many Maori and some Pakeha.

In contrast to Jackson's proposal for parallel legal systems, state- sponsored attempts to implement biculturalism included the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, which was eventually given jurisdiction to hear the claims of Maori for Treaty grievances dating back to 1840. The Tribunal was initially empowered only to make recommendations to the government with respect to those claims, not to order redress binding on the government. Jane Kelsey has cogently argued that the Tribunal process channeled the energy of claims for full political self-determination into a cumbersome, expensive, and largely ineffectual apparatus that operated to legitimate the government's supreme authority, without placing any obligation on it to act.


B. State Structural Adjustment: The Nation as Global Entrepreneurs


Prior to 1984, the New Zealand state might have been described as "socialist", providing free education through the tertiary level, student living allowances, a comprehensive national health system, an extensive state housing system primarily in single family dwellings, a state pension plan, and welfare services and income assistance, including a domestic purposes benefit for single mothers. The State also owned railways, power generators, television and radio stations, universities, airlines, many coalmines, most forestry, some hotels, a shipping line, a ferry service, and a number of farms. It wrote wills, administered deceased estates, and ran banks and the largest contracting business in the country. All of this changed with the 1984 Labour Government, which commenced and accelerated the project of state structural adjustment. While neo-liberal economic policies were contradictory to Labour's traditional policy stances, economic and political instability in the early 1980s provided an opening for a push for law and policy reform by advocates of structural adjustment within the New Zealand Department of Treasury ("Treasury"). These advocates were influenced by economic theory produced in the United States. Treasury's advice was based on faith in market efficiencies: "[e]ssentially, Treasury's advice was founded upon the assumption that the economy is self-righting." Faith in markets was combined with anxiety about regulation and the assumption that the economy prior to 1984 had been constrained from reaching its full potential by government interventions. The overall prescription for stimulating the economy involved downsizing the government in favour of more and bigger markets.

The New Zealand structural adjustment reforms have been divided into three stages. The first stage, commenced by the 1984 Labour Government, involved deregulating the commercial and financial markets. The idea was that deregulation freed the market to allow it to work its miracles. Deregulation included ending wage and price controls, and deregulating interest rates, controls on external investment and borrowing, and foreign exchange trading. The New Zealand dollar was floated on the foreign exchange market, the stock market and regulation concerning mergers and trade practices were liberalized, and the country was opened further to foreign investment and ownership.

The second stage of structural adjustment, beginning in 1986, provided for the privatization and quasi-privatization of state-owned assets and utilities. It was assumed that organizing these enterprises along commercial lines would result in market-driven efficiency gains. The New Zealand State- Owned Enterprises Act of 1986 ("SOE Act") restructured government-owned assets and utilities into businesses, with a view to their eventual sale. Any state-owned enterprise ("SOE") was to be run on a commercial basis and have, as its primary goal, the production of profits for the government owner. Corporatization and privatization of SOEs led to massive redundancies of employees and a much "smaller" state. For example, the Ministry of Transport went from employing 4,500 people to a few hundred, contracting out almost all of its activities in an attempt to stimulate efficiencies through competition for the contracts. Also in the time period of the second stage, what was essentially another first stage deregulation project was carried out. The New Zealand Reserve Bank Act of 1989 ("RBA") was passed, repealing the New Zealand Reserve Bank Act of 1964 ("1964 Act"), with price stability through inflation control as its primary objective. The primary objective of the 1964 Act was to achieve full employment. In contrast, consistent with "orthodox macroeconomics," the RBA reflected faith in the marketplace to achieve the most efficient level of employment. The RBA, therefore, represents a further step in deregulating the economy by a "hands off" stance in monetary policy in relation to employment.

In the third stage of structural adjustment the success of the application of market principles to the new SOEs was applied to the remaining core state sector. Generally commenced after Labour was re-elected in 1987, it comprised the reorganization of the remaining state sector through downsizing, contracting out, and the imposition of rigid accountability requirements, in attempts to facilitate efficiencies assumed to be achievable through competitive markets. A fourth stage, deregulating the labour market and dismantling the welfare state, gained momentum with the election of a conservative National Government in 1990. The new Government immediately repealed the New Zealand Pay Equity Act of 1990 and the New Zealand National Labour Relations Act of 1987, and substituted the latter with the radical free market New Zealand Employment Contracts Act 1990 ("ECA"). Weeks after its election it started cuts to the unemployment and domestic purposes benefits. In the "Mother of all budgets" in June of 1991, it introduced further cuts to benefits and cut community grants, training programs, Maori development and legal aid. Disposable incomes of beneficiaries were cut by up to thirty percent. Following Treasury's lead, the National Government argued that cuts were necessary to restore integrity to the system and to provide incentives for beneficiaries to find work.

Taken together, these four stages represent a radical neo-liberal economic "experiment" voluntarily implemented in New Zealand to an extent usually only seen in third world countries in response to pressure from international monetary organizations. These reforms have taken Aotearoa/New Zealand from one of the most highly regulated to one of the least regulated countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD"), making it a model for neo-liberal economic policies. "Anyone who looks at privatization and government reform trends around the world tends to look first at New Zealand . . . no one has done a better job than them." New Zealand capitalizes on this reputation by "actively export[ing] advice on deregulation and privatisation."

The National Party's dramatic decline in support at the 1993 election and the success of a referendum to change the electoral system from first-past-the- post ("FPP") to MMP representation are both often attributed to the lack of popularity of, at least, the fourth stage reforms of the welfare state. The National Party was re-elected in 1993 by a slim majority in a context where the only other choice was the party that had initiated the radical reforms. Perhaps alerted to the possibility of overturns to its policy initiatives by its close win, and disturbed by predictions that MMP would result in more representative governments, the 1993 National Government quickly moved to attempt to entrench their fiscal policy through the New Zealand Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994 ("FRA"). The fiscal strategies embedded in the FRA include stating principles of responsible fiscal management, which were seen as necessary to the maintenance of the confidence of the markets. These principles include reducing Crown debt by running budget surpluses, maintaining stable tax rates, and prudently managing the Crown's financial risks (usually by privatising Crown assets to avoid risks of loss). The requirement of extensive reports by the Government to the House of Representatives provides for monitoring of compliance with these principles. The FRA allows for only temporary departure from the principles of responsible fiscal management. Further, while the FRA is not formally entrenched in New Zealand law, non-compliance with its reporting requirements, or repeal, opens any government to attack on the basis that it is irresponsible with the country's money.

The stated aim of structural adjustment was making New Zealand markets (including its labour market) and products globally competitive. Competition became the buzzword and the benefits of competition were continually espoused. The centrality of competition to the economic policies restructuring the state required a corresponding rewriting of New Zealand's national identity. The national identity had to be shifted from one in which the motto "we take care of each other" was prominent, to one that emphasized self-sufficiency, individual responsibility and individual competition in domestic and global marketplaces: "For 40 years, New Zealand tried to build a civil society in which all its people were free from fear or want. That project has now lapsed. In its place is only a vague exhortation for individuals to go and get rich."

Politicians labeled this new society the "enterprise society." The paradigm citizen in this nation competes individually in global markets as a business entrepreneur. His interest in getting rich coincides with the national interest, as his business creates jobs and products for export. His wealth allows him to exercise citizenship to consume many goods and services previously provided by the government, but now more efficiently provided by businesses like his.

C. The Treaty Settlements Process: The Production of Maori Men as Global Entrepreneurs

The Eurocentric logic of identity provides a framework for analyzing the resolution of the tensions between the emerging national identities of biculturalism and global entrepreneurship in Aotearoa/New Zealand. These tensions came to a head in 1986 in New Zealand Maori Council v. Attorney General ("NZMC case"), where the New Zealand Maori Council ("NZMC"), a statutory body, challenged the privatization aspect of structural adjustment using the SOE Act. The tension was resolved through the assimilation of some Maori men as global entrepreneurs and partners to the neo-liberal Treaty settlements. The logic of identity in dominant Eurocentric discourses produces universal unmarked subjects, usually some versions of white European males, who enjoy a wide range of possibilities in constructing their identities. "Membership in the dominant group . . . is legally marked by a convenient lack of interdiction, by unlimited possibilities." The production of the universal unmarked subject relies on the logics of race, class, and gender for the displacement of these 'marks' onto 'others.' The logic of assimilation of these 'others' to the position of the universal unmarked subject operates in two steps. The first step recognizes the sameness of the assimilated subject. The second part of this logic resists the incorporation of difference, leaving the mark of difference as "the primitive, the local, or the merely contingent" unassimilated. This logic also structures the assimilated sameness hierarchically over the unassimilated difference.

In the NZMC case, the NZMC sought a court order enjoining the government from privatizing state-owned assets under the SOE Act. The NZMC claimed that by transferring state assets potentially subject to future Tribunal claims to SOEs with a view to privatizing them, the Crown was exercising its powers in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty in contravention of the SOE Act. The decision in the case provided some very limited protections for such assets, and highlighted the tension between biculturalism and economic restructuring.

The NZMC case was followed by a raft of cases challenging the SOE Act, and an increasing backlog of costly and time-consuming Tribunal claims. These cases and claims presented a practical obstacle and a political challenge to the legitimacy of the government's increasingly hegemonic economic agenda. In response, the government developed a policy of negotiating Treaty claims directly, with the goal of settling them fully and finally. Settlements of outstanding debts to Maori would be fiscally prudent, would remove the 'drag' from the economy represented by Maori people and resources tied up in Tribunal claims, and would provide finality to Maori grievances and certain title to state-owned enterprises, enabling the Government to maximize profits from their sale. The Treaty settlements produced in this crucible of biculturalism and neo-liberal economic policy involved structuring the settlement proceeds into corporate ventures. The benefits of the settlements were meant to "trickle down" to Maori people over time.

The recognition of sameness is the first part of the logic of assimilation. Some senior and influential Maori men were among those at the forefront of the reconstruction of Aotearoa/New Zealand's national identity. In 1984, as the Labour Government commenced implementation of neo- liberal economic policies, a few of these men formed a corporation called Maori International Ltd. ("MIL"). Subsequent to the NZMC case, the directors of MIL proposed the establishment of a Maori SOE that would "act as financial manager, advocate, negotiator, business advisor, commercial developer, lender and manager of trading operations owned by Maori investors." Maori opponents argued that this type of economic approach would leave Maori "subordinated to colonial economic and political structures," and the Maori SOE did not materialize. Despite this outcome, the directors of MIL were the men that the government turned to in its efforts to settle Treaty claims. They became known as 'the Maori negotiators,' assimilating themselves consistent with the new national identity of global entrepreneurs, or the "wheeler-dealer, BMW driving, cell phone carrying entrepreneur[s]." These men negotiated settlements of Treaty grievances as corporate deals mirroring the neo-liberal policies of structural adjustment.

The two principle Maori negotiators of the first two major iwi (tribal) settlements, which were the most politically visible, were rewarded for assimilating to the new national identity with knighthoods. The knighthoods came at great cost. Treaty claims had to be negotiated in monetary terms and structured consistently with neo-liberal economic theory, and had to ignore issues of self-determination and political power-sharing, such as Jackson's claim for parallel legal systems. In order to be constructed as reasonable, realistic, and deserving of knighthood, the negotiators assimilated to the new national identity, accepted a small fraction of the estimated amount of the claim, and agreed to fully and finally settle claims.

The first part of the logic of assimilation provided recognition for the Maori negotiators only to the extent that they were willing and able to mirror the new national identity as global entrepreneurs. The title 'corporate warriors,' popularly used for the Maori negotiators, signals assimilation as both the reflection of the dominant 'corporate' partner, and the difference as the 'warrior' marked local, primitive, and raced other. Similarly, the Maori negotiators have been tagged as the 'Business Brown Table,' or just the 'Brown Table,' as a reflection of the Business Round Table marked by race. The central corporation in one of the settlements is dubbed the 'Brown-faced Brierleys,' after Brierley Investment Ltd., one of the country's largest corporations. These labels in the neo-liberal economic terms of globalisation are translated in the colonial marking of the assimilated 'other' as 'just like a white man' or as a 'black Englishman.'

Assimilation of the Maori negotiators as reasonable, realistic global entrepreneurs deserving of knighthood also allows those Maori who do not settle on these terms to be marked as unreasonable and unrealistic:

Mr Graham has offered $40[M] to the Whaktohea tribe in the Bay of Plenty to settle claims arising from the [C]rown's military invasion. The confiscated land today might be worth billions, says Mr Graham, 'but there are only 8000 of them (in the tribe) and the idea that somehow they should get all of that money is just totally unrealistic.'

The assimilation of the Maori negotiators leaves a residue of race that is reflected in appellations of 'brown' and 'warrior,' and is displaced onto those Maori who refuse to settle Treaty grievances.

D. Displacing Gender and Culture: Centering Maori Women


Within the dominant logic of identity, production of the unmarked subject of New Zealand's new national identity also required displacing the marks of gender and culture onto 'others.' White women are one of the necessary symbols of the local and particular against which the universal subject is measured. Within the logic of gender, white women, as those responsible for raising white men, are the bearers and reproducers of Eurocentric cultures, and serve as a civilizing presence within the nation. The re-emergence of the prominence of 'family values' during the process of structural adjustment and reconstruction of New Zealand's national identity may be seen as reaffirmation of the roles of white women as bearers and reproducers of Eurocentric cultures.

The process of colonization involved attempts to conform Maori women to the dominant logic of gender by constructing them as bearers of culture and civilizers of Maori men. In the crucible of discourses of structural adjustment and biculturalism, assimilation of the Maori negotiators into the new national identity displaced the mark of culture onto Maori women. The negotiators are constructed in opposition to the local, particular and primitive represented by the colonized 'traditional' culture imposed on Maori women. Simultaneously, the agency of Maori women exceeds this construction.

Prominent Maori women scholars have pointed out that there is much evidence that, traditionally, Maori women assumed a whole range of leadership roles. There is "unmistakable evidence that women's lives were richer and more varied than has ever been suggested in the 'received' anthropological literature" and "all Maori women enjoyed a better status than that being experienced by women in Europe at the time." Imposing the dominant logic of gender onto the operation of gender in Maori culture during colonization in New Zealand involved rewriting the roles of Maori women as subordinate to Maori men, and consigning Maori women to the private sphere. For example, British officials often attempted to refuse political recognition to Maori women leaders by refusing to allow them to sign the Treaty, rendering them invisible in the public sphere of the new British colony. Despite these attempts, a number of Maori women signed at the insistence of the groups that they represented.

These rewritten, static 'traditional' roles are again imposed on Maori women as part of the process of assimilation of some Maori men. Maori women are often kept out of the management of Treaty settlement assets with the argument that 'traditional' Maori culture requires men to manage assets: "There is no system of guarantee of a place for Maori women within our own institutions or within the new organisations which have evolved to manage our assets. Any talk of structural change sends our Maori men into a tail spin about 'cultural correctness' and 'making waves."' At the same time, assimilation indicates that the male roles are fluid: "The changes being made to our culture are freeing up the role and status of all men, Maori and Pakeha, whilst petrifying, meaning ceasing to change or develop, the role and status of Maori women."

The gender 'spin' on the settlements process is that fluidity is appropriate for the roles of Maori men and the implicit assumption is that women's roles must remain static. In other words, Maori women carry, or symbolize, 'traditional' Maori culture. The exclusion of women from the management of settlement assets reflects the dominant Eurocentric logic of gender, within which women are bearers of culture.

The actions of many Maori women far exceed the construction of "Maori women" through this logic of gender. Maori women have been central to the revitalization of Maori culture over the past two decades. Many occupy powerful and influential positions within Maori culture and society, and "have maintained a vanguard position on Treaty issues and debates with the Crown." A recent survey of Maori people revealed that leadership was firmly located at the hapu ('sub-tribe') level (not in the so-called national figures, some of whom were chosen by the government to negotiate the Treaty settlements). Furthermore, two of the only three Maori leaders who gained over ten percent recognition outside of their iwi borders were women.

A theoretical analysis that centers on Maori women focuses on their pivotal position in the operation of the settlements process. The political activism of some Maori women, gaining momentum from the 1970s, operated to disrupt the constructed illusion of unity of the nation. Regaining the illusion of stability and, in particular, reaffirmation of the dominance of the minority of privileged white men, required erasing these Maori women activists as serious political subjects. Cooperation of at least some Maori men in a temporary alliance among men across race in the Treaty settlement process facilitated this erasure. Necessary to this dynamic is the construction of the Maori negotiators as reasonable and rational assimilated subjects. Maori women who refuse to participate in this production by performing the corresponding roles of bearers of'traditional' Maori culture are labeled 'Maori activists' and represented as "hysterical and out there." The construction of their 'hysterical' claims for full political self-determination in opposition to the 'realistic' acceptance of the Maori negotiators of tiny fractions of commodified claims operates to maintain the legitimacy of the myth of the illusion of national unity.

7/30/08

FMG seeking to move into Aotearoa- there goes the seabed for sure


Posted 1 hour 9 minutes ago

Logo for Fortescue Metals Group (FMG)

FMG is seeking permission to explore for minerals in New Zealand. (ABC TV)

The Fortescue Metals Group, headed by Andrew Forrest, is making its first foray into international mining by applying to test for minerals in a vast area in New Zealand.

Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) has made several applications to test for iron ore sands on the west coast of the South Island in an area covering 4,000 kilometres.

The venture has upset a group of miners who claim their century old gold mining business could be jeopardised.

Bluescope Steel is already dredging iron ore sands along the North Island.

It is understood other miners including Rio Tinto and China's Sinosteel also have interests in the region.

FMG's Graeme Rowley says if its applications for permits are approved it will consult with concerned groups.

"At this stage it is so early in the process that we are not aware of some of the challenges that obviously through the consultation we will be involved in all of the issues that are raised by local community," he said.

"Obviously through the consultation we will be involved in all of the issues that are raised by local community and obviously if certain things become prohibitive then obviously the tenders will not be granted.

Too large

Keith Brodie from New Zealand's mining lobby Minerals West says FMG's application is too large and the governing body needs to scrutinise it closely.

"[To] make sure it complies with the minerals program that covers the whole of New Zealand," he said.

"Also to make sure that they're not sacrificing one part of the minerals industry for another so it has to be carefully considered."

7/25/08

Do YOU support a Free Trade Agreement with the US?


Many New Zealanders believe that a New Zealand-US free trade agreement would put all of Aotearoa up for sale to US corporations by “removing barriers” to US corporate control and by allowing US corporations to sue the New Zealand government for threatening their profits.
Click on image for a larger version

notforsale.jpg
Our World Is Not For Sale | Auckland, Friday 25 July 2008

Do YOU support a Free Trade Agreement with the US?

Press Release - For Immediate Release
ourworldisnotforsale.wordpress.com/

NZ is not for sale

Do YOU support a Free Trade Agreement with the United States?

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is arriving in Auckland this Friday night and will be having meetings in Auckland on Saturday with Winston Peters, Helen Clark and John Key among others. She will also be meeting with the US-NZ Council who will be trying to push for a free trade deal between New Zealand the United States.

A free trade agreement will not be in either country’s best interest and we must continue to oppose the neoliberal free trade agenda.

A free trade agreement would allow US corporations to sue the New Zealand government for threatening the profits of U.S. companies effected by the agreement. Many New Zealanders believe that it puts all of Aotearoa up for sale to US corporations. Their free trade agreement will “remove barriers” to US corporate control. Changes could include:

- Privatisation of New Zealand’s water, schools and hospitals.

- Removal of environmental, water quality and public health protections to make way for massive increases in Dairy production to feed the U.S. market

- Banning labelling of genetically engineered food.

- End to government subsidies of medicines in New Zealand

A protest march to her state welcoming at Government House will be held to tell her that she is NOT welcome here. This will be followed by a protest from 3.15pm outside the Langham Hotel in Symonds Street where she is scheduled to meet National Party Leader John Key. There is also a $5000 reward offered by the Auckland University Students Association for any student who places Condoleezza Rice under a Citizen’s Arrest.

Saturday 26th July
1:30pm at Auckland Domain cnr Carlton Gore and Parks Roads
3:15pm outside the Langham Hotel on Symonds Streeet
Bring noise makers, placards and banners

On the 11th of September 2007 - The U.S. and New Zealand delegations made up of U.S. and NZ corporate and business interests attempted to hold a preliminary meeting in Auckland to discuss the future of such a free trade agreement.

The forum organisers had originally planned to host the event at the Auckland war memorial museum. However, much evidence suggests that in light of information gathered via surveillance of New Zealanders opposed to the Trade agreement in the run up to the event the organisers were forced to employ between 60 and a hundred of police officers to barricade themselves into the hotel they were staying at and hold the event there instead. Unlike the millionaires and corporate CEOs, the New Zealand public was largely kept in the dark about the forums existence.

Despite this, several hundred turned up and peacefully protested outside the event. The social reprecussions of such an agreement for New Zealanders have been completely ignored with most media focusing on New Zealand delegates sidestepping of the serious issues instead making congratulatory comments about how New Zealand’s students will now be able to get longer working holiday visas to the U.S.

The OUR WORLD IS NOT FOR SALE campaign was formed around building the protests at the September 2007 US-NZ Partnership Forum, the global justice campaign aims to build public support and organisation against the signing of any form of free trade agreement between the United States and New Zealand.

source: Scoop

7/24/08

Legislation bringing in China FTA passed

Parliament has passed legislation which will bring in the Free Trade Agreement with China on October 1 and the Government says it represents a historic advance in New Zealand's trading relationships.

The New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill passed its third reading on a vote of 104 to 17, strongly supported by the National Party and opposed by the Greens, New Zealand First and the Maori Party.

Trade Minister Phil Goff said being the first developed country to sign an FTA with China would bring major benefits for exporters.

"Initial tariff cuts will take place on October 1, resulting in the immediate elimination of tariffs on over $200 million worth of current New Zealand exports to China," he said.

"By 2017, tariffs on 96 percent of New Zealand's exports to China, which currently cost exporters $120 million a year, will be phased out."

Mr Goff said that would give New Zealand companies a unique competitive advantage in the world's fastest growing economy.

"Our exports to China, currently at more than $2 billion a year, are estimated to grow by between $230-350 million a year faster than they would have without an FTA."




Written by Hone Harawira
Tuesday, 22 July 2008

ImageI te hui a tau o te Roopu Haina ki Aotearoa i tera tau, i puta te korero a te ahorangi a Makere Mutu, kia mahi tahi te Maori me te Hainamana, kia haere whakamua, a raua wawata, haerenga tangata.

At the annual conference of the New Zealand Chinese Association last year, Professor Margaret Mutu told the hui that Maori and Chinese should work together to advance their political agendas.

Ko Mutu he uri no Ngati Kahu, no Te Rarawa, no Ngati Whatua hoki, a nana te kii, kua hohonu haere te whanaungatanga, i waenganui i te Maori me te iwi o Haina.

Mutu, of Ngati Kahu, Te Rarawa and Ngati Whatua whakapapa told the conference of the significant relationship that had developed between tangata whenua and Chinese.

Ki a ia, ka puta tenei whanaungatanga i te mahi kaikiri a tauiwi – ki a ia “Kei te pehia, kei te whakaparahakotia, taua tahi”

It was, in her words, a relationship formed in reaction to Pakeha racism - "We are both oppressed and discriminated against."

Tera te piri tahi e whakaaro nei au, i au e wananga ana i tenei pire, ara, te Pire Hokohoko, Kore Utu o Aotearoa me Haina.

It is that relationship I think of in considering the New Zealand China Free Trade Agreement Bill.

E hangaia ana he ara, kia watea ai te uru atu o nga taonga hokohoko, me nga putea whakangao ki Haina; a, a tona wa, kia tangohia nga here utu kei runga i nga taonga o Niu Tireni, me te whakawatea ano, i te haere o nga kai-pakihi ki Haina.

The pathway is being set for increasing access New Zealand trade and investment in China; for the removal over time of tariffs on current exports to China, from expanding the movement of business people.

Inaianei, kua tau mai te honore he Whenua Aronui a Aotearoa, me ona tikanga kore here, kia orite a tatou kaiwhakarato moni, ki era ake o te ao. Ko te korero, ka penei i te mea, koia nei te oranga mo Aotearoa.

We are now being honoured with the treatment of a “Most Favoured Nation” non-discrimination provision to ensure that our investors remain no worse off than investors of any other countries. It’s all being painted as a major development, as fundamental to the future economic wellbeing of Aotearoa.

Na te aha i riro i a tatou, te tuunga “Whenua Aronui”?

So how did we earn this rapid escalation to be the ‘most favoured nation’?

Na te aha i riro i a tatou tera tunga, hakoa mai rano to matou whakaiti i a ratou i roto i nga ture, me nga kaupapa, hei kati kia noho-ki-waho, era e ki ana e te tuhinga tawhito, ko te “taniwha kowhai”.

How could we achieve this, based on a history of consistently passing laws against the Chinese, of creating policies to restrict and exclude what the history books describe as the ‘yellow peril’?

He korero tawhito tenei kia kaua te Hainama e uru mai nei, ki Niu Tireni. Ka kitea enei korero i te tatau taake i te tau 1881, e orite ana ki te utu o te Hainamana mo nga tau e wha ki te ono.

This is a history to keep the Chinese out of New Zealand; a history that derives its source from the 1881 poll tax which was the equivalent of between four to six years earning for a Chinese person at the time.

Kotahi rau pauna kia haramai ki konei, kia utaina nga korero whakaparahako ki runga i a ratou, nga korero he paruparu, he tahumaero, he tahawahawa, a, he whakakinotanga.

£100 to come here, to be subjected to attitudes associating Chinese people with terms like filth, dirt, disease, contamination and degradation.

I whakaritea, ko te tekau ma rima anake nga Hainamana, kia haramai i runga tima i te wa kotahi.

Limits were set on the numbers of Chinese able to travel to New Zealand –a limit of only 15 Chinese passengers per ship.

I tohua ano he whakamatautau kia mohio mai ratou i nga kupu Ingarihi kotahi rau, engari i tupurangi te whiriwhiri o te kupu. Tae atu ki te tau 1920, i tohua ma te tiwhikete whakaaetanga anake, ka uru mai. Tae atu ki te tau 1925, i tohua te Kawanatanga kia kaua te wahine e uru mai, kia kore tona iwi e whakarahi atu.

A reading test of one hundred English words chosen at random was imposed; and in 1920 entry was only allowed by permit. In 1925, the Government decided to exclude women from the quota in an effort to prevent reproduction.

Tae atu ki te tau 1951, e kore taea te Hainamana kia tu hei iwi whenua, a, tae atu ki te tau 1965, ka taea tonu te pirihimana kia uru atu ki roto i nga whare a te Hainamana, i raro i te ture “Rahui i te Rongoa Whakamoe”, ahakoa horekau he pukapuka whakaae.

Up until 1951, the Chinese were not allowed to be naturalised; and up until 1965, under the Opium Prohibition Act, Police were able to enter any Chinese home without a search warrant.

Ka mutu, ko nga ture kai-kiri, kia kore ai nga toa hoko hua rakau, horoi kakahu, hoko kai hoki o te Hainamana, e tukituki i nga toa o te Pakeha.

Finally, a series of laws were passed to stop Chinese fruit shops, laundries and groceries from competing against Europeans.

Na, i runga i tenei tu momo hitori, kai-kiri, whakahawea i nga Hainamana, he aha te take e tino hiakai ana tenei kawanatanga, kia whakaritea i tetahi tiriti ki a Haina.

So how is it, that in a land with such a shameful history of exclusion and institutional racism against the Chinese, the Government is suddenly bending over backwards to become party to a treaty with China.

He aha te tikanga nei, kia hurikoaro te kotahi rau tau o nga whakaiti, tukinotia, kia hoa tahi tatou ki a Haina?

What has been the dramatic turnaround to reverse over a century of racism into a determination to develop ties with the region?

Maumahara mai ki nga kupu a Mutu - “Kei te pehia, kei te whakaparahakotia, taua tahi”

Remember Margaret Mutu’s words – “We are both oppressed and discriminated against."

Kotahi anake te kaupapa hei tautoko i tenei pire. Kia peke ki te tuara o tenei whenua tino kaha rawa, kia watea ai te iwi nui nei hei hoko taonga. Ko te wawata kia whai moni a Niu Tireni i te iwi rawa, o Haina.

There is one motive for this free trade agreement. It is about jumping on the back of an economic super-power and gaining access to the largest consumer market in the world. It is about the forlorn hope that New Zealand will make money from the wealth of a burgeoning Chinese middle class.

Engari, he whakaaetanga koura tënei, kaore ranei?

But is this agreement all it’s worth in gold or not?

Kahore te roopu whakawä i mohio, mënä ka kitea koe ki nga korero i tae mai ki te Komiti hei whakatau.

The jury is out when you look through the submissions that came into the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee.

15 i tautoko, 12 ki runga i te taiapa, 27 e kore e whakaae.

Fifteen supported it; twelve were neutral and twenty seven opposed the deal.

Ahakoa te tini o nga Yuan i te ao, kore taea te whakarerekë, he nui ake era e kore whakaäe, ki era i whakaae.

All the Yuan in the world doesn’t change the fact that the numbers of NO outnumbered the YES votes.

Ka hoki mai ki tera rereketanga, o te tuunga Whenua Aronui i tetahi ringa, ki te mahi whakahawea tangata i tera atu.

It comes back to the fundamental mismatch between being ‘most favoured nation’ on one hand, with a past that is less worthy.

I whakaae ake te Komiti Whakawa, ko te tikanga a tangata i Haina a ”he nui, he rahi ona raruraru”

The Select Committee acknowledged, yes the human rights record in China has “many and substantial imperfections”.

I whakaae taua komiti, i mohio ratou ki nga awangaawanga kua korerohia, mo nga mahi takahi tangata i Haina.

The Select Committee acknowledged, yes, they were very conscious about the legitimate concerns raised about human rights in China.

Engari i te mutunga, ki nga paati nui, horekau he awangawanga.

But when cash came to crunch, the ruling parties didn’t care.

Tika ana te whakaräpopoto a UNITE. Ko te FTA nei, he kaupapa mo te painga o nga kai pakihi, ehara mo te painga o nga kai mahi, nga whanau, nga iwi kei tawahi, kei te kainga ränei. Ko nga whakaaro mo rätau, kei muri noa atu.

Unite summed it up. The FTA policy is designed to serve interests of big business – with the interests of workers, of families, the people abroad or at home who have to suffer the consequences are very much a secondary concern.

E whakapono ana a UNITE, ko te FTA nei, he mahi tukituki, kia whakaiti te utu o nga kaimahi o konei, i te whakataetae utu ki nga taonga i Haina.

Unite believes that the FTA will create competition and drive our own internal wages and work conditions down, as firms struggle to compete with Chinese imports.

Na te mahi a nga kai pakihi nui, i waho atu o te ture o tenei whenua, ka whakaiti te mana o te käwanatanga whakahaere a iwi, rangatiratanga hoki.

The opportunity for big business to trade outside of government influence or control, in its effects, serves to both erode democracy and economic sovereignty.

Ki ta Ahorangi Jane Kelsey ki te Komiti, ko te mate o te tohu Whenua Aronui, koia ko te hinga o te rangatiratanga o te käwanatanga, ia FTA, ia FTA.

What Professor Jane Kelsey also brought to the attention of the committee is that the Most Favoured Nation obligations mean that each new FTA will have the domino effect of removing foreign investments further from control of parliament.

Ahakoa e whakahokia mai ana te mana whakahaere o nga kaupapa a tängata ki te käwanatanga, i te mea e kore te kaupapa mäkete e whakamana ana i a Niu Tireni, engari ko nga FTA nei, ko rerekë atu ki taua whakapono.

So at a time when government is re-regulating services and resuming state ownership because the market model does not serve the national interest, it is acting in quite the other direction in pursuing Free Trade Agreements such as this.

Kore taea e matou o te Paati Maori, te tautoko i tenei Pire.

The Maori Party cannot support this Bill.

He nui a matou äwangawanga, mo nga mahi takahi tangata, a Haina.

We have ongoing concerns about China’s human rights record.

He äwangawanga hoki, mo nga taonga ka utaina e Haina, ki runga i a tatou.

We have ongoing concerns about the potential for China to dump goods on our domestic markets.

He awangawanga ta mätou, mo nga mahi kia ngaro.

We have ongoing concerns about the potential loss of jobs in our manufacturing sector.

He mahi tinihanga hoki tënei, kia tukua mai te pepa nei kia tirohia. Kua oti te whakarite me pehea ra te haere, kua tamokohia nga pepa. Kua oma ke te hoiho, he moumou taima te kati i te keeti. E mara whakamutu atu.

And we believe that being allowed the opportunity to scrutinise the FTA at this stage of the proceedings, only after it has been signed, makes the whole select committee process a farce.

Ko te iti o te utu, ko te kore e aro ki nga kaupapa whakaruru kaimahi, ko te kore e manaaki i te taiao, ko nga taumahatanga ka tau ki runga i o tatou kaimahi, ko enei katoa nga ähuatanga, e kore matou e tautokongia i tenei pire

The cheap labour, the weak health, safety and environmental standards, the poor protection of workers, the adverse impacts that will be suffered by New Zealand workers are all reasons why we can not support this Bill.

Kua rongo ripoata mätou, e rima miriona nga tamariki i raro i te tau tekau ma rima, e mahi ana mo nga haora roroa, mo te utu iti noa. E rima miriona nga take nei, kia kaua mätou e tautoko i tenei Pire.

The reports of some five million Chinese children under the age of fifteen, lumbered with long hours for low pay, are five million more reasons why we are voting against this Bill.

Ko nga iwi whenua e kore nei i kitea i nga Whakataetae o te Ao, te tini o rätou no Tibet kua mauheretia. E kore taea te aro ake, mo era momo mahi tukino.

The dissidents being hidden out of the radar of the Olympic spotlight, the hundreds of Tibetans being imprisoned, the international stigma of China’s human rights issues can not simply be ignored.

Me mihi atu kia nga kaipakihi Maori, nga roopu a iwi hoki, e whai ana i te oranga mo o ratou ake uri, kia whai whakaaro, kia whai putea, mo ratou.

We fully respect the right of organisations, of iwi, of Maori businesses, to take up the opportunity to pursue their own best interests, and to return dividends to Maori shareholders.

Kei a ratou tera, a, e möhio ana mätou, ka taea e rätou te whakanui i to rätou ake putea. E möhio anoki mätou, ko te tu o te kaipakihi, he mea nui ki te Maori, a, e tautoko ano mätou i taua whäinga.

That is their prerogative and we are confident that they will be very competitive and achieve impressive returns. We believe that economic growth is essential for Maori businesses to succeed; and we will support them all the way.

Engari, e titiro tonu ano matou ki nga taumahatanga, ka tau mai ki runga i nga papakäinga Maori, ratou te pani me te rawakore, ratou e kore e kitea i nga painga, e mäturuturu mai nei, i nga mahi kaipakihi.

But we are also charged with looking out for the impacts on Maori communities, especially those who may be least resilient and least likely to benefit from the trickle down of economic growth.

E tautoko ana mätou, kia totika te utu mo te taonga, engari, e kore tautoko i te korero kia kore utu nei.

We support fair trade not free trade.

E tautoko ana mätou i te whakangao e whänuitia ana töna painga, me te mea ano, e hiahia ana mätou kia kitea, ko nga waahi mahi i konei, i Haina hoki, he waahi pai mo nga kaimahi.

We seek socially responsible investment. We want to see the provision of healthy and safe working conditions both here and in China.

E kore e taea e matou te nohopuku, ina maukinohia nga kaimahi i tawahi, mo te painga o to tatou ao, a, kore hoki matou e noho pohehe ana, e tiaki ana te pire nei, i a tatou kaipakihi.

And we can not sit by and be silent that workers overseas may be exploited to benefit our economy; or to pretend that New Zealand industry and services will be protected.

E hiahia ana matou kia mohio, ka tu tonu te Maori hei iwi motuhake, i raro i te whakaruruhau o tona Tiriti o Waitangi.

We must know that the rights of Maori will be actively protected, as provided for under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Me te mohio ano hoki, ka taea te pire nei ki te whakamarumaru, ki te whakanui ano ra i to matou whenua me ona iwi i mua noa atu i te painga mo nga kaipakihi nuinui o te ao.

And we need to ensure our laws serve to protect and enhance our nation, not globalist agendas.