How New Zealand could be bought out … again

July 28, 2010



Listening to the news on Radio NZ this morning, there was a report of some government politicians, particularly John Key and Bill English, expressing concerns about foreigners (Chinese in this instance) buying large amounts of NZ farm real estate and other assets. His catchphrase on this is along the lines of “if we don’t watch out we’ll become tenants in our own country” – meaning foreigners will own major land and we’ll just be paying rent and working for them.

My mind wandered back to an article I posted in April that compared the sale of land and assets – in the name of inviting overseas investment to create jobs – to the early colonisation of New Zealand and the transfer and alienation of Maori land. As the news item proceeded I began changing a few words in the comments being quoted from Key and others to take it back to sometime around 1840 (give or take a decade or so), when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.

This imaginary excerpt from the imaginary Maori Communications Service:

‘Fears that pakeha settlers could muscle in on Maori land and farming have sparked a last-minute rethink on land sales taking place around Aotearoa. Super-iwi leader Hone said he is deeply concerned about how much land is being sold which, despite beliefs to the contrary, may be lost to Maori forever.

‘Hone warned that, despite their small numbers right now, the huge resources and financial backing of the settlers could see them one day become dominant players in Aotearoa’s economy. “The concern, I guess, is that there is so much wealth out there that they could literally buy Aotearoa’s productive base. It’s not impossible. That’s the question – what do we want to be? Do we want to be tenants in our own country or do we want to own our own destiny?”

‘The problem for Maori is twofold. First, the leadership cannot force individual Maori farmers to refuse to sell land. And second, the pakeha have so much more money that they can effectively control land prices to the point where Maori cannot afford to buy land that other Maori want to sell to cash up their assets.

‘Super-iwi spokesman in charge of finance, Wiremu, said that a review being considered at Waitangi was trying to strike a balance between protecting important assets and allowing sufficient foreign investment to create jobs and increase individual Maori wealth.’

‘Coming up next, the weather forecast ……’

(Back to 2010) And if you’re wondering if I made this up, well most of the words are exactly as spoken or reported in this morning’s paper – just change the leaders’ names to Johnny and Bill.

At least modern New Zealanders know how the country was taken over first time. Now we need to remember that it can happen again if we let greed and the almighty dollar rule.

12 Comments | Economics, Maori issues, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

‘One system for all’ is too simplistic a catch cry

April 23, 2010

Democracy has been a hot topic in New Zealand in recent months, and I’ve been having some thoughts about some of its facets. I’ve already written about the sacking of the democratically elected Canterbury Regional Council (Ecan), and the Auckland super-city setup whereby many processes associated with public assets are being contracted out to non-accountable private entities.

Here’s another facet that’s been teasing me for some time – special race-based seats. (It’s related to the maxim of ‘One person one vote’.) This issue resurfaced when the representative structure for the Auckland super-city was decided and no representation was provided exclusively for Maori (or other ethnicities). But it’s been around – and it’s bothered me – for decades in the form of debate over Maori seats in parliament.

The standard argument against these seats allocated on the basis of ethnicity or race is that people of any ethnicity can become representatives simply by competing on merit in general electorates. If they’re good enough to do the job, they’ll get in through that route.

That’s a perfectly logical and satisfying argument if you happen to be part of the majority culture or ethnicity, and it works okay for those of the minority culture who relish a huge challenge. But for significant minorities – clearly Maori in most parts of New Zealand – this argument is just too simplistic, shallow and patronising.

If you’re an insistent advocate of racial assimilation – of minority cultures adjusting to fit in with a dominant culture – then you probably won’t agree with much from here on. But if you believe that:

  1. all cultures have some inherent worth  (even European J),
  2. all people should be able to identify with their chosen culture, and live according to it within the fundamental rules of civil and respectful living,
  3. people of tangata whenua status should have a truly representative voice in governance structures (if for no other reason than recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi), by which I mean their representatives should reflect Maori aspirations,

then there is a strong case for special seats. And it’s not just for ethical or political reasons; in fact it’s really a simple mathematical issue.

Let’s work this through using a reasonable approximation that 15% of New Zealand voters identify themselves as Maori. My argument is stronger for a region like Auckland which has a higher proportion of Maori residents, particularly in some areas such as South Auckland.

If after an election the parliament of New Zealand comprises 15% Maori, then that would appear to be OK. Correctly proportional representation. But is it? Can this set-up reflect the interests of both pakeha and Maori?

If there were no reserved Maori seats and all these elected Maori gained their place in “general” electorates, they would be morally bound to represent the majority of their constituents – that is, the 85% of pakeha voters. And, most likely, they would only be elected in the first place if they appealed to that majority of voters so it would be unlikely they would be able to advocate specifically for Maori unless the pakeha in their electorate approved.

In other words, these 15% of politicians would be people who identified themselves as Maori and presumably sometimes leaned toward Maori cultural viewpoints and solutions to social issues. However, they would rarely be able to advocate for any special Maori solutions on controversial cultural issues because they must be accountable to the whole (mainly pakeha) electorate.

So under this arrangement, even though 15% of the parliament may be Maori, none of the them could ethically advocate for Maori values and aspirations on any issue that the dominant pakeha culture is uncomfortable with. If they did try it – say on some watershed issue such as Foreshore and Seabed or special funding for a Maori education initiative – they would probably be voted out come next election. To survive, they would need to think and vote like pakeha.

It is for this reason that I am pretty convinced that, in a country where race relationships are based on the partnership concepts of the Treaty of Waitangi, there needs to be some dedicated seats (in proportion to population) just for the minority Treaty partner, so they can truly, and without fear of their electorate, advocate for their cultural values.

It’s still ‘one person one vote’, but a special seats option does allow genuine representation of significant minority voices and aspirations to be heard, and for both parties of the Treaty partnership to have influence.

4 Comments | Maori issues, Politics, Race relations | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Dairy farm buy-up will lead to NZ’s second great colonisation

April 18, 2010

I’ve been unsettled by news that a significant number of large New Zealand dairy farms are being sold to overseas owners, or soon will be. The most recent instances are to a company which is to all extents and purposes Chinese, but it is not the ethnicity of these and other buyers that concerns me. They could be Australian, American, British or Mongolian – what matters is that they are not New Zealanders, they have money and New Zealanders are willing to take that money for short-term gain.

As I was pondering what this may mean in the longer term, an interesting analogy started brewing in the “what if” department of my grey matter. This may take more than a few sentences to explain, so bear with me.

Over the years I’ve had “robust discussions” with many Pakeha who are disgruntled by Maori demands in Treaty settlements and other historic land disputes. A common complaint is: “They sold the land in fair trading and knew what they were doing, and now they’re complaining that they were screwed and want more.”

Let’s set aside for now the response that most of the Treaty claims concern land that was NOT sold but confiscated or legislated away. These were illegal and must be redressed. For now I’m talking about the legal transactions that took place involving willing buyers and sellers. These would mostly have been small, local, incremental and spasmodic. There was not some wholesale decision by all of Maoridom at one time to sell their land to foreigners.

So when it’s said, “Maori chose to sell to settlers”, in fact what generally happened was that one Maori hapu (or even just their leader) made a transaction on one piece of land at one time because the payment – tools, clothing, muskets, money, patronage, whatever – was very attractive at the time, and it was just a small tract of land anyway. It may have been months or years later that a similar transaction happened elsewhere nearby, and then again in another place some time later, and so on – a bit here and a bit there.

Add this up over several decades and you end up with most of New Zealand owned and run by Pakeha settlers and many Maori asking, ‘How did that happen?’.

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi did involve the consent of a significant proportion of Maori leaders. In contrast, however, most of the small, cheap sales of land packages around the country were by small autonomous groups of Maori here and there, doubtless paying little attention to the part they were playing in a decades-long trend of alienation of their land to foreigners. Local, short-term interests outweighed consideration of countrywide sociological trends. And one-off payments, in exchange for acre by acre over the country, would have proved too attractive in the short term to easily resist.

Some readers will realise where I’m going here, but for those who think I’m way off course, here’s the link back to dairy farm sales.

The trend in the farming industry over several decades is now clear: the small family farm is struggling to survive, farms are amalgamating to increase efficiency and productivity, and big agricultural businesses with off-site owners are creating ever bigger farms.

Large numbers of individual farmers, and in particular dairy farmers, are struggling to live with the ballooning size of the industry, the increasing valuation of their farms, and the debts they’ve taken on to expand and compete. One bad year of payouts and they’re in deep doodoo. Many have worked themselves into unsustainable positions.

Now they’re attracted by the idea of selling their farms at the going prices – take the money and run while they can before things get worse. Trouble is, not many other New Zealand farmers are able to buy; they’re also in precarious positions and living beyond their means in the hope of another boom year.

The big money is overseas – in the countries from which we’ve all been borrowing for years, and particularly over the past two years. The chickens are coming home to roost, as the saying goes. We’ve been borrowing to live beyond our means, and now we’re having to sell out to the people who fund our mortgages – mainly Chinese and other Asian countries.

So we’ve started already down the track of selling large tracts of land, one package after another, and once this gains momentum, I can’t see why other countries may not one day own the majority of New Zealand’s landmass. (And yes, even Crown-owned land could go – a desperate growth-driven government may sell some if it means having money for their constituents to keep enjoying their way of life.)

Much like the great Maori land alienation from iwi and hapu through the 19th Century, the great NZ outdoors will be sold package by package, each time for short-term gains to satisfy small numbers of people.

I may be wrong but . . . . I can see that eventually we Kiwis could become the on-site workforce for foreign owners – just like much of Maoridom became after colonisation and selling most of their land to Pakeha.

Those who are quite relaxed about selling out to foreigners (“It’s great that these people want to invest in our country and bring their money here,” they say) see any overseas investment as good, purely for the reason that “it creates jobs” (as if that’s the Meaning Of Life) and therefore allows us to maintain our lifestyle. This is short-term gratification.

We Kiwis (Pakeha and Maori and other immigrants over the years) may well find ourselves one day  in the same position that Maori did after 100 years of the first great colonisation – financially better off and with better toys but with little meaningful say in how the country we once owned is run.

Some New Zealanders (such as dairy farmers and other business owners selling out) will become rich in the process, but most of us will be reliant on the goodwill of our new owners to be happy. They’ll employ us to work their land and their businesses, and we’ll use our wages to buy the things they make for us.

Of course, the trend of selling our sovereignty to other countries has been going on for about 30 years now in the wider business community – the overseas buy-up of our banks, telecoms, transport, etc. (Sorry, I meant the wonderful investment these new owners put into our country.) But most of these business sell-offs didn’t involve selling large tracts of actual land, just businesses and the profits they made. Now it’s getting much more serious as actual real estate is leaving our control.

Just as with Maori alienation from their land, it won’t all happen in a few months or a few years; it will be a trend over several decades. And once it’s done, there will be no way back to the days before the second great wave of colonisation. And our children will say, “Well I didn’t do it! Don’t blame me!”

But we’re all doing it if, in the name of maintaining our lifestyles, we are wooed by the argument that foreign investment in (ie, purchase of) our land is good for us.

12 Comments | Business, Economics, Maori issues, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

A reasoned perspective on Maori flag decision

December 17, 2009

I may be wrong but . . . . it seems I’ve finally found one issue on which I appear to agree 100% with John Key.

I heard him speak on National Radio on Tuesday about his decision to allow the flying of the popularly chosen Maori flag (the one used by tino rangatiratanga) on certain ceremonial occasions, alongside the good old boring New Zealand one.

Every argument put forward by the interviewer he rebuffed in a way which tallied entirely with what I would have said if asked (assuming I could have thought that quickly).

Here are some of his comments: “It’s a small but positive step (to show) that we are embracing cultural diversity”. Precisely. And those who don’t want to embrace cultural diversity but instead believe that one dominant culture should set the standards and the rules will of course be unhappy with another flag.

“It isn’t always flown in protest. Team New Zealand flew the flag at Valencia. You see it at lots of kapa haka competitions …. (and at) the sevens tournament.” Certainly this flag means different things for different people in different contexts. So get over it!

“I don’t believe it’s a political flag …. It was there long before the Maori Party”. Yes, a bit of historical accuracy does no harm in this debate.

“A little perspective needs to be seen. If you go back some years in our history, (person named, I didn’t pick it up) was fired for saying ‘kia ora’. Would we today seriously consider firing someone for saying this? We’re a young country that’s evolving.” You bet. I cannot understand how anyone cannot be heartened by the increasing use of Maori culture, language and symbols in everyday life.

“There will always be some (Maori) that won’t accept that flag. That’s why there was only 80% support in the submissions process, not 100%. But then there are plenty of New Zealanders who also think that the current New Zealand flag should be replaced.”

This is a powerful but simple argument. How often have I heard comments among my pakeha friends to the effect that “Maori cannot even agree among themselves on what they want; how can we take them seriously?” It’s so easy to be blind to the fact that, like Europeans who continually scrap amongst ourselves, or like South Islanders who sneer about Dorklanders, Maori too can hold diverse opinions about each other and about issues within Maoridom.

“When I look at those two flags on Waitangi Day …. I’m going to be reminded …. how lucky we are in New Zealand that we chose to build a country on peaceful foundations. Any New Zealander that takes this out of context is really missing the point, that there’s a lot to be celebrated.”

I too am always heartened and uplifted when I see pride being shown by any cultural group in New Zealand, and particularly by tangata whenua, which for me translates into a richer and happier society for all of us.

“You don’t see New Zealanders running around objecting if the haka is performed by the All Blacks at a test match. In fact there’s wild outcry when there’s suggestions from British sporting journalists every so often that it should be dropped.” Yes, we can easily be selective in our acceptance of cultural symbols.

And as for politicians (particularly Maori ones) like Labour’s Shane Jones using its association with the unpopular Hone Harawira (calling it “Hone’s flag”) to object, well that just shows how shallow and weak their arguments are. Not the sort of thing I would expect from someone who wants to lead positive nation-building. You’ve dropped in my estimation, Shane.

3 Comments | Maori issues, Race relations | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Observations on racism and Hone Harawira’s outburst

November 19, 2009

I’ve pondered the issues and events around Hone Harawira’s run-in with most of white New Zealand and, it seems, many Maori as well (specially his own Maori Party) and I’ve found it very hard to put together a coherent single position. I guess that could be put down to profound ambivalence on many aspects.

What has concerned me most though, from a pakeha perspective, is the way in which events – particularly Hone’s angry email message and his reaction to the resultant publicity – have thrown up all sorts of side issues and exposed underlying attitudes, like lifting a large garden rock to observe the creatures beneath.

In the workplace I was inhabiting at the time of the radio announcement, the reaction was pure venom, as if Hone had just walked in the office and thrown fresh excrement at all the white occupants. Much comment then and since has centred on the two popular themes, summarised as: “he should be sacked” (no-one suggested by whom and from what), and “if a white person said those things they would be crucified”. Well, sorry, but I hear the sort of language that Hone used every second day around here.

I am challenged by Hone’s comments and attitudes, but I’m afraid I can’t seem to be able to work up any real anger about it. And when I try to explore if he makes me feel offended, I find myself becoming more offended by people’s reactions to him than by Hone himself.

As I said, I have no single coherent position to put here. I’ve read several good commentators and columnists who have placed the whole (on-going) episode into some sensible political and social perspective, but for my part I’ve only come up with some observations about various facets. Here goes.

My first arose from the coincidence that both Harawira and Rodney Hide got into trouble with their mouths around the same time. Hide admitted it in his seemingly honest apology to the nation: How easy it is to let your position and status, as a politician with your hands on power, go to your head. I wouldn’t want to get too judgmental here, because I can easily imagine getting a bit of strut into my stride if I had my every word listened to and analysed, and perhaps feared, on a regular basis!

Both men need to learn the responsibilities that go with power, that a dash of humility can go a long way, and that posturing rarely produces lasting and worthwhile results.

Then there was the language Harawira used. As I said above, I hear that stuff every second day, and you’ll hear worse every Friday night on the brilliant television comedy show, 7 Days. Sure, we’d like to think that politicians were somehow one level up in their use of language, but they are human and have been subject over the years to a variety of sources of crude talk. I only have to listen to my neighbours shouting at their kids in expletives to wonder how those kids could possibly end up not using the same language as standard adult talk.

And we do need to remember that Hone’s expletive-laden outburst was part of a private email.

There has also been comment about Hone’s liberal use of vernacular slang and phrases, and in particular that Labour leader Phil Goff should be lined up to be shot for his support of the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. Again, I’ve heard this used plenty of times by all manner of people who, like Hone, don’t mean it in any literal sense. You know: “Look at the way Joe treats his dog, he should be shot for it”, or “Those boy racers kept me awake all last night – I’d like to line them all up against a wall and shoot the lot”. It’s the sort of phrase you use in anger. It’s a metaphor. Get over it! (Fortunately Phil Goff recognised it as such and didn’t hire himself bodyguards as a result.)

Then there’s the small matter of Hone being basically correct on historical matters. Set aside the language and the association of the race relations issue with the Paris trip, and what he’s saying is an accurate representation of historic events.

One facet of the issue that has amused (as well as dismayed) me is the reaction of the so called anti-PC brigade, those who say people should be able to say what they think, call a spade a spade, regardless of who may be offended. When they themselves are offended by a spade being called thus, one of the first things they call for is the Race Relations Conciliator to take action against Harawira!! (Wow, that’s classy!)

Freedom of speech is an important feature of a healthy democracy, especially if it’s in private correspondence. How many pakeha who are currently venting against Harawira and Maori in general have never made offensive comments about them in private? Sure, Hone gave permission to publicise his email, but my reading of his reasons for doing so were not that he wanted it to be public and to offend, but rather that he didn’t want to follow the normal practice of expressing anger and disgust privately but sweet-talking about the same issue in public – which most politicians normally do. At least you cannot accuse Harawira of being two-faced, you know where he stands.

My reaction to the common attitudes expressed in many of the country’s Letters to the Editor pages over the past week goes as follows:

Whether it’s blatant racism, cultural arrogance or just plain ignorance, I’m not sure. But the common theme – that Maori should get over the wrongs done to them in ancient and recent history and be thankful for all the good things that the big white man has brought to them – stinks of paternalism, condescension and …. well, it simply stinks.

White settlers did not bring with them television, cars, iPods and shopping malls. These so-called advances grew up in an already mixed society, often imported from countries with populations of many races and colours.

As I see it, the sub-text of the Treaty of Waitangi is that both founding cultures accept, respect and value each other’s views and offerings, with no sense that one is intrinsically better than the other, and that both equally have contributions to make to New Zealand’s future.

It’s fine to express opinions about Hone’s place and worth in politics, but don’t use his actions as a stick to strike out at all things Maori.

SO how do I see Hone Harawira now? I feel some sadness that such a strong and driven man can allow his sense of victimhood, justifiable or not, to control so much of his life. Clearly he believes in his message and mission strongly, but he’s missing half of the message.

He could take Ranginui Walker and Pita Sharples as his role models – it’s OK to be angry and driven and express strong opinions, but posturing and being abusive doesn’t get you very far and tend to make things worse in the long run.

If he’s representing his electorate and many of them think this way, then Hone has a duty to work with them and lead them to a better relationship with pakeha, even when pakeha act badly to him.

He should follow the example set for my wife and me (and a few other tourists) by the Maori tour guide who showed us around Waitangi last year. We could tell he had strong views, he knew his history and he knew the people involved. But he didn’t use the hour-long tour to harangue us or to preach. He applied his quiet charm, his mana, and gently led and educated us to see his perspective and the history and current relationship as local Maori see it. And it worked!

And if my thoughts sound like yet another example of patronising racism, then I’m sorry ..

2 Comments | Maori issues, Politics, Race relations | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

« Previous Entries