Class Justice for the Kahui Family

The public outrage surrounding the deaths of the Kahui twins reveals a high level of racism toward poor Maori families in this country. Prominent Maori leaders joined the chorus to victimize the family. A member of the CWG who is also part of the larger Kahui whanau speaks of class justice as the only real justice for the Kahui twins.

Kahui Bashing

The 2006 launch of Matariki (Maori New Year) on Mangere Mountain had a significance that went beyond the dawn of a new year. Organised by South Auckland police and Maori leaders, it marked yet another point at which Maori and the poor had been hoodwinked into taking responsibility for social problems totally the result of political and economic dysfunction.

The crowd of 800 or so were gathered to commemorate the deaths of 115 NZers to die in domestic violence over the previous 10 years. It took on a special poignancy in relation to the most recent family tragedy; the deaths of baby twins Chris and Cru Kahui.

A woman’s voice rang out “They’re just rubbish…they should all be tossed in jail.” To which the crowd reacted with loud applause. That reaction would set the theme for the solemn events of that miserable winter morning. The rule of the lynch mob was very much in evidence, but so was the thought of political opportunism. The trial by media and presumption of guilt has been but a foretaste of things to come.

The families and individuals who are part of the rootless army of excess cheap labour, unable to cope, too poor and demoralised, are forced to gather in clusters under one roof to share the ever increasing cost of living. Hope is drenched in a cocktail of drugs, alcohol and slot machines. At every stage along the way, the wheels of profit suck the very dignity out of these people. This is life for the Kahui whanau.

PM Helen Clark’s announcement that a special working task force be set up to investigate housing where overcrowding by beneficiaries is a problem, will in short amount to a witch-hunt. Without addressing the real problem of poverty and poor housing, that task force is more likely to recommend more sweeping powers for the police. In a climate of increasing draconian State intervention (War on Terror) and ‘get tough on crime’, the scene is set for a police state modelled on that of United States imperialism.

Maori Party cops

When Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples was asked to intervene by one of his personal staff (also a Kahui), it was in accordance with the kaupapa of whanaungatanga (supporting family) as well as his duty as MP for Tamaki. For the state and traditionalists, the mana of that leadership together with that of tribal elders was being put to the test.

The inevitable failure of that intervention can be put down to the new mode of Maori leaders being no more than bureaucratic bargaining agents for the State.

Sharples’ description of the Kahui whanau as ‘dysfunctional’ and showing disrespect towards himself and the elders, reveals how out of touch and blind to the real causes he and that leadership are. Stripped of any real power, their limited politics of class compromise has forced many individuals and communities to seek alternative directions.

For the more marginalised such as the Kahui whanau, that direction could potentially have a more brutal outcome. As gang affiliates, they know the retributional nature of gang justice, particularly in regards to crimes against children. Their silence has meant a determination to settle justice on their own terms with honour and without interference from the State. Unlike State law where the aggrieved are no more than passive bystanders; it is the aggrieved who will decide the fate of the guilty.

To paint the Kahui whanau as honourable would force the State to give recognition to a set of values outside of its control. Political and media silence on the issue is driven by the fear of opening up a Pandora’s Box that would threaten to undermine bourgeois power and authority.

The recent case of two Headhunters tried for chopping off the finger of a fellow gang member for breaking gang rules, reminds us that parallel justice (or injustice) systems do exist outside of the State in Aotearoa.

Working Class Justice

Workers could independently put the ‘system’ on trial and set up courts to try the real criminals responsible for inflicting the chaotic ‘dysfunction’ that is capitalism. Its reactionary barbarism and gang behaviour expropriated from the past would be consigned to history.

None of the concerns focused on the issue of guilt, have addressed where the real guilt lies. Justice determined outside of workers control is always going to be in the interests of individuals who do not have the mandate of the majority who constitute the working class.

The present reality for workers is far from what is being described. But independence as a working class free of State control is a goal that must be achieved in order to affect the process leading to revolutionary change.

By doing so, real and lasting justice will come to babies Chris and Cru Kahui together with their distant cousin Steven Wallace all working class descendants from Ngaruahine Iwi of South Taranaki.

Te Taua Karuwhero Kahui 

From Class Struggle 67 June/July 2006 

Maori Party Debate: Anti-Communist means Anti-Maori

Jesse Butler made a number of replies to the CWG’s Open Letter to the Green Left Weekly (see next post) in response to Butler’s article after it was posted on the indymedia news service. Here we reprint one of Butler’s replies and our response to him.

To the CWG,

Once again we are bombarded with the outdated rhetoric of the communist party, now focusing on Tariana's reasonable comment to work with anyone, including National, to obtain equality and justice in Aotearoa.

Where is the alternative system of the communist party? I hear a lot of bullshit from the sidelines yet very little in the way of an alternative game plan.

You’re not still waiting for your 'revolution' are you? Do you mean to say that the vast majority of the masses would rise up against the system that supplies them security, income and a future to your unarticulated communist system?

Surely, you are not suggesting another failed communist experiment experienced in Russia, China and North Korea to happen here in Aotearoa?

Communist dictators make Donald Brash look like a lollipop. And you want the New Zealand public to take you seriously?

No, I’m afraid your ramblings are blinded by ideology and obviously flawed in the political reality of this country.

My advice to you is to wake up and get off the sidelines, and have a real go at the opposition like we are. Basically put up or shut up.

We need all hands on deck against the neo-liberal onslaught, and sometimes that involves getting inside next to them so we can beat them at their own game.

Jesse Butler

The CWG replies:

Jesse’s response to our criticisms of his article shows very clearly that Green Left Weekly and Socialist Worker were wrong to print his accounts of the hikoi and the formation of the Maori Party. Jesse’s anti-communism would make Joe McCarthy and Ben Couch proud!

Anti-commie, anti-Maori

It's sad to see some supporters of the Maori Party engaging in a red baiting that belongs to the days the Cold War, because it was Maori who were regularly asked to go abroad and die in the US's wars against 'communist tyranny' in Korea, Malaya, and Vietnam. Thirty-two of the thirty-five Kiwi troops who died in Vietnam were Maori - what did they die for? Hasn’t Jesse learnt anything?

And Vietnam and Korea weren't the first wars that New Zealand fought against 'the communist menace'. The Waikato and Taranaki wars were crusades against communism, fought for the interests of settler capitalists who were infuriated by the Maori refusal to sell collectively-owned land.

Te Whiti and his followers at Parihaka was targeted by the warmongers not because they wore feathers in their hair but because they praised 'the miracle of collective labour' and refused to sell their collectively-owned land.

The gardens of the Maori kingdom in the Waikato were destroyed not because the people who worked them were using collective land ownership and labour to feed the fortress city of Auckland, where would-be land grabbers railed against 'the socialistic natives'.

The CWG remembers the communism of Te Whiti, as well as the communism of Marx and the communism of the occupied factories movement in today's Argentina. We want to see the foreshore and the whole of Aotearoa run collectively.

That’s why we reject the Maori Party.

Different party, same mistakes

The Maori Party's strategy is to capture the balance of parliamentary seats, and try to get good deals for Maori, and especially for iwi commercial interests, by using the balance of power in negotiations with the major parties. This strategy cannot succeed for two reasons.

In the first place, the ability of the major parties to influence the economy in favour of Maori business is limited, because the New Zealand economy is mostly owned offshore, by US and US-Aussie companies.

The domination of the Kiwi economy by US and other imperialisms means that iwi businesses have little chance of succeeding, or even surviving.

They do not have the capital to compete with the multinationals, and as little fish will inevitably be swallowed up by the big fish. But even if Maori capitalism were a viable venture, the Maori Party would not benefit many Maori, because very few Maori are capitalists.

The vast majority of Maori are workers or the dependents of workers. All Kiwi workers have an interest in better pay and conditions, and better social services like health and education.

These interests clash with those of capitalists, because capitalists make their profits from the wages of workers. It's no coincidence that employers' groups have been at the forefront of campaigns against pro-worker arguments and policies like the minimum wage, the right to strike, paid parental leave, and increased funding for public health.

Brown bosses are no more pro-worker than white bosses, and the mini-capitalists of the iwicorps are now fighting class wars of their own. Look at Ngati Whatua bosses wanting to sell off housing their own people won back in the Bastion Pt struggle. Look at the struggles against Robert Mahuta and more recently Tuku Morgan by Tainui Maori sick of corporate cowboy behaviour.

The Maori Party's strategy has been repeatedly tried and repeatedly found wanting over the past few years.

The tight five of NZ First and then Mauri Pacific tried to advance Maori interests in coalition with National, and ended up supporting the privatisation of Auckland Airport and rimu logging on the West Coast. In return they got fat salaries and some nice undies. Nice for them, but not so good for their supporters, who booted them out in 1999.

Mana Motuhake entered government in 1999, but Willie Jackson and Sandra Lee were as unable to win concessions as the tight five before them. They couldn't even stop Labour junking its weak-as-water Closing the Gaps scheme after National kicked up a proto-Brashian fuss. In return for his non-existent policy wins Jackson ended up having to back the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, on the grounds that 'The SAS boys are Maori and they want to go'.

Tariana played a key role in the Pakaitore occupation in 1995, but got sucked into the Labour Party by the promise of winning those elusive policy concessions. We all know how she got on there.

The hikoi could have turned into an alternative to parliamentarism – there were militant elements on it that rejected the failure of repeated attempts to work 'within the system'. Why get blisters walking from Te Hapua to Wellington, if you can influence policy from the comfort of the cabinet room?

Back to the future!

For these advocates of extra-parliamentary protest action, the hikoi looked back to the great days of the 1970s and early 80s, when Maori and their supporters waged a series of struggles which shook the Kiwi ruling class to its core.

The Great Land March of 1975, the epic occupation of Bastion Point, the struggle to reclaim the Raglan Golf Course, and the hikoi to Waitangi in 1984 were all examples of Maori direct action against 'the system'.

Before it got tied up in the red tape of the 'Treaty process', the Maori direct action movement managed to win a whole series of victories.

Make no mistake: Bastion Pt was won back by direct action, not parliament. The Maori land at Raglan is no longer a golf course because of direct action, not some cabinet seat.

Language nests exist today because Maori kicked up a stink in the streets in the 70s and early 80s, not because of Tau Henare or Tariana.

The partial victory Tariana helped win at Pakaitore in the mid-90s stands in stark contrast to the same woman's utter failure to influence Labour policy as a cabinet minister.

And the hikoi struck far more terror into the hearts of the establishment than the electoral triumphs of Tau, Willie and the rest of them combined. 'Wellington under siege!' the Herald screamed.

There was a palpable sense of relief when Tariana turned the final day of the hikoi into an electoral rally, and went on TV with Gerry Brownlee to announce her openness to a coalition deal with National.

Tariana played the same role in Wellington as Dame Whina played after the Land March. Dame Whina told the militant young Maori who set up an occupation of parliament grounds to pack up and go home and work inside the system, and the militants were right to refuse, and to lay the ground for the occupations that were to come!

Today Tariana is telling us to forget about the old hikoi, that the 'next hikoi will be the ballot box'. We should refuse her call too, and organise occupations of threatened sections of foreshore up and down the country.

While Tariana sets out her election stall and promises the same things as Tau and Willie promised, the theft of the foreshore proceeds, the American mansions go up on wahi tapu, and the 'free' trade deal gets closer and closer. Labour and the bosses aren't stopping, so why should we?

Browns and reds unite!

We can make sure occupations and other direct actions are successful by building on the tradition of Maori-communist struggle which Jesse mocks.

We have already mentioned the armed struggle to defend the collectively-owned and worked Waikato from capitalists in the 1860s, and the passive resistance to privatisation which Te Whiti is famous for, but Maori struggle against capitalism didn't stop in the nineteenth century.

There is a long history of collaboration between revolutionary socialists and Maori, a tradition which includes the solidarity the Tainui Maori showed to the Red Federation of Labour during the revolutionary General Strike of 1913, through the socialist and trade unionist presence in the occupations of the 70s, to the anti-Springbok protests of 1981, right up to the present day actions of communist Maori activists like Justin Taua.

Communists have always understood that only the muscle of organised workers can win crucial struggles like the Maori struggle for land rights. Unlike Tau or Tariana, communists recognise the common interests of Maori and Pakeha workers, and the importance of getting them together on the picket line.

Since we've mentioned it already we'll use the example of Bastion Pt to illustrate the point we’re making in more detail.

By the 1930s almost the only piece of land the 'friendly' tribe of Ngati Whatua possessed was a small strip of coast near Bastion Pt.

Auckland city authorities wanted to strip Ngati Whatua of this piece of land and the village that stood on it, but they reckoned without the alliance which Ngati Whatua's Tainui ally Princess Te Puea had made with the Pakeha-dominated trade union movement and with the Communist Party.

Tainui solidarity with the workers' movement went back to 1913, when iwi leaders urged Maori not to undermine the General Strike by signing on to do the jobs of strikers.

Communist Party unionists returned the favour by championing the grievances of Waikato Tainui, who since returning from exile in the Rohe Potae in 1883 had struggled relentlessly to regain their confiscated lands.

When word went out that the government was about to move on the Maori village near Bastion Point in 1937communists in Auckland's trade unions swung into action.

Ron Mason, who was organising with the General Labourers Union, put out an urgent call to the city's builders, and four hundred of them descended on the threatened settlement.

With the help of Ngati Whatua and Tainui, the builders worked non-stop to fortify the village, laying tall palisades in a concrete foundation. Workers prepared to defend the village, and the government backed down.

It was not until sixteen years later, in 1953, that the government was finally able to burn the village of Orakei to the ground.

It is no coincidence that this act of ethnic cleansing took place after the defeat of the radical workers movement in the Great Waterfront Lockout of 1951. Without the support of organised labour Ngati Whatua were weakened. The fortunes of the workers' movement and Maori have always been linked.

When the struggle for Bastion Pt and surrounding land revived in the 70s, trade unionists and a new generation of communists were amongst the vanguard.

Unionists took the issue into their organisations, raising thousands of dollars in aid and bringing in work teams to help the occupiers build a new village on Bastion Point. Communist organisations turned their dinky printing presses to the task of publicising the cause.

When Muldoon sent in the armed forces to crush the occupation at Bastion Point, trade unionists and communists stood on the picket line, and thousands of workers walked off the job around Auckland in a spontaneous protest strike.

Carpenters and truckies who had been called out to a mysterious 'big job' refused to work, when they found that they were being asked to help demolish the Bastion Point settlement.

Solidarity continued into the 80s, when Ngati Whatua were finally able to recover their land. The degeneration into corporatism of the leadership of Ngati Whatua doesn't wipe out the victory of Bastion Point, but it does show once again that without a strong workers' movement the Maori flaxroots are weak.

Occupy for sure!

Today we need to revive the spirit of Bastion Point by building on the support for the hikoi shown by unions like the National Distribution Union, the Service and Food Workers Union, Aste, and the Manufacturing and Construction Union.

Neither Pakeha nor Maori unionists will ever back a party that makes overtures to National, but many of them will back occupations of a foreshore which all ordinary New Zealanders value and worry about losing.

By occupying the foreshore and inviting ordinary Pakeha to join them, Maori can take the wind out of the sails of the right-wingers who say that the hikoi was about Maori privatisation, while at the same time thwarting the iwicorp opportunists who think that Maori sovereignty means Maori capitalism.

Sea farming and tourism ventures can be controlled by workers, not by brown or white capitalists.

And if the foreshore and its industries can be socialised, then why not the whole economy? A movement to socialise the whole of Aotearoa can take inspiration from the occupied factories of Argentina and the collective farms being established in Venezuela, as well as the indigenous communism of Rangiaowhia and Te Whiti.

This is the argument that the CWG made on the hikoi and has been making at Maori Party hui.

The argument from which this reply is taken can be read in full here:

From Class Struggle 57 August-September 2004

Let;s Occupy the Foreshore, not Cabinet!

An Open Letter to supporters of the Maori Party

Kia ora comrades,

We were proud to march alongside so many of you on the great seabed and foreshore hikoi. The hikoi has already taken its place beside the Great Land March of 1975, the waterfront lockout of 1951, and the anti-Springbok campaign of 1981 in the history of resistance to injustice in Aotearoa. We salute the courage and endurance of the marchers who defied the threats of politicians, the slanders of the media, and the verbal and physical attacks from racists and made Labour’s confiscation of the seabed and foreshore into a burning issue up and down Aotearoa.

We were proud to hikoi with you to Wellington, but we won’t be travelling to Wanganui for the launch of the new Maori Party. It’s not that we’ve changed our minds about the seabed and foreshore – on the contrary, we think that events since the passage of Labour’s legislation confirm the arguments of the hikoi ten times over.

We won’t be with you in Wanganui because we believe that the Maori Party represents a sharp turn away from the path of the hikoi. We don’t recognise the spirit of that great struggle in the Maori Party. In fact, we think that some of the pronouncements of the would-be leaders of the new party – Tariana Turia, Peter Sharples, and the rest – represent a betrayal of the politics of the seabed and foreshore hikoi. We think that you are setting out on a hikoi to hell, and we want to try to convince you change direction before it’s too late.

Hikoi to the Ballot Box?

We’ve been disturbed by some of the korero at pro-party hui held around the North Island, and by the statements that leaders of the new party have been making through the media. Movers and shakers like Tariana and Sharples have announced that they want the new organisation to be a ‘centre’ party, which can sit between National and Labour and negotiate with both to get the best deal – or, at any rate, the biggest number of Cabinet seats - for Maori.

Tariana tells us that the new party will be open to people of all political persuasions. Tuku Morgan has welcome at pro-party hui, and National’s Georgina Te Heuheu is being courted as a possible candidate in next year’s general election. Sharples has claimed that the new party ‘will have the same basic philosophy’ as Labour, and that Labour ‘would be fools to treat us as enemies’. On television with Gerry Brownlee soon after the hikoi, Tariana refused to rule out a coalition between the new party and National after the next election. Tariana’s by-election campaign manager Matt McCarten has defended the overtures to National as a ‘strategic’ measure designed to increase the Maori Party’s bargaining power. According to Tariana and McCarten, ‘the next hikoi will be to the ballot box’ and into a coalition with one of the big parties.

But why were we on the hikoi in the first place? Why did Maori and their supporters need to march all the way from Te Hapua to Wellington? What were all those blisters for? Wasn’t the hikoi necessary because Maori seats in Cabinet were not able to get a better deal for Maori? Hasn’t Tariana tried and fail to influence government ‘from the inside’? And didn’t Tuku and the rest of Tau Henare’s brat pack try and fail to do the same back in the late 90s?

New Party, Old Mistakes

We think that Tariana is repeating the mistakes she made after the occupation at Pakaitore back in ’95. Tariana won a lot of mana as a leader of that occupation, which defied the power of the state and won back a piece of the Wanganui River foreshore for Maori. After the Pakaitore, Labour dropped Tariana a line, telling her that she should occupy parliament. Tariana bought Labour’s line, and the rest is history.

Tariana lost a lot of her mana by becoming a Minister in a government which helped the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and which continued to implement National’s right-wing economic and social policies at home. Tariana’s decision to dump Labour for the hikoi has made her a hero again, but now she’s talking about going down the same old parliamentary road. Not only has Tariana not learnt from her mistakes, she’s hasn’t even learnt from the mistake of Tau and his New Zealand First mates. She’s talking about the possibility of going down Tau’s own road to nowhere, by forming a government with the Nats!

Local Battle, Global War

But why is the hikoi through parliament so hard? Why did Tau and Tariana fail? Why did Mat Rata fail? Why did Apirana Ngata fail? Why are Maori still second-class citizens, after more than a hundred years of Maori seats?

To answer these questions, we need to step back and look at the big political picture. We hikoied to Wellington, because Wellington is the political capital of Aotearoa. Wellington is where parliament sits and the big bureaucrats draw their salaries.

But Wellington is not the place where the most important economic and political decisions affecting Aotearoa are made. To go to the real heart of power, we’d have to hikoi to Washington DC, or to the Wall Street Stock Exchange in New York City. Aotearoa is an economic semi-colony of the United States, and that means that the US dictates the economic direction and general political programme of both National and Labour governments.

Multinational companies based in the US and other imperialist countries control most of the biggest businesses in Aotearoa, and wealthy Americans are snapping up our land. US money has effective veto power over important economic and political decisions in Wellington. US military and spy bases are dotted around Aotearoa, and Labour’s participation in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is driven by a fear of offending US money and the US government. ‘Free’ trade treaties like GATT only tie government hands more tightly.

The US exports its own economic problems to the rest of the world, and calls its export globalisation. In Aotearoa, globalisation has meant the privatisations and cuts in education and health spending of the 80s and 90s. Globalisation continues today, as Labour works hard to win a ‘free’ trade deal with the US by removing remaining barriers to foreign investment and the purchase of land, opening the door to GE, and doing the US’s dirty work in ‘little Iraqs’ like the Solomons and East Timor.

It’s not hard to see why Labour is crapping on Maori. Those cheeky darkies who descended on Wellington are a threat to the smooth progress of globalisation in Aotearoa. The Maori Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal threatened to tie the government up in red tape, when it wanted to get on with reducing the barriers to the US buy-up of coastal land, and the US colonisation of the sea farming business. And the Maori demand for better funding for kohanga reo, housing and other necessities runs straight into Labour’s concern to keep government spending down so that it can cut company tax and woo US investors.

How they Hikoi in Bolivia

The hikoi was a challenge to the politicians and bureaucrats in Wellington and to the globalisers in Washington DC. It was our local front in the global war against the imperialists’ globalisation. It’s no coincidence that many young people on the march identified with the Iraqi resistance, and that some wore the head dress of the Palestinians fighting colonisation in Gaza and the West Bank. And, there’s no doubt the hikoi scared the shit out of the local agents of globalisation. Helen Clark was too afraid to show us her face, when we made it to Wellington! (Of course, Helen will be much less worried about a Maori Party which refuses even to call her the enemy. She’ll be keeping that Cabinet seat warm for Tariana...)

Maori and working class Pakeha have to understand that winning seats in parliament and at the Cabinet table means nothing, as long as their country is owned offshore. To defeat the enemy, we have to think globally, even as we act locally. We may have a powerful offshore enemy in US imperialism, but we also have a power offshore ally too, in the international working class. From Iraq to Argentina, US imperialism is being resisted by working class and oppressed people. When we talk about strategy and tactics, we should be looking at success stories overseas, not at local failures like Tau and Tuku.

We all know about Iraq, but too few of us are aware of the massive anti-US revolts that have been shaking South America for two years now. South America’s workers and peasants are fighting US imperialism, and they are winning. In Argentina, workers have reacted to globalisation by occupying hundreds of factories that US-owned companies wanted to close down. In Venezuela, the CIA has twice tried to overthrow the anti-US government of Hugo Chavez with military coups. Bush wants to get control of Venezuela’s oil reserves, but he’s been defeated, because millions of workers have taken to the streets, and others have occupied their factories.

In Bolivia, workers and peasants last year staged a hikoi of their won, pouring into their capital city La Paz to protest the US-backed government’s plans to wipe out coca farming and steal the country’s natural gas. In La Paz the Bolivians built barricades and stormed government buildings. President Sanchez de Lozada needed a US helicopter to sneak him out of the country, as his government collapsed and the people took over the capital. That’s how a hikoi should end!

Unity with Workers, not the Nats

There are many lessons to be learnt from the victories in South America. In Bolivia, protesters united across ethnic lines, because they had a common interest in getting rid of Lozada, a wealthy businessman nicknamed ‘the Yank’ because he spoke with an American accent. The Indian coca growers the US was trying to ruin united with mixed race urban workers, against a common enemy. In Aotearoa, we need the same sort of unity between Pakeha and Maori workers. Many Pakeha trade unionists and leftists marched to Wellington, but the majority of non-Maori were sucked in by Labour’s promises that its legislation would protect their access to beaches.

Now, only weeks after the first reading of Labour’s bill, the Department of Conservation has teamed up with Tourism New Zealand and some local councils to promote plans to charge the public for access to popular beaches, including Coromandel’s Cathedral Cove. In the south, Clutha District Council has plans to make motorists pay for access to the road that follows the scenic Caitlins coast. In the Hawkes Bay, locals are up in arms over local government’s decision to allow a US billionaire to desecrate the beautiful Cape Kidnappers by building chalets and tunnelling into a cliff. Pakeha are beginning to understand what Maori have been so angry about!

We all know that the politicians and the media slandered the hikoi, by telling the country that it was made up of greedy Maoris who only wanted to privatise the foreshore and exploit the seabed to line their own pockets. The hikoi challenged those slanders: at hui after hui speakers reiterated their support for public access to the foreshore, placards on the march called for Pakeha to join in, and Hone Harawira constantly emphasised that the seabed and foreshore issue was one for ordinary Pakeha as well as Maori.

By the time it reached Wellington, the hikoi had attracted a significant minority of Pakeha members, and the media had to drop some of its more outrageous slurs. But now, just when Pakeha are beginning to grasp the real meaning of Labour’s legislation, Tariana and other Maori leaders are discrediting all the arguments of the hikoi, by extending the hand of friendship to Labour, and even finding kind words for National! The Pakeha who took part in the hikoi were mostly left-wingers disillusioned with Labour. They understand Labour’s pro-globalisation agenda and oppose its involvement in wars in the Middle East as well as its racism at home. These people will be disgusted by Tariana’s and Sharples’ overtures to Labour.

And the great majority of working class, Labour-voting Pakeha will be even more angered by the Maori Party’s overtures to National. Seeing Tariana cosying up to Gerry Brownlee will only reinforce these workers’ misunderstanding of Tino Rangatiratanga, and tie them more closely to Labour. For their part, working class Maori who have broken with Labour over the seabed and foreshore will also be alarmed to see that ‘their’ new party considers Brash and Brownlee possible coalition partners. If Tariana isn’t careful, these workers will rush straight back into the arms of Labour!

Occupy the Foreshore!

Tariana’s ‘hikoi to the ballot box’ cannot solve the problems of Maori. It can only result in another generation of Maori being chewed up and spat out of Wellington’s political machine. Only direct action which takes back land and resources – land and resources stolen from working class Pakeha, as well as Maori – can reverse the tide of globalisation in Aotearoa. The time is ripe for Maori and Pakeha to unite and occupy threatened sections of the foreshore. We need to revive the spirit of Bastion Pt, Pakaitore and the seabed and foreshore hikoi, and safeguard places like Cathedral Cove, the Caitlins Coast, and Cape Kidnappers with direct action! Let’s occupy the foreshore, not Cabinet!

Kia kaha,

Communist Workers Group  
From Class Struggle 56 June-July 2004

1835 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS A DEAD END FOR MAORI WORKERS

The question of rightful authority in New Zealand, has been a contentious issue for the Crown and the many tribes and organizations representing Maori. Since the signing of the so called Declaration Of Independence in 1835 and the Treaty Of Waitangi in 1840, the scene has been set for a state of political confusion that has thrown up more questions than answers. Least answered of course is the debate concerning the role of workers in the whole matter. We argue that today the only way forward for Maori is as members of the working class.

The purpose of this article is to establish an alternative to the archaic legalisms being trotted out by those who quite rightly seek redress for past and continuing injustices against Maori control over their own destinies. But the issue must finally become one of workers control from all races.

Since new progressive knowledge has been gained in the last 150 years such as Marx’s Communist Manifesto of 1848 and international workers struggles against the rule of "Law" have come to light, the major question becomes, "Whose Law?" Its origins and "Class" content becomes central to the inevitable answer.

A short history lesson of events surrounding the 1835 Declaration shows that far from being a founding document based on noble principle, it was in fact the result of personal animosity between its author James Busby the first crown appointed NZ resident and Thomas McDonnell the second appointed resident. McDonnell together with local chief from the Hokianga initiated laws banning the landing or sale of liquor.

As far as Busby was concerned, this was an affront to his authority. To make a public issue of it, would have made Busby out to be petty minded.

At exactly the same time, Busby received a letter from Frenchman Baron De Thierry stating his intention to establish a sovereign independent state in the Hokianga. Busby would use this as a means to remove McDonnell assumed authority with Maori by claiming that the French had imperialist designs on NZ and that it was important that a confederation of chiefs declare a state of independence friendly to Britain.

In all, 52 chiefs signed the DOI1835 with Potatau Te Wherowhero from Waikato being the last to sign in 1839. Clearly the document conceived at very short notice was never intended to be sincere and in the spirit of goodwill to Maori. Its expedient purpose having achieved its outcome, its authors' hopes were that it would just fade away. As far as the chiefs who signed were concerned, all was above board and in good faith.

This is very much the position held today by the Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa, Te Kingitanga, Te Kotahitanga, Tinorangatiratanga Maori, The Peoples Sovereign Independence Movement, Mana Maori, and The Tenants Party of Aotearoa etc.

Whether ignorant of the declarations true origins or not, the above parties rely on a mandate borne of traditions and practices stretching back to the dawn of humanity in exactly the same way as the British Crown’s own authority originated. If those laws or authority handed down through the generations, were the result of a ruling layer wishing to impose their will on subordinated subjects, then it calls into question the validity of that authority.

The issue of Class

But this question can only arise when one is faced with the issue of class. Stacked up against idealised or even romanticised tradition, the class issue is treated as an anathema to God and religion, the very bulwarks that prop up the power of the ruling class through fear.

Equally reactionary by its effect, is the process of culturally marginalizing a people to such an extent, that the victims in order to fight against their masters, end up adopting the very same methods used against them. In the case of Aotearoa / NZ, it has been an adaptation to the capitalist mode of production by tribal leaders to form an economic base without understanding the contradictions of their actions.

Most of those nationalists who support Maori Independence and struggle, fail to see the irony of their predicament when many are heard to say that they can cut deals with other capitalists under the auspices of the DOI1835 document.

Who needs those buggers down in Wellington anyway?

The Auckland APEC conference of 1999 saw representatives from various quarters within the Confederated Tribes try to cut deals with corporates, while anti-globalisation protests were taking place outside. One such group claiming to be a Maori workers co-operative and supporter of the "Green Dollar", proudly placed its banner under the Confederations flag. They have even printed their own money. The confederation has never claimed to be an advocate of socialised means of production, so it is not surprising that within its ranks, its programme is the maintenance of the economic status quo.

"Class" is not an issue confined to school, grades of meat or wool. It is central to understanding what is required to seriously tackle the root cause of societies problems. Many in the Maori struggle have yet to understand this. By taking the traditionalist path, they come face to face with their own contradictions.

Much tribal land was not only lost through raupatu [confiscation] during the colonial period, but sold out right by chiefly rulers who were the only ones mandated to do as they liked regarding land. This dispossession of their tribes’ peoples birthright is a clear illustration of the class divisions that developed in the past and will be further encouraged if some in the nationalist camp have it their way.

It is exactly the same method as practiced by the most cunning and calculating captains of industry whose high standing in mainstream society is a function of their ability to rip people off.

If this article looks like yet another attack on Maori, it is not meant to be. The problem has had to be faced up to by every people and culture on the planet confronted by the big question of "class." Calls to overthrow the Monarchy in England pre-date both the DOI1835 and the Treaty of Waitangi in Aotearoa. Cries of emancipation from within that culture, recognised that something was seriously wrong with its rulers as an example. Dissent was practiced in pre-Europe and Maori society in much the same way as it was practiced everywhere else. There were those who posed serious questions to their leaders, running the risk of serious reprimand or worse.

So it is pointless idealising a past that probably never existed. Having witnessed the antics within my own tribe Tainui, and having seen those responsible for the monumental screw-up go up the road to Ngati Whatua and make a $17 million mess of it for that tribe, we can clearly see that those given authority to lead, have no authority worth a damn.

To avoid the class issue altogether, all Maori nationalists have sought redress through legal processes starting with the DOI1835. The nationalists overlook the Statute of Westminster of 1931 that ended British political sovereignty over NZ. By viewing the Crown as still having ‘authority’ over NZ they oppose NZ breaking completely from Britain and becoming a Republic.

NZ a Republic?

If ties to Britain were severed completely as in the case of the United States, whose leaders were all bourgeois anyway, then NZ could say that its mandate to govern was made unilaterally by the people of NZ through a referendum, so long as an Independent Republic was proclaimed at the same time. This would give substance to laws passed in NZ.

The idea of declaring a Republic, scares the hell out of many in the pro- Te Tiriti / The Treaty camp, because it wipes out the Crown part of the equation. While this is true, it does not remove the NZ government’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi a document that is legally held to supercede the 1835 DOI in NZ law.

This makes the nationalists position politically reactionary. By holding to the Crown, the nationalists become the unwitting instrument in its continued preservation, [partners with British Imperialism.] .

And it is a reactionary utopia anyway. Busby’s appointment as NZ resident by the British government did not give him the status equal to a Governor General, [ in other words, a King by proxy], which by the nationalists own argument, puts Busby in the same boat as the current NZ settler government. As the initiator and author of the DOI1835, Busby was a mere witness to the Declaration by the Confederated chiefs of Aotearoa.

Because the British were deemed more trustworthy [according to Busby] than the French, Maori leaders [through Busby], sought to put themselves under the protection of the British in the event that their position became threatened by outside powers. King William IV was asked to be, the "parent protecting the infant state." This is stated in article 4 of the DOI1835, a major stumbling block for the Confederation. It paternalistically places their Sovereignty under the protection of Britain on the key issue. Like Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga as mentioned in Te Tiriti O Waitangi and The Treaty of Waitangi, interpretation of terminology depending on whom it suits, soon acts like a spanner thrown into the works.

Sucking up to the G-G

The problem for the current Confederation is, having side lined the Wellington government as irrelevant, protocol according to them, requires that the correct channels be established to the British Crown through its proper representatives, such as a Governor General to make full and to the letter, the demands as prescribed by the 1835 Declaration.

So far, the invite has never been taken up, nor will it ever be. To do so, would undo the original intention of Britain [through Busby and the missionaries] to colonise Aotearoa on its terms and not that of Maori. Like the Wellington government, the DO1835 should equally be seen in the same light by the same standards.

Except for article 4, the declaration might have something going for its advocates, yes?

Don’t hold your breath! Having been repeatedly ignored by the British Crown for more than 150 years, surely its time to wake up and realise that the games up. So called good intentions were always going to be followed by a big stick. The coming NZ land wars were to be the proof of that.

Each time Maori interests make representations to the Privy Council, the response is always the same, "Go home and sort it out with your own NZ government." Trying to keep alive a process that is never going to deliver to Maori, benefits only but a few lawyers and the legal merry go-round and squanders any chance of making better use of limited resources. Just look at the Fisheries Commission circus as an example. Which brings us back to the question asked at the beginning of the article, " Whose law is it anyway?"

As mentioned earlier, laws and power as practiced and imposed by rulers for most of humanity’s existence, have come about because those subjected to them have never had a say in their implementation. The only time that has ever been achieved in recorded history, was during the Paris Commune of 1871, brutally suppressed by Louis Bonaparte and the short number of years immediately following the 1917 October Russian Revolution until Stalin.

"Rank and File power to Workers" is a total anathema to ALL rule outside of those two major events. Cloaked in religion and mystique, past rulers were able to impose their will to such an extent that their practices became accepted as normal and hence became a part of "Tradition and Lore". Religion and imposed power from outside of workers control are one and the same. A static state beyond question far removed from the dynamic and fluid forces taking place around it. Nature being the starting point of all things, tells us that material reality is the only basis on which to win a positive future for humanity and not fanciful metaphysical delusions.

"Where do you get your authority?"

This is a common call often heard from those involved in the Maori struggle when directed at the settler government and its representatives, especially the Police and the Judiciary. But equally it is a question that could be asked of themselves and many more in society at large.

The lack of an answer is an immediate recognition that history shows that no one can lay claim to legitimate authority outside of a Workers Revolution on its terms. If cutting deals with the US President and knowing his track record against workers, but recognising his authority is OK, then spelled out under workers control and conditions, that authority would be deemed unacceptable. Indeed that authority would be labeled criminal.

The past like the future doesn’t exist, so the only conditions necessary to judge the legitimacy of authority, should be based on the dynamic conditions of the present and not archaic forms.

So where does that leave the Maori struggle today? Rather than relying on the leaders of the past, whose own laws and traditions have been trampled on, a new start is necessary. That dynamic condition that affects us all, is modern destructive neo-liberal Capitalism. Already the forces of collective workers struggle are marshalling in places such as Argentina against the powers of "Authority". Corrupt, because they were the power of the few over the masses, like the rest of human history. No amount of parochial tribalism or petty nationalism is going to be able to fight against the forces of the bosses being mustered at the present moment.

Already Bush has pledged trillions more dollars to his military to fight against the up coming struggle against the poor, the downtrodden and indigenous struggles. The NZ settler government has indicated in no uncertain terms that it is determined to be a part of that effort. The future of Maori struggle in Aotearoa lies with it taking on board the international workers struggles as its own. The forces of the boss class know no borders. So like them, we as Maori and workers should also not recognise the limitations of borders in our struggle. To do so, would be like fighting with both hands tied behind ones back while blindfolded.

The struggle has to be truly United International and Revolutionary.

The struggle is based on the international unity of workers. The big weakness within the Maori struggle is the inability to grasp what internationalism is. Token discussions by Tame Iti about class struggle, amount to nothing if he suddenly decides to shoot over to Fiji and give moral support to anti-trade union capitalist George Speight. Looking native has never been a good excuse to lend support to any body if their agenda is the further subjugation of workers. It is a known fact that Speight intended to introduce legislation, not too dissimilar to the Employment Contracts Act after his coup, which really would have screwed workers. Not falling into that trap and getting caught up in the contradictions that it throws up is possible only if Maori choose to make their struggle a Workers struggle.

The future leaders of Maori are not the entrepreneurial captains of capitalist industry or those limited by petty tribal demands, they are after all, the whipping boys of the bosses above them. They are not those who promise a better future under a reformed and more humane capitalism either. They will come from the ranks of workers within the trade unions and those in the general labour work force not in unions because of destructive in-roads made by bosses in previous years and their union bureaucratic lackeys.

It’s always been cool to be called a Workers Revolutionary. But to be called a Maori International Workers Revolutionary, sounds even better. How ‘bout You ?

Te Taua Karuwhero, Waikato, Ngaruahine Hapu O Ngati Ruanui O Taranaki

For Workers Internationalism
For Rank and File control of all industry and utilities
Open borders under Workers control
For a Workers Republic of Aotearoa

[from Class Struggle, 43 February/March 2002

AUSTRALASIAN MARXISM AND INDIGENOUS STRUGGLES: PART 1

Introduction (updated 2001)

Today the struggle of indigenous peoples in Australasia is becoming institutionalised in international law and the post-modern politics of multi-cultural 'difference'. When Derrida can visit Australia and NZ and be hailed as a partisan of indigeneity (Bedggood, 1999); when Lyotard can be invoked to bring Kant to the rescue of ‘native title’ (Green, 1994); we see that the colonial missionary has been supplanted by the post-colonial emmisary. Thus the official policy has gone from forced integration, relocation, stolen children, suppressed language and customs etc, towards a liberal paternalism under the guise of 'multiculturalism', 'biculturalism' and more recently 'post-colonialism'.

Such a move tokenises indigenous peoples’ rights conferred by the bourgeois state and celebrated by the rituals of cultural reconciliation. But the cultural turn in indigenous peoples struggles is not new. It is a time-honoured strategem for political incorporation and economic assimulation into global capital accumulation.

Today indigenous peoples remain heavily oppressed by racism on top of systemic class exploitation. What then do Australasian Marxists have to say about the prospects of indigenous peoples overcoming their historic oppression and joining forces with the international proletariat in the overthrow of capital? Do they have a future as a people or as a class? Or, what is the difference?

Materialist premises

We should begin by defining some materialist premises. In the case of Australia and New Zealand, white settler colonisation arose from the first crisis faced by the leading capitalist state in Europe, Britain. These colonies went through a process of a bourgeois revolution (as yet incomplete) in which bourgeois land, labour and capital were formed (but which remain semi-colonies of the US and Japan).

Internal to these countries however are the indigenous peoples who remain oppressed minorities without equal rights to land, labour and capital. How can these oppressed peoples' gain their liberation? All arguments about liberation have been drawn from European sources and imported into the Antipodes. Are they therefore necessarily examples of cultural imperialism? I would say Yes, if they continue to deny the same rights to indigenous minorities that were fought for and won in Europe, or attempt to contain these rights inside the framework of the bourgeois constitution rather than the socialist commonwealth.

Full Text