In the latter part of 2007, Māori–government relations came close to breaking point. A raid carried out by a New Zealand Police Armed Offenders Squad in full combat gear traumatised a small Māori community in the central North Island on 15 October, just weeks after the New Zealand government had joined Australia, Canada and the United States of America to vote against the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The raid coincided with the release of a government report showing almost 20 percent of Māori were living in Australia with many having left New Zealand for better economic opportunities but also ‘to escape the perceived prejudice of Pākehā and mainstream negativity about Māori issues’.1 Yet by mid-2008, with polls indicating the likelihood of a change of government in the upcoming general election, Māori started reaping the benefits of a government desperate for our support, particularly in the area of settling Māori land claims.
Early on 15 October 2007, the first reports of early morning police raids around the country started appearing as environmental and Māori sovereignty activists were targeted for alleged terrorist activities. Both the Commissioner of Police and the Prime Minister had been briefed prior to the raids. Several involved single households in urban areas where there was minimal disturbance to neighbours and the wider community. But in Rūātoki, a small, remote Māori community in the Urewera ranges in the heart of Tūhoe tribal territory, media reported a massive police presence. The Māori Party later reported that seventy armed police were in Rūātoki that morning, where three people were arrested.2 The entire community was locked down and barricaded by police. A roadblock was set up on the only road out of the community. People were forced out of their cars at gunpoint, searched and photographed; cars and a school bus were searched and photographed; women were subjected to intimate body searches in full view of the public; houses and property were searched and some were damaged; people were herded into sheds while property searches were under way; and people were detained for hours without food or water without formal charges being laid.3 Four rifles and 230 rounds of ammunition were seized. Many people were detained and transported to Rotorua, some 200 kilometers away, only to be subsequently released to find their own way home. The whole community was traumatised, including pre-school children, who referred to the heavily armed combat-ready police in black uniforms, helmets, masks and balaclavas with combat rifles and hand guns strapped to their knees who boarded their school bus as ‘the ninja army’.4
Raids a chilling reminder of previous government invasions of Tūhoe
Although a general air of disbelief gripped the country and for Māori throughout the country it was a troubling occasion, for many it seemed an all-too-familiar story. It was not the first time Tūhoe had been invaded by state forces. In the nineteenth century Tūhoe’s isolation in the mountainous Urewera region had allowed it to resist British settler encroachment for much longer than other tribal groups. But the Crown, driven by British settlers’ insatiable greed for land and a dogged determination to force Māori compliance with their white supremacist regime, was insistent, and in 1866 all of Tūhoe’s rich agricultural lands were confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. When Tūhoe continued to actively obstruct Crown attempts at surveying, mapping, building roads, public works and mineral prospecting, the Crown adopted a ‘scorched earth’ policy, burning Tūhoe settlements and destroying cultivations in order to force Tūhoe into submission.5 Although the Crown eventually succeeded in ‘opening up’ the Urewera country, Tūhoe have always continued to openly assert their mana motuhake, their right to their own self-determination and sovereignty, and have never been prepared to compromise who they are for the Pākehā hegemony.6
Raids a disguise for a fishing expedition?
Rūātoki is the home of the well-known Māori rights campaigner and activist Tame Iti. He was one of the seventeen people from around the country arrested and charged under the Arms Act 1983 and one of six held in custody while the police tried to gather evidence to justify charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. According to police, those arrested had been running or had attended ‘terrorist training camps’ in the very remote Urewera ranges, ‘learning about civil insurrection, assassination and napalm bombing’.7 However Māori media quickly identified the so-called ‘training camps’ as camping sites used by local hunters and forestry workers.8 The evidence police appeared to have relied on seemed, from the media reports, to be mainly recordings of conversations, including telephone conversations, texts and emails. Many commented at the time that the raids looked like a ‘fishing expedition’, an indiscriminate searching of homes and property in the hope that damning evidence would be uncovered.9
Prime Minister and Commissioner of Police violate rules of sub judice; Solicitor-General refuses to allow prosecution for terrorism; evidence leaked to unscrupulous media
In Parliament the Labour minority government’s Māori MPs remained silent, claiming it was a police matter.10 Both the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of Police chose to ignore the fact that the matter was before the courts and commented publicly, with the Prime Minister commenting that those arrested were people ‘who at the very least have illicitly used firearms, constructed Molotov cocktails and trained themselves to use napalm.’11 To the embarrassment of the government, the Solicitor-General refused to allow terrorism charges to be laid and the six people held in custody were released on bail.12 The next day, in a move that one analyst has described as ‘nothing short of breathtaking’,13 Fairfax Media, which publishes www.stuff.co.nz, the Dominion Post (Wellington), the Press (Christchurch) and the Waikato Times (Hamilton), selectively published parts of leaked police evidence that had been suppressed.14 Six months later they and the editor of the Dominion Post, which has a long history of anti-Māori reporting, were charged with contempt of court.15
Māori Party comes to defence of Tūhoe; UN asks for an explanation
While government Māori MPs remained silent, maintaining a wait-and-see stance,16 the Māori Party bitterly attacked the police and the government for violating the community of Rūātoki and leaving the Tūhoe people traumatised. Māori Party MP, Hone Harawira, drew particularly strong personal criticism and abuse from Pākehā for speaking out against the police actions. He responded by issuing a press release citing the full text of his attack in Parliament and refusing to back down.17 His claim that his statement accurately reflected the feeling in many Māori communities around the country was supported by the results of a survey showing a high level of concern about the raids amongst Māori participants.18 In his statement he said:
I will not sit quietly by while state forces terrorise my people. If this requires me to speak out against the rule of law that would impose terror on Māori communities in this country, then I will speak out. I will speak out against it in this chamber, on television, in newspapers, and anywhere else I possibly can.
Nation-wide protests followed. The Human Rights Commissioner received official complaints, as did the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which asked the New Zealand government for an explanation.19 In November the Police Commissioner conceded that the raids had badly damaged relations with Tūhoe.20 In March 2008 he acknowledged and expressed regret over the hurt caused.21
New Zealand votes against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
One month before the raids the Māori Party had launched a blistering attack on the government for voting against the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It had been adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 September by an overwhelming majority of 143 to 4. The four states that voted against it, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, all share a history of British colonisation which left the indigenous peoples of those countries marginalised, deprived and oppressed minorities in their own lands, stripped of their lands and natural resources, denied sovereignty and subjected to racism and discrimination. The Declaration, in its forty-five articles, is a statement setting out the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples.22 It sets out the rights to self-determination, cultures, traditions, languages, institutions, world views and ways of life. It calls on states to prevent and redress theft of land and natural resources and forced assimilation, while establishing minimal standards to eliminate racism, discrimination, marginalisation and exploitation that inhibit the development of indigenous peoples.
Māori had been involved in the drafting of the Declaration from the outset in the early 1980s. One of the reasons it took so long to formulate was that the four states that voted against it had consistently impeded its progress, drawing widespread condemnation from the indigenous community. None of them consulted properly with the indigenous peoples they claimed to represent. They did not want the injustices suffered by those peoples scrutinised, nor the fact that ownership of lands now legally owned by states and non-indigenous individuals derives from an initial theft.23 The declaration urges that land be returned where possible, but where it is not possible it recommends compensation at full value. In New Zealand, Māori have been forced to accept very much less, calculated to be an average of less than 0.1 percent of losses.24 The New Zealand government did not want to have to admit that its processes of providing restitution were unfair and unjust.
The adoption of the Declaration by the United Nations received scant attention in mainstream media, and the government tried to play down its importance. However Māori Party MP Hone Harawira toured the North Island delivering seminars on it. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission issued a statement saying the Declaration would guide its work.25 With the change of government in Australia in November 2007, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission announced that the new government supported the Declaration.26 And by April 2008 news from Canada’s indigenous peoples indicated that the Canadian Parliament now also supported it.27 With New Zealand becoming more isolated in its stance, a change in the government’s attitude to Māori, particularly in respect of its loathed Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement policy and process, became more inevitable.
Waitangi Tribunal criticises government Treaty settlement policy – yet again
In March and again in June 2007, the Waitangi Tribunal issued reports severely critical of the government’s settlement policy and process.28 When the government ignored them, the Federation of Māori Authorities and the New Zealand Māori Council pursued the matter through the courts. At the same time, tribal groupings in various parts of the country continued with the repossession of lands the government had refused to return to them and was trying to sell off.29 In April 2007 the government had delayed the sale of some of the blocks for three months. It announced in September that several had been withdrawn from sale for four years. But in the House the government was unable to gain sufficient support to pass several of its proposed settlements into law. In September the Minister of Māori Affairs was ridiculed when he tabled the first report in twelve years on the progress of successive governments on implementing the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of Māori Treaty of Waitangi claims against the Crown. Of the forty-eight reports issued by the Tribunal, only twelve had issues addressed or implemented and it was unclear what had happened to the rest.30
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance becomes Treaty settlements Minister
Finally, in October, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance took over the portfolio for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Almost immediately, direct negotiations between claimants and the Crown took on a sudden urgency as the meanness of spirit and bad faith on the part of the government that had plagued negotiations for more than a decade appeared to be set aside. In the central North Island where the Waitangi Tribunal issued the first two parts of a seven-part report on the largest inquiry it had made to date,31 eight iwi groupings came together to develop their own solution for the settlement of their claims to the 176,000 hectares of land under the eight central North Island forests. The forests include the country’s largest exotic forest, Kaingaroa. They presented their proposal for the return of the forest lands and related assets in April 2008 and reached agreement with the government in May. The deal was promoted as being worth $419 million, implying that the government was far exceeding the previous largest payouts of $170 million each for the Tainui, fisheries and Ngāi Tahu settlements. Yet $223 million of the $419 million was accumulated rentals from the forests. The rentals belong to the iwi, not the Crown, as a result of the Tribunal upholding their claims to the forest lands. The remaining $196 million is the value the Crown had put on the 176,000 hectares of land under the forests. The amount of land being returned was proportionally larger than had been achieved elsewhere in the country. But it was being returned already encumbered. In purely monetary terms, the settlements of each of the eight iwi were on a par with other Treaty settlements and as such still did not amount to fair, reasonable or just recompense for all the violations they have suffered at the hands of the Crown. Yet one of the iwi involved, Te Arawa of the Bay of Plenty, was able to use the deal to improve its own proposed settlement significantly, including no longer having to pay for geothermal wells and five school properties.32
Mauao returned to its rightful owners – but not really
In the Bay of Plenty, the mountain Mauao, also known as Mount Maunganui, was finally returned to its rightful owners in May 2008. However in a sleight of hand that amazed legal observers, the government managed to retain its historic reserve status and the Minister of Conservation continues to have all the rights and obligations of a freehold owner.33
Government abandons its settlement policy to reach agreement on settling Ngāti Kahu’s claims
In the Far North, Ngāti Kahu had returned to the Tribunal to seek orders for the return of 12,590 acres of state-owned lands and forests after negotiations failed, and they repossessed the 9,170-acre Rangiputa station to stop the government selling it. In April 2008 the Tribunal gave the government three months to make an offer that was acceptable to Ngāti Kahu. For the first time ever, the Crown apologised to Ngāti Kahu and intensive negotiations with a Chief Negotiator appointed by the Minister followed. Crown policy for settling Treaty claims was largely abandoned. Instead the negotiations focused on the social, economic and spiritual needs and mana whenua considerations of the fifteen hapū and their associated marae that make up Ngāti Kahu. By the end of June the Crown made an offer that broke a lot of new ground in terms of Treaty settlements. It involved the return of the control of more than 24,700 acres of land to Ngāti Kahu, with fee simple title to more than half of it, including Rangiputa station. The rest would come under the control of a statutory board made up of equal Ngāti Kahu/Crown membership, chaired by Ngāti Kahu and all its business conducted according to Ngāti Kahu customary law. The offer also included a cash contribution of $7.5 million to be used to rebuild the fifteen marae and their associated housing, which were either non-existent or in a very poor state of repair. In mid-2008, Ngāti Kahu was in the process of drawing up an Agreement in Principle with the government which they planned to sign off in September, before the general election.
During the 2007–08 year we lost several Māori icons who had made huge contributions to the well-being of their people. In September 2007 Syd Jackson of Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāti Porou passed away. He was a prominent Māori leader who had conducted a lifelong campaign for justice for Māori, with a totally unswerving commitment to revolution and freeing Māori from the oppression of British immigrants. He was an outstanding broadcaster, activist, trade unionist and political leader. He completed a Masters degree in political studies in the 1970s before entering trade union work. He was the Secretary of the Clerical Workers’ Union in Auckland from 1978 until 1989 when he resigned and co-founded Te Rūnanga o Ngā Kaimahi Māori o Aotearoa as an advocacy agency for those whom the unions would not represent. In the 1970s he was also one of the founders and leaders of the young Māori intellectuals group, Ngā Tamatoa, which fought for tino rangatiratanga (Māori sovereignty), organising protests at Waitangi Day commemorations starting in 1971, forming Matakite to organise the Māori Land March of 1975, and presenting a petition to the government in 1976 demanding legal recognition of the Māori language. He made huge contributions to the Māori renaissance and the creation of the contemporary Māori voice, was one of the country’s most radical thinkers and innovators and was a principled and staunch leader to the end.34
Later that month Archbishop Whakahuihui Vercoe passed away. He had been a priest for fifty-four years, was a former Bishop of Aotearoa and was Archbishop of the Anglican Church. He was a staunch supporter of Māori rights and status guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi. He served as a military chaplain in Malaya between 1961 and 1963 and in South Vietnam in 1968 and 1969. He was part of the radical restructuring of the Anglican Church in 1990 which introduced and implemented a constitution in which Pākehā Anglicans no longer dominate the church, but share equally with their partners, Tikanga Māori and Tikanga Polynesia. He was also one of the leaders of the Hīkoi of Hope in 1998. In his address at Waitangi for the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1990, he took everyone by surprise when, in addressing the visiting British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, he said very eloquently and simply:
One hundred and fifty years ago, a compact was signed, a covenant made between two people …
But since the signing of that treaty … our partners have marginalized us. You have not honoured the treaty …
The language of this land is yours, the custom is yours, the media by which we tell the world who we are is yours …
What I have come here for is to renew the ties that made us a nation in 1840. I don’t want to debate the treaty; I don’t want to renegotiate the treaty. I want the treaty to stand firmly as the unity, the means by which we are one nation … The treaty is what we are celebrating. It is what we are trying to establish so that my tino rangatiratanga is the same as your tino rangatiratanga.
And so I have come to Waitangi to cry for the promises that you made and for the expectations our tupuna [had] 150 years ago … And so I conclude, as I remember the songs of our land, as I remember the history of our land, I weep here on the shores of the Bay of Islands.35
Māori reaction to his speech was jubilation. The Governor General of the day, Sir Paul Reeves, reported the Queen asking him, ‘Is this a radical bishop?’ to which he answered ‘No, Ma’am, but he’s doing pretty well’. Some Pākehā thought he got it absolutely right. But most condemned him, there were denunciations in Parliament of the ‘troublesome bishop’ and he was never asked back to Waitangi.36
In January 2008 we lost the towering literary figure, poet and author, Hone Tūwhare. He wrote the first book of poetry by a Māori author in English, and will be remembered as a great artist and philosopher whose real talent was his simplicity. He was Te Mata poet laureate in 1999, was conferred with honorary doctorates from both the Universities of Auckland and Otago, and was one of the ten Icon artists announced in 2003.37 His great love of people and the environment is reflected throughout his work. His most famous poem, ‘No Ordinary Sun’, was a passionate cry against nuclear testing and was published in his first book of poetry in 1964.
Tree let your arms fall:
raise them not sharply in supplication
to the bright enhaloed cloud.
Let your arms lack toughness and
resilience for this is no mere axe
to blunt nor fire to smother.
to the moon’s pull.
No more incline a deferential head
to the wind’s talk, or stir
to the tickle of coursing rain.
Your former shagginess shall not be
wreathed with the delightful flight
of birds nor shield
nor cool the ardour of unheeding
lovers from the monstrous sun.
Tree let your naked arms fall
nor extend vain entreaties to the radiant ball.
This is no gallant monsoon’s flash,
no dashing trade wind’s blast.
The fading green of your magic
emanations shall not make pure again
these polluted skies … for this
is no ordinary sun.
O tree
in the shadowless mountains
the white plains and
the drab sea floor
your end at last is written.38
Then, one month later, it was Barry Barclay. He was a leading light in the world of indigenous film-making, having been the first Māori to direct a feature film. The film, Ngati, won best film at the Taormina Film Festival, Italy, in 1987 and also screened at the Cannes festival. Barry made a number of documentaries and was a fierce advocate against injustice, particularly the racism against Māori in the film industry and barriers to telling Māori stories.39 He was also a dedicated writer and in 2006 published the book Mana Tūturu: Māori Treasures and Intellectual Property Rights.
Commemorations for thirty-year anniversaries of Raglan and Takaparawhau
There were also commemorations for the arrests thirty years earlier of Eva Rickard and sixteen others at Raglan for trespassing on their ancestral land taken for an airfield during World War II and never returned. The lands were given instead to the local golf club, but were eventually returned to their rightful owners. Similarly, the arrests of 222 people at Takaparawhau (also known as Bastion Point) in 1978 were commemorated. Those lands were also returned, although not until 1987.
Commemorations at Waitangi peaceful yet again
It was the third year in a row that there were peaceful commemorations at Waitangi on Waitangi Day, although the Prime Minister refused to attend the formal ceremonies,40 fearing a backlash over the terror raids on Tūhoe. Peaceful commemorations at Waitangi were largely attributed to the Māori Party presence in Parliament and the role they played as the independent Māori voice unafraid to bring Māori issues to the attention of the House and the nation.
Victoria Cross awarded to Corporal Willie Apiata
However the highlight of the Māori year was the award of the Victoria Cross (VC) to Corporal Willie Apiata in July 2007. It was the first time the award had been made to a living Māori – the two previous awards were posthumous. There had been a great deal of bitterness among Māori servicemen that many Māori who should have received VCs, especially during World War II, did not do so even though returned servicemen and their families pursued it for more than fifty years. Corporal Apiata received his VC for valour in Afghanistan in 2004 in saving the life of a comrade while under heavy fire from opposing forces. Huge hui to celebrate the award were held at Te Kaha on the East Coast and at Waitangi. In April 2008, in a gesture of remarkable generosity, and to mark ANZAC Day, he gifted his Victoria Cross to the nation.41 In Māori we say, he mahi tino rangatira, a truly noble and selfless deed.
1 Paul Hamer, 2007, Māori in Australia Ngā Māori i te Ao Moemoeā, Te Puni Kōkiri, Wellington and Griffith University, Sydney, p. 14, http://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/in-print/our-publications/publications/maori-in-australia/download/tpk-maorinaustralia2007-en.pdf
2 Māori Party, 2007(c), ‘Speech: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill – Hone Harawira’, press release, 23 October 2007, http://www.maoriparty.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1375&Itemid=28
3 Moana Jackson, 2008, ‘Preface – The Constancy of Terror’, in Danny Keenan (ed.), Terror in Our Midst? Searching for Terror in Aotearoa New Zealand, Wellington, Huia Publishers, p. 6; Danny Keenan, 2008(b), ‘Introduction: Searching for Terror’, in Keenan (ed.), Terror in Our Midst?, p. 19; Teurikore Biddle, 2008, ‘Epilogue: Maungapōhatu an Enduring Tūhoetanga’, in Keenan (ed.), Terror in Our Midst?, p. 256.
4 Sue Abel, 2008, ‘Tūhoe and “Terrorism” on Television News’, in Keenan (ed.), Terror in Our Midst?, p. 119; Keenan, ‘Introduction: Searching for Terror’, p. 19; Māori Party, 2007(d), ‘Tell the Truth about the Bus: Te Ururoa Flavell’, press release, 23 October 2007, http://www.maoriparty.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1371&Itemid=2
5 Rawinia Higgins, 2008, ‘Another Chapter in Our History: Reflections on the Events at Rūātoki, 15 October 2007’, in Keenan (ed.), Terror in Our Midst?, p. 210; Danny Keenan, 2008(c), ‘Autonomy as Fiction: The Urewera Native District Reserve Act 1896’, in Keenan (ed.), Terror in Our Midst?, pp. 79–83.
6 Higgins, ‘Another Chapter in Our History’, p. 220.
7 Juliet Rowan, 2007, ‘Valley Locked Down After Dawn Raids’, nzherald.co.nz, 16 October 2007; Jackson, ‘Preface – The Constancy of Terror’, p. 20.
8 Biddle, ‘Epilogue: Maungapōhatu an Enduring Tūhoetanga’, p. 256.
9 Danny Keenan, 2008(d), ‘The Terror Raids and the Criminalising of Dissent’, in Keenan (ed.), Terror in Our Midst?, p. 132.
10 Claire Trevett, 2007, ‘Defiant Horomia: I Will Not Resign’, nzherald.co.nz, 29 October 2007.
11 Keenan, Danny, ‘Introduction: Searching for Terror’, p. 21.
12 NZPA, 2007, ‘Last “terror raid” Accused Freed as Hikoi Starts’, nzherald.co.nz, 12 November 2007.
13 Keenan, ‘The Terror Raids and the Criminalising of Dissent’, p. 133.
14 Keenan, ‘The Terror Raids and the Criminalising of Dissent’, p. 133.
15 Keenan, ‘Introduction: Searching for Terror’, p. 25.
16 Dominic O’Sullivan, 2008, ‘Māori MPs and “Operation Eight”’, in Keenan (ed.), Terror in Our Midst?, p. 140.
17 Māori Party, 2007(e), ‘Speech: “I Will Not Sit Quietly by While State Forces Terrorise my People”, Hone Harawira’, press release, 8 November 2007, http://www.maoriparty.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1415&Itemid=28
18 Māori Party, 2007(f), ‘It’s Looking Good for 2008 Says Māori Party’, press release, 10 November 2007, http://www.maoriparty.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1417&Itemid=2
19 NZPA and NZ Herald Staff, 2008, ‘UN Orders Government to Explain Anti-terror Raids’, nzherald.co.nz, 17 January 2008.
20 Claire Trevett, Stuart Dye and Edward Gay, 2007, ‘Tame Iti Seeking Release From Jail’, nzherald.co.nz, 9 November 2007.
21 Justin Henehan, 2008, ‘Raids “hurt” is Regretted’, Herald on Sunday, 30 March 2008, p. 2.
22 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html
23 Williams, ‘Wi Parata is Dead, Long Live Wi Parata’; Rawiri Taonui, 2007, ‘Unburdening Future Generations’, New Zealand Herald, 8 October 2007, p. A13.
24 Mutu, ‘Recovering Fagin’s Ill-gotten Gains’, p. 201.
25 New Zealand Human Rights Commission, 2007, ‘Indigenous Rights Declaration to Guide Commission Work’, press release, 18 September 2007, http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/indigenousrightsdeclarationtoguidecommissionwork.php
26 Australia Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, 2008, ‘Call for Submissions’, http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/declaration/comments.html
27 Assembly of First Nations, 2008, ‘Fontaine, Simon and Chartier Congratulate Canadian Parliament for Their Support of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, press release, 9 April 2008, http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=4067
28 Waitangi Tribunal, Tāmaki Makaurau Settlement Process and Final Report on the Impacts of the Crown’s Settlement Policy on Te Arawa Waka and Other Tribes.
29 See chapter 13.
30 MLR, September 2007, p. 8.
31 Waitangi Tribunal, Report on the Central North Island Claims.
32 Office of Treaty Settlements, 2008(c), ‘Historical Treaty Settlements: Progress Report 2008’, Mana no. 83, August–September 2008, pp. 16–17.
33 MLR, May 2008, p. 4.
34 Matt McCarten, 2007, ‘My First Lesson From a Master in the Gentle Art of Protesting’, nzherald.co.nz, 9 September 2007; Amokura Panoho, 2008, ‘Syd Jackson’, Mana no. 81, April–May 2008, pp. 6–8.
35 Whakahuihui Vercoe, 1990, ‘We Have Not Honoured Each Other’s Promises’, New Zealand Herald, 7 February 1990, p. 9.
36 Alanah May Eriksen, and Yvonne Tahana, 2007, ‘Outspoken Anglican Archbishop Dies’, New Zealand Herald, 14 September 2007, p. A3; 2007–2008, ‘Maimai Aroha: Passing of a Soldier Priest’, Mana no. 79, December 2007–January 2008, p. 9; Lloyd Ashton, 2006, ‘The making of a “radical bishop”’, Mana no. 71, pp. 24–9.
37 Hone Harawira, 2008, ‘He Aitua – Hone Tuwhare “No Ordinary Icon”’, press release, 17 January 2008; Janet Hunt, 2008, ‘Thinking About Tuwhare’, Mana no. 80, February–March 2008, pp. 8–12.
38 Hone Tūwhare, 1964, No Ordinary Sun, Auckland, Blackwood and Janet Paul.
39 Katherine Findlay, 2008, ‘Barry Barclay 1945–2008’, Mana no. 83, August–September 2008, pp. 6–7.
40 John Roughan, 2008, ‘Where Clark Fears to Tread’, New Zealand Herald, 9 February 2008, p. A21.
41 2008, ‘Pitopito Korero: Willie’s Gift’, Mana no. 82, June–July 2008, p. 38; Māori Party, 2008(a), ‘Willie Apiata’s Remarkable ANZAC Day Gift to the Nation’, press release, 24 April 2008, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0804/S00577.htm