(from Parliamentary debates on the Border (Customs, Excise, and Tariff) Processing Bill passed in urgency 26 November)

Over the past several decades our border environment has changed significantly with increasing demands on border control agencies due to a number of factors.

The travel passenger numbers have increased significantly. In 1993-1994 there were 2 million people moving in and out of New Zealand, and now there is about 9 million people coming in and out during the year.

Our trade volumes will continue to rise as, with each free trade agreement New Zealand signs up to, there are increases in the volume of our imports and exports and increases in the number of transactions required to meet our international obligations. 

Another factor that threatens our borders today arose from the 9/11 disaster in New York.  This and the subsequent Bush war on the Arabian region has meant that every country has been forced to stand in a heightened sense of alertness as the world comes to grips in the recognition that our borders are vulnerable to the rising tide of international terrorism, which has become both frequent and more intense.

Then in May of this year, every New Zealander was shocked to hear about one of our own senior police constables was shot dead in Napier, and several other police officers including members of the public were fired upon. 

I think this tragedy highlighted that illegal firearms are crossing our borders and are sold and exchanged here in Aotearoa.  Most of us thought that that kind of stuff belongs in the movies, out there in the USA, or in Africa.  Sadly, that experience and other similar tragedies involving firearms show that our borders are not immune to illegal weapons passing through undetected. 

Our borders are also not immune to the ongoing criminal activities of counterfeit goods and products being smuggled through.

We are also vulnerable to breaches in our biosecurity and human trafficking.

But perhaps the most significant factor for me is the very real threat that organised crime groups pose on our families and our communities from the illegal drug trade involving P or its precursor.  These crime syndicates are becoming increasingly diverse and sophisticated in the methods of smuggling.

In recent months, the Customs Service working with other border agencies succeeded in intercepting significant drug hauls at our border.  Earlier this month, Customs intercepted a drug haul with an estimated street value of up to $6 million –six people were arrested.  In September, Customs seized 80 kilos of a precursor which would produce about 24 kilos of P with a street value of around $20 million.  This was the third largest haul of its kind seen in New Zealand.  An Auckland man was charged with importing an illegal drug.  In March there was about $4.8 million drug haul and 3 people were arrested.

I use these examples to illuminate the reality of the drug problem that is moving through our borders.  It involves millions of dollars and people will kill to protect their money.

For whatever reasons people in our community buy it – they buy P. It is being sold all over New Zealand.  It is a huge challenge to our law enforcement agencies and they face real dangers when dealing with people in this illegal trade.

However, it may be more alarming to many New Zealanders when they learn that despite the best efforts of Customs and our border control agencies, we are only able to intercept some illegal drugs crossing our borders.  There is strong indication that a significant volume pass through our borders undetected.

The MP for Hunua, in the post budget select committee meeting raised the point that he had seen a report that stated only 20 percent of illegal drugs coming over our borders are intercepted.

At that same meeting the Minister of Customs himself said he did not know how much drugs go through our borders unnoticed.  He further said that he was resigned to Customs not being able to inspect every package, container, boat, or person that enters New Zealand’s borders.

Communities throughout New Zealand who are aware of the misery that P and other related drugs cause on our streets and our homes want to know that this Government will do all it can to make sure our borders are safe and secure from illegal drug trafficking.

We want to know that organised crime syndicates will be caught and those responsible for this scourge on our society are prosecuted.  The public want to know that the Minister of Customs is on the job doing something about protecting our borders. 

We want to know that the Minister is supporting our border control officials and that he himself is committed to stopping drug trafficking from crossing our borders.  When they cross our borders, they reach our communities.

Labour is concerned that $2 million was cut from the Customs budget in a line by line review.

We were concerned as well when it was also highlighted by Paul Holmes  in his Q + A interview of the Prime Minister on 11 October that the Government cut some $3.57 million from the border control budget.

The New Zealand public want to be assured that our borders are not under strain from lack of resourcing from this Government.

That is the challenge that Labour is issuing the Minister of Customs.

Ends.

 

New Zealand is at a cross-roads.

We can celebrate the rich tapestry of our heritage and use it to move forwards as a nation; or re-open wounds and divisions where there can be healing.

I want to talk about some of these issues today, and the choices that the Government is making this week, and in weeks ahead.

It will make choices in the global community of nations about climate change. It will make choices about Treaty settlements relating to forestry and about the foreshore and seabed.

I believe that the Treaty settlement process is vitally necessary to address the real grievances of the past and to remedy them so we can move forward as a country.  But should that process be manipulated in shabby political deals between National and the Maori Party, what we have achieved and still need to achieve can be fundamentally damaged.

We can choose our future based on principle and with the interests of all New Zealanders at heart.

Or we can have a country where one New Zealander is turned against another, Maori against Pakeha, in a way that Labour strongly rejects.

We can make a promise to young New Zealanders that their lives will be as rewarding as they can achieve; or we can burden them with the costs of today’s decisions, and hold them back when we should ask for so much more.

We can have a New Zealand that respects our heritage, and finds solutions in the fair way Kiwis always try to.

We can recognise that we have all worked to build our country.

Over generations, Maori and Pakeha have lived together, worked together, and played sport together.  We have married one another and raised our children together.

Since the first New Zealanders died on the battlefields of World War One, we have fought alongside each other for the future of our nation and the values which we together uphold.

I’m a former defence minister, and I take considerable pride that our soldiers, in their own words, ‘share a bond no bullet can shatter, no bayonet can pierce.’

When you contemplate this history, it is no wonder that so many, both Maori and Pakeha New Zealanders, were deeply offended by the comments made by Hone Harawira.

The true offence was that by abusing one racial group in New Zealand he thought he could justify his side trip off to Paris, when his expenses were being paid by the taxpayer to fulfil his duties at the European Parliament.

Nearly everyone who spoke to me about this episode mentioned their unease that this controversy takes race relations backwards.

In times when our community is challenged, we look to our leaders to articulate our hurts and our hearts.

So the Prime Minister had a choice.

He could have condemned the comments and showed leadership.

We cannot reconcile New Zealanders and make progress together in an environment where hatefulness can flourish, wherever it comes from.

But he made a different choice. A cynical choice.

The prime minister decided shabby, short-term political deals suit him more.

So we saw the payback this week when National, with the help of the Maori Party, legislated a $110 billion subsidy for big polluters in the emissions trading scheme they have adopted.

New Zealand must be part of the global solution to climate change. There is no dispute between parties over that.

The issue is who pays.

Labour says: Big polluters should pay.

The government says Kiwi families will pay.

It is loading every hardworking family with a bill of $92,000 in today’s dollars.

This is a decision that loads enormous costs on to future generations of taxpayers.  It will cost our children and grandchildren dearly.

Polluters should pay the cost of their pollution because we want them to change their behaviour.

When the government subsidises them, they will keep on polluting.

When the people who cause pollution have to pay for it, they will change their ways and choose better and cleaner solutions because they will be cheaper.

To hit the taxpayer with a bill like this, the National Government had to do a cynical deal with the Maori Party.

They re-opened Treaty settlements that were made full and final in the nineties.

They did this because some iwi who got forests in the nineties say their forests won’t be worth as much now.

But every other forest owner is in the same position.

The iwi negotiators say they didn’t know about the chance of an emissions trading scheme when they signed their deal, and they asked if the Crown breached its obligations by not warning that a future government might adopt an emissions trading scheme.

Last year the Labour-led government took their question seriously.

No one wants settlements soured by bad faith.

Crown Law retained a QC to consider the issue. Her report came back and said:  In the nineties, no one knew an emissions trading scheme would be adopted, or what it would look like.

So she concluded: ‘there is no evidence of a breach of the Crown’s obligations’.

The Government has ignored that advice.

Instead, it’s just done a deal to advantage some large Maori corporates, which other forestry companies do not get from the government, which will give the Maori corporates an estimated $1.75 billion.

Let’s be clear. This deal will not benefit Maori as a whole.  The rebellion within the Maori Party membership who have criticised their parliamentarians recognizes this – that the average taxpayer, Maori and Pakeha, will be paying this bill and it will be huge.

They and the rest of us know this will cost our children dearly.  And the pay-off, to polluting businesses, isn’t compensation for that.

This shabby deal, agreed to in secret and not subject to examination by the Select Committee, was about buying Maori Party support for National’s shambles of an ETS.

My colleague Shane Jones says it is not so much pork barrel politics as ‘pork bone’ politics.

Some corporates saw the chance for a handout and naturally they’ve taken it.

Some of these are very large incorporations, and they are very sophisticated businesspeople.

And they’re hiding behind some of the poorest in the country who won’t benefit from this at all.

If they see the chance of getting hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayer, they will take it.

Any other business would do the same.  I don’t blame them.  I blame the National Party that was prepared to use the taxpayer’s money to buy off the Maori Party with a deal which doesn’t stack up in terms of principle.

I reject strongly the allegation the Prime Minister made that anyone who has concerns about this deal is playing the race card.

Race is a red herring in this deal. It’s about subsidies for big corporations, and I am not going to shy away from saying so.

I opposed a special deal for Rio Tinto, just as I oppose the special deal for a Ngai Tahu corporation.

Just as we as taxpayers had to pay for Rob Muldoon’s supplementary minimum prices to farmers that many of you here will remember – so someone has to pay for the subsidies of today.

The subsidies aren’t free – ordinary New Zealanders have to pay for them – and in this case for generations to come.

The burden of paying will fall disproportionately on people less able to pay – hard working Maori and Pakeha taxpayers alike.

This is not a time to put at risk the concept of full and final settlements.

You see, when we considered this issue last year, Cabinet decided not to go down this route.

We looked at it and decided we would have created a permanent class of ‘post-Treaty asset’ – Assets that were once part of a Treaty settlement would forever be eligible for compensation if they were ever affected by adverse decisions by government.

If the government ever changed the rules relating to forestry, or tax law, or the exchange rate, here is now a precedent for having to compensate the owners of an asset that had once been part of a Treaty settlement.

That’s a bad principle. 

Full and final settlement would become impossible.

And as Shane Jones pointed out this week, by allowing some select corporations to top up their settlements, the government is keeping the grievance going.

If you can never settle Treaty grievances, there can never be healing, and you keep alive a grievance from one age into another.

We must address grievance, but we must not sustain it.

The promise I want to make to young Maori New Zealanders is that we will work as hard as we can to help ensure that the next generation of leaders will be a breakthrough generation.

They understand tradition. They understand that the future can be changed – by education and by opportunity.

And therefore we should make sure everyone gets a fair go.

Everyone should be supported to ensure they have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, so that the breakthrough generation can open any door, achieve any ambition, triumph in any test.

Imagine if the government decided not to spend billions of dollars in coming years on subsidies for polluters.

Imagine if we spent that money invested in this subsidy instead on the achievement and success of all young New Zealanders, and in particular lifting the level of educational success of those who are underachieving.

Imagine what their parents could do if, instead of paying taxes to subsidise climate changing gases, they could take the pressure off their own family budgets.

I dream of families, Maori and Pakeha, whose taxes are not spent on subsidies for big polluters, but instead invested in science and education. And a young scientist in this family gets a better start, and gets the backing to find a job in a laboratory where she or he develops the breakthrough technology that reduces emissions from our agriculture.

I dream of young entrepreneurs, Maori and Pakeha, who develop the exports of clean technology to the world, and create hundreds of jobs here in New Zealand.

I can think of many better uses for our money than giving it to big polluters.

This is about what kind of country we want to be.

Proud, forward-looking and hopeful; or grieving, backward-looking, short-term and ashamed.

I want us to be the kind of country where we take these issues seriously, instead of looking for quick fixes.

Where we take the principled option, not the cynical, short-term one.

That’s my approach to the foreshore and seabed, too.

That’s another issue that is being cynically re-opened for politics, and not for principle.

The National Government has indicated it will repeal the foreshore and seabed law.

It won’t say when we’ll start hearing the details of what it plans to replace the law.

It won’t disclose the deal that has been reached or is being considered.

It won’t say how it is going to reconcile its arrangement with the Maori Party and its own National Party MPs, who in 2003 criticised Labour for giving too much away.

The foreshore and seabed became an incredibly divisive issue, with big concerns expressed from both sides.

New Zealanders’ fears were whipped up in an unprincipled way, with National running a “Save Our Beaches” website.  It suggested New Zealanders were about to lose access to beaches around New Zealand.

The National Party is trying to erase that part of its history.

Back in 2004, Labour’s process on dealing with the issue, in a different environment, could have been better.

But for all the criticism I have heard, most people accept that the current foreshore and seabed rules aren’t broken and they’re a good foundation for moving forward. They believe its good legislation for all New Zealanders.

Re-opening the foreshore and seabed issues by repealing the legislation might be just a cynical move by National and the Maori Party to create the perception of change.

In reality it may be no more than simply renaming the existing Act, with pretty much the existing arrangements.

It’s hard to see why the country should be put through all the grief just to put a new brand on law that’s working.

Or it might be more than that, in which case the Government should tell us.

Access to the beaches is a birthright for New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha alike, and must be preserved.

Equally, we accept that where traditional Maori usage and rights exist they should be respected.

New Zealanders also respect the guardianship role Maori have in many parts of the country, and accept protection of sacred sites and customary activity.

Local iwi should be consulted before development occurs on the foreshore, and their traditional rights respected.

That is provided for under current legislation, as the Ngati Porou agreement under Labour has demonstrated.

Ngati Porou wants that agreement honoured by the current government. If that can occur through negotiation between iwi and the Crown, what are they fixing? The right to achieve a similar outcome in the courts? 

Ngati Porou successfully negotiated an agreement with the Crown under the foreshore and seabed law.

It recognises there is a special relationship, and the Crown commits to consultation with Ngati Porou at all levels of Government.

The agreement recognises sacred sites and rights to undertake customary activities.

The settlement maintains Crown Ownership but provides full respect for Maori customary rights.

It would be totally irresponsible for National, on the basis of a political deal, to repeal the legislation and leave uncertainty and the opportunity for disputes to fester unresolved.

If the foreshore and seabed issue is left for the courts to resolve, we could be tied up in knots for years.

The government has a choice between sticking with the status quo, which guarantees access but allows for agreements around customary rights, and the alternative of never ending court battles.

Labour believes in access for all New Zealanders, with respect for custom and heritage.

National wants to reopen the Foreshore and Seabed Act.  Labour asks: What isn’t working? Will reopening court action help or would it see wounds fester?

This is about the kind of nation we want to be.

A respectful, forward-looking country or one stuck in shabby, short-term deals that divide New Zealanders, and set one against another.

We can be better than that.

We can be a country of opportunity and fairness for everyone.

There is so much New Zealanders have to be proud of, so much we have to achieve together.

We can be proud of the bi-cultural foundation of our nation and the multicultural nature of our community today.

 It is part of our nationhood and we should celebrate the overall tolerance and mutual respect on which good relations between our communities are based.

New Zealanders can draw on our heritage to enrich our community – or to find cause for division and to impose that on generations to come.

What we are seeing are decisions that take the wrong choice.

What is missing is leadership that brings New Zealanders together.

And we have a right to expect more.

Labour MP for Mangere Su’a William Sio says he hopes that the men of Mangere will recognize the leadership role they must play in giving meaning to white ribbon day by recognizing that it is unacceptable to our system of democracy to be violent towards your spouse, your sisters, or any women.

“It is equally unacceptable to be violent towards your children, or any member of your household.

“If you are a father that has a tendency to be violent, or one that turns violent towards the ones you love, especially after a few drinks, I say to you that you need to change. Our community expects you to change.

“If you are not thinking of change, then we ask you – what legacy will you leave behind for your children? What good will you do for your family and our community?

As a lead up to White Ribbon Day, Su’a William Sio spoke at the launch of the Teal Ribbon Campaign on Saturday, 31 October where he called on the Mangere community to join him in making a promise to be violence free and challenging ourselves to be better.

“I hope that every male in Mangere will see the White Ribbon Day as a day where we collectively take a leadership role to change ourselves for the sake of our loved ones and for our own personal self worth by setting a good example for our spouses and children.”

“If we don’t change, we fail the people that love us the most, and worst of all we will have failed ourselves and our local communities.

Ends.

 

I got the opportunity to ask the Minister of Education in Parliament this week whether she was prepared to back up her support for literacy programmes by funding the continuation of the Manukau Family Literacy Programme run by the City of Manukau Education Trust, a programme that Price Waterhouse Coopers says has already boosted the income of participating families by an average of $200 per week.

Together with my colleagues Ross Robertson,MP for Manukau East and Carmel Sepoluni we advocated the significant value of this programme as reported by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

The programme encourages parents to go to their child’s school or early childhood centre for about 20 hours a week and work towards gaining a certificate in early childhood teaching.  Parents also spend time each day reading with their children.  They also learn parenting skills and how to look after their family’s health.

This programme has helped many families where the parents have no formal school qualification and are on the benefit.  Price Waterhouse Coopers found that two thirds of the parents that completed the course went on to further study with many completing degrees & other tertiary qualifications.  About 42% found work, and almost three-quarters were less reliant on state income support. 

Mangere Central School principal Maria Heron, Dip Tch, B.A., MEdMgt(Hons), said to me this is “the most effective home-school programme they’ve ever run”.  She says it meets all the key points in the draft Tertiary Education Strategy.  It builds the literacy, language and numeracy skills of the parents in our community…and the school and community benefits through increased improved educational results for both parents and their children.

In fact when the Minister of Education attended and spoke at COMET’s AGM last month, she not only highlighted this was a wonderful programme, but she also witnessed first-hand from the testimonies of parents involved in this programme the significant and positive change that had occurred in the lives of these Manukau families.

It therefore came as a surprise to the Mangere Central School, COMET and many others when the Minister wrote in October saying that they were not funding the coordination and administration of this programme?

Why would she consider cutting funds to a programme that Price Waterhouse Coopers says that for every dollar invested there is a return in long term savings of $9.41 to society through higher education & employment rates and lower welfare costs, and what evidence does she have that this does not translate into a sensible sustainable investment in the future of Pacific & Maori families in Manukau?

Is she not aware that there are at least 4000 households in Manukau where the adults have no qualifications at all, and that by investing another $350,000 in this literacy programme, many of these adults will be able to build their literacy, numeracy and language skills so they can gain meaningful employment and become contributors to society, instead of remaining beneficiaries?

Is she not aware that by investing in the skills development of people, we are also investing in the future of our nation?

I am glad that the Minister admitted in Parliament that she had initially declined funding this programme and more importantly that she was now looking at finding a way to support it and she has “instructed the Ministry of Education to work with the trust on a solution that allows the programme to continue.”

And now that the Minister of Education is reviewing her decision regarding the Manukau Family Literacy Programme, I hope that she will also pluck up the courage to review her decision regarding the cuts to funding for Adult & Community Education.  These cuts are a really bad decisison.

My colleague Carmel Sepuloni asked the Minister of Education the question that will now be in the minds of many kiwis, “are there any other ill-considered decisions (by this Minister and Government) that the public should be aware of?”

I hope that instead of the Minister and her government simply saying, “I reject that question” that they will find the courage to say “Yes there are. I’m sorry, I’ve made a mistake, and we promise to do better.”  This way we can fix the mistakes quickly and avoid unnecessary costs.

Knowing the Government wont make this admission, guess who ends up paying the cost for political mistakes?  By the time you figure this out, feel the pain & get angry, the person who made the mistake will be long gone.

This is also the same premise this Government is working on in wrecking ACC, charging everyone except the polluters in the Emissions Trading Scheme, and withholding contributions to the Super Fund. 

By the time people realise they are suffering and hurting from these bad political decisions, the people who made the bad decisions are long gone.

 

 

 

Part One

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : Labour supports the Border (Customs, Excise, and Tariff) Processing Bill for many reasons. One of the key reasons, of course, is that our people Rick Barker and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta have worked on this issue for some years. This bill clarifies and enhances the Customs and Excise Act in terms of law enforcement capability. Its provisions include enabling customs officers to stop and search a vehicle, to use reasonable force to gain entry, and to search a vehicle that is unattended or abandoned. The use of reasonable force is needed in order to open a vehicle if it is locked or unattended. Otherwise, customs officers cannot search the vehicle without a court order, and in the time it takes to obtain a court order the prohibited goods could have been disposed of and the people responsible for the vehicle could be gone.

This bill is important particularly for communities that have a serious concern about illegal drugs and P coming through our borders. The bill also allows customs officers to arrest any person committing an offence under the Customs and Excise Act, whether or not that person is on a craft. These provisions simply streamline enforcement processes by the Customs Service and aid efficient law-enforcement procedures.

The bill also creates a new offence of making a false allegation or a false report to the Customs Service. If anyone does so, he or she commits an offence and can be prosecuted. The bill allows customs officers to use future technologies to detect tampering with containers or interference with goods and packages. Using future technologies is seen as being more effective than the currently utilised customs seal. That is especially pertinent now, as I have been made aware that the United States is making rapid advances in the use of technology for its trade security.

There are, however, a couple of things that I seek clarity on from the Minister of Customs. The first is that the bill gives customs officers the power to arrest not only when reasonable cause to suspect has arisen but for a period of 7 days after the offence. That raises the question of why the period is limited to 7 days. What happens if the offender immediately goes to ground and is not located for another 3 months? Do police and customs officers stop searching for the offender after the 1-week period has expired? We want some clarity on that.

The other point I want to make concerns new section 274A, inserted by clause 22. It allows the chief executive to arrange for the use of automated electronic systems for any purposes that he or she sees fit in exercising a power. Labour asks where the checks and balances in this process are. Although Labour members have the deepest respect for our customs and border control officials, we do not believe that it is a good thing to have a chief executive with unfettered power. We would expect checks and balances in that regard.

As I said before, Labour members support the bill. We will be supporting the amendments. In the third reading debate we will emphasise our concerns about the issues around P and other drugs. My colleague the Hon Chris Carter has also highlighted our concerns about ensuring that our borders are well-resourced. Despite having SmartGate—a tool that customs officials need—the job of the Customs Service is still labour-intensive. That is what I understand from what I have learnt about the service at the border.

Cutting the budget of the Customs Service may send to criminals some signals that we do not want to be sending. The signals could say to them that we are putting our customs officials and border agencies under strain. It could mean that we are sending them the signal that they can compromise our borders. That is not what we want. I will leave it at that, and give my colleagues the opportunity to speak.

O le masina o Novema ua faalauiloaina o le masina o le lipine pa’epa’e poo le “white ribbon month”.  O le uiga o le lipine pa’epa’e o le faalauaiteleina lea o auala eseese e taofi ai sauaga i totonu o aiga, ae maise sauaga e faasaga i le itupa o tamaitai, faapea ma le fanau.

Ou te talitonu e tatau i aiga Samoa ona faatauaina le faailogaina o le lipine pa’epa’e i lenei masina aua e toatele nisi o loo lipotia mai i matagaluega a le malo e aafia i sauaga i totonu o aiga.

Ona ou fesili lea poo malamalama matua Samoa o lenei ua tatou iai i le vaitaimi ua inosia ai e tagata lautele sauaga i totonu o aiga, ae maise sauaga e faasaga i le itupa o tamaitai ma fanau laiti.

Ua malamalama le toatele o le atunuu o soo se aiga oloo maua ai uiga saua, ma faatino ai sauga i le tina ma fanau, o se aiga faanoanoa tele, ma e leai se lumanai lelei e maua ai.

Ou te le faapea atu nao aiga Samoa o loo aafia ai i nei uiga.  O nei lava uiga e mafai ona aafia uma ai soo se aiga, E aafia ai foi aiga Papalagi, ma aiga o tagata maumea ma le aufaipisinisi. 

Peitai, e pito i sili ona ou popole ma naunau i aiga Samoa, aua ou te naunau lava au ia, ia maua e aiga Samoa ni aiga fiafia ma le manuia.

Ae paga lea o le vaiaso ua tea na falepuipui ai se tina mo le 15 masina ina ua molia i le faaaogaina o se fagaau pau e fasi ai se tasi o ana tama e 10 tausaga.  O le masina fou e faia ai le faaiuga a le faamasinoga i le faasalaga o le tama o lenei aiga.

Ua faapea le faamatalaga ua fiu matua i le tiai aoga o lenei tamaititi, ma ua tapega ai loa nei matua ma le faamoemoe e maua mai loa le la tama, matua aoai ai loa i le sasa.  O nei foi matua sa lapatai muamua foi e le pule aoga talu ai e taunuu atu le tamaititi i le aoga i nisi aso, e maitauina e le faiaoga o loo manualia le tino o le tamaititi.

O le upu moni lava, o le ituaiga sasa lea na fai e ia matua, o le ituaiga sasa o loo faasasa ma tapu e le tulafono. 

Ou te talitonua soo se aiga lava o loo iai ni tamaiti, e le faigofie le taumafai e aoaoina fanau ao loo iai le popole nei mea ane ua soli le tulafono, ma molia e le Ofisa o Leoleo.

E ui o loo mafai pea ona faatonutonuina fanau i le sasa, ae a faapea loa ua e faia ma lou loto ita, ma faaaoga loa se faagaau pau, sipuni, laupapa, salu, ua e solia loa le tulafono ma ua e aafia loa i sauaga ma le faaoolima.

Ua iai nisi o matua ua faapea mai, afai e le mafai ona faatonu sau tama i le sasa, o lona uiga ua saoloto nei tamaiti e fai le mea ua loto iai?

Ona ou fesili lea, o lea le taimi e tatau ona faatonutonu mai ai fanau?  Afai sa tuusaoloto tamaiti ao laiti, aisea le mea o le a toe  sasa ai ma faatonutonu pea matua, ao lea sa e tuusaoloto lava le tamaiti e fai lona loto ao laiti? 

O fea le mea e faigofie, o le aoao ma faatonutonu ao laiti, pe aoao ma faatonutonu pe a matua?

O se mea tatau le sasa o fanau, pe afai nao le mimilo ai o le tamaititi ma atili ai ona malo ma tetee mai?

Silasila foi pe a faaaoga le sasa e faatonutonuina ai se solofanua poo se taifau.  E fefe, fefe lava le manu, ae e iu lava ona toe tetee ma sola ese ma oe pe’a fiu i lau sasa.

O le aoaoga lava a Samoa mai anamua, “O fanau o manu e fafaga i fuga ma  fua o laau, ao fanau a tagata, e fafaga i upu.”

O upu ia o le alofa, le onosai, le faapalepale, le amiotonu, upu o le Atua.

Ae ou te talitonu foi, e le aoga au upu, pe afai e te le savali ma le amiotonu i au upu.  O lona uiga, afai o loo e aoaoina lau fanau ia aua le ulaula tapaa, aua le inu ava malosi, ae o loo e ulaula ma taumafa pia, ua leai se aoga o au upu.

O le mea lea ou te talosagaina ai tatou matua ia lava pea le onosai e aoao lemu ai a tatou fanau i le alofa ma le le fiu gofie.

O uiga alofa ia o loo taumafai le masina o le lipine pa’epa’e e aoaoina mai mo tatou ma tatou fanau.

Ia manatua lelei o tatou alo ma fanau o taitai ia o le lumanai o Samoa ma Niu Sila taeao.

Ou te maitau pea le tulaga faaletonu o loo iai nisi o tatou aiga talu ai le faaletonu o le tamaoaiga o Niu Sila, ma le faaletonu foi o aafiaga talu mai le faigamalo ma ana ia faiga.

E le gata i lea ou te maitauina foi le talatalanoa a le toatele o nisi o aiga talu ai le mamafa o saogamea ona o maliu ma faalavelave faaleaiga.

O nisi e leai ni galuega ae o loo nofo faamoemoe i penifiti a le Malo.  O loo nonofo foi i fale a le Malo, ma e leai foi ni tomai faapitoa poo ni faailoga maualuga mai se aoga maualuga e maua ai ni galuega e lelei totogi.

O nisi foi aiga, o loo taufaigaluega uma le ulugalii, ma pau lava lea o le auala o loo mafai ai ona tausi latou aiga ona e toalua tagata o loo faigaluega.  E maua mai foi totogi, ua uma ona faavasega lelei le mea e tatau ona faaaoga iai ia tupe maua. E leai foi se tupe faasili, talu ai le tele o aitalafu o loo totogi.

O le toatele foi o nisi aiga, e le gata i aitalafu mo nofoa, tv, pusa aisa ma meafale, ae o loo nonofo pologa foi i le tau totogiina o nonoagatupe sa fai ona o faalavelave faaleaiga. 

Ou te maitauina pea i totonu o lou lava aiga, le faigata o loo feagai ma nisi ile taumafaiga e tausi o latou aiga taitasi ma totogi pili masani i aso taitasi ma toe faaopoopo atu iai ma saogamea aua faalavelave faaleaiga Samoa.  Ou te talitonu o loo faapena foi le toatele o nisi aiga.

O se tasi aso, sa fesiligia ai au e nisi o le autalavou, pe aisea le mea e soonafai ai faalavelave Samoa.  O se faataitaiga, faimai lenei  autalavou a se tasi o ekalesia ia te au, e faapea e sili atu ma le $500,000 le tupe na faaalu ise tasi maliu. Ua tuufesili lenei autalavou pe aisea ua tele ai lenei tupe, aua o lona uiga o latou o le a pologa nei e toe totogi se nonoagatupe e totogi ai lenei tupe tele ua faaalu i lenei maliu.

O le fesili ua oo mai ia te au, poo lea tonu le faiga e tatau ona fai ai faalavelave faaSamoa e talafeagai mo nei onapo? 

E talafeagai le faaalu o le $500,000 pe sili atu ise maliu, ae e le gafatia e le aiga poo le ekalesia ua tutonu ai lenei faalavelave? 

E afaina le mamalu ma le paia ose tasi ua maliu pe afai nao le momono lava ose meaalofa i le teutusi ma ave iai ile aiga e aunoa ma le toe tilotilo pe maua mai se taui, pe toe teu mai?

E afaina pe afai e uma loa le maliu, fai le lauga faafetai ile lautele e aunoa ma le toe faia oni teutusi poo ni taligasua?

O se mea tatau le taofi o le faia o aitalafu tetele mo faalavelave, aua ua mautinoa e le mafai ona totogi pea uma le faalavelave? 

O se mea tatau le sulu solo e saili se fesoasoani mai isi tagata, ao le mea sa tatau ona leva ona sauni iai?

Ose mea tatau le fai mea faaalialia ae mafatia mulimuliane ai le toatele o isi? 

Ose mea tatau le faia o nonoagatupe mo faalavelave, ae taatia atu le totogiina o le fale, eletise ma le telefoni, e totogi e fanau tupulaga sa tatau ona o e faauma aoga?

O se mea tatau ona faia o nonoagatupe tetele mo faalavelave ae faamoemoe e totogi e fanau mo le tele o tausaga oi le lumanai?

Ua masani foi Niu Sila i faigamalaga a nuu poo ekalesia ua taunuu mai i Aotearoa nei ma le faamoemoe e saili atu se fesoasoani mo se galuega o loo faia i Samoa.

O le fesili ua fesiligia ai au e nisi, ose mea tatau le o mai o Samoa e saili tupe atu i Niu Sila, ae o lenei ua tulaga faaletonu le tamaoaiga o Niu Sila?

E maitauina foi e taunuu mai loa faigamalaga nei, tuu uma pili masani e tatau ona totogi ae faamuamua le malaga lea.  E toe taliu le faigamalaga i Samoa, ae ua nofo aitalafu le tele o pili masani, ma iu ai ina tipi le telefoni, pe motusia ma le eletise ia.

O nisi foi aiga, ua avea le faamuamua o le fesoasoani i ia faigamalaga ma mea ua faaletonu ai ma le totogiina o mokesi o fale, ma faaletonu ai pili aoga a fanau.

Ou te talitonu afai ua tatou naunau e saili se lumanai manuia mo tupulaga, e tatau ona tatou fetufaai nei poo lea le faiga ua tatau ona fai ai nei tatou faalavelave mo le agai i luma.  O le faatinoga o nisi o faalavelave faaleaiga, ose faiga e le gafataulimaina e tupulaga mo le lumanai.

Ends.

 

Labour’s Customs Spokesperson Su’a William Sio says that while the NZ Customs Service and the NZ Police are to be congratulated following another successful interception of six kilograms of the Class C drug BZP, these organizations need long term support in protecting our borders and our communities from the narcotics trade.
It has been reported that the items were seized at Auckland Airport and a 38 year old woman has since been arrested by Palmerston North detectives and will appear in court later this week. Police have said that the drug bust has a street value of $180,000.
“This bust is obviously credit to the staff of the NZ Customs and Police working together and sharing intelligence with their international peers, but they need long term on-going support from our Government if they are to continue to maintain effective border protection against drug trafficking.
 “I worry that the $2 million line by line budget cuts in Customs by this Government will stretch & stress its frontline staff at our borders given the heightened levels of border activities and the increasing need for cross-border intelligence collaboration and the extent organized crime syndicates will go to in order to slip our border control efforts.
“On the other side of the coin, the Government also needs to tell New Zealanders how they intend to protect our communities by restricting public demand for illegal drugs, I haven’t heard anything.
 “I hope the Government will notice that it is more crucial than ever to retain and increase frontline Customs staff to continue with the level of successful interceptions, as failure to do so will see illegal drugs slipping past our borders.

 

 

 

 

 

This address is dedicated to the victims of the 2009 Tonga and Samoa Tsunami

 

O lē e lave i tiga, o le ivi, le toto, ma le aano

He who rallies in my hour of need is my kin

 

When I think of the idea of family, I think of the relationships of kin and belonging and of the ties that sustain us as social and spiritual beings.  As I have said elsewhere, 

“I am not an individual; I am an integral part of the cosmos.  I share divinity with my ancestors, the land, the seas and the skies.  I am not an individual, because I share my tofi (an inheritance) with my family, my village and my nation.  I belong to my family and my family belongs to me.  I belong to my village and my village belongs to me.  I belong to my nation and my nation belongs to me.  This is the essence of my belonging”.[1]

A lot has been said about the strengths and challenges of Pasifika families.  Questions about what constitutes a Pasifika or Samoan family are important to ask.  Determining what kinds of help to give families, which families need more help and why, are fundamental to the good of society. 

When I say that I am not an individual, I do not mean that my individual happiness is not important.  The ideals of family in the Samoan context are shaped by respect for each person’s mental, physical, social and spiritual wellbeing.  It is the responsibility of the family, especially the heads of families, to make sure that each person in the family is happy. 

In my Samoan indigenous reference, each member of the family has an inheritance, including individual gifts and talents that are bestowed from God, nurtured within the family and shared with the community.  Individual talents are used for the benefit of the whole.  Ensuring that the good of the whole is always just requires competent and vigilant family heads, capable of commanding authority or pule on the one hand, and demonstrating grace and personal integrity on the other.

When preparing for this address I kept thinking about what it is that holds families together and keeps them well despite the turbulences of life?  How have the values of a Samoan family survived such turbulences?  How have we named and captured these values?  How do we celebrate the joys of family?  How do we cope with its challenges, paradoxes, ironies and riddles?

Sometimes the best way to provide an answer to hard questions is by telling a story.  I want to share some stories told to me by some of the survivors and counsellors of Samoa’s recent tsunami to help illustrate the point about the power and fragility of family and of the importance of understanding and nurturing what is best in families.

 Family as source of love

 A few days after the tsunami, my wife and I went to visit the hospital where some of the survivors were and I was told a profoundly moving story by a grandmother who was grieving for the loss of her grandson.  Her family lived close to the sea in Saleapaga, one of the worst affected areas of the tsunami tragedy.  In the early morning, as was usual for their family, she and her grandchildren would wake and then go about their morning rituals.  This morning was no different.  She recalled how she had given some coins to her grandchildren to get some goodies at the local store.  She remembers them going to the store, playing on the way.  The next thing she recalls was the emergency warning for all to go to higher ground. 

In the chaos of trying to locate her grandchildren she remembers the roaring sound of the wave, screeching towards them with driving rage, as if belching from the bowels of hell, whistling eerily, taunting death and destruction.  This grandmother tells of how she yelled to her grandchildren who were nearby to run for their lives.  Being a big lady she knew she would slow them down if they were to run together.  As she tried to move herself along as quickly as possible, she was horrified to see her young seven year old grandson come back for her.  He grabbed her hand tightly and pleaded, “Sau, ta o” (Come with me).  Realising that the young boy was not going to leave her, she stood up, held his hand tightly and tried to move quickly.  When the wave reached them, the sheer force and magnitude of it caused their hands to be ripped apart.  When she recovered from the force of the wave she realised that she was no longer holding his hand and that the wave had taken him. 

Amidst tears she told me of how she still sees his face, feels his hands gripping hers, hears his voice firmly telling her to hurry along.  And, despite her loss and grief she decides that she owed it to him, to the strength of his love and his gesture, to keep living and be thankful for the gift of her life.  In a barely audible whisper she says, “E oo mai nei e le’i maua se tala i si au tama.  Toe fia vaai tasi iai (Up till now I have not heard whether or not his body has been recovered.  I would like to see him once more)”.

There is poignancy here about the arresting power of love and the fragility of life.  In most families there is a close bond between grandparents and grandchildren.  Theirs is a special relationship.  The elderly grandmother and the young grandchild in this story represent the most vulnerable of family members.  Yet the nature of their love demonstrates what is most compelling and strong of family.  Here life and love is no less enduring because it is fragile and mortal.  The physical power of the tsunami can not overwhelm the strength of true family loving, if anything it underlines it. 

In the immediate aftermath of the tsunami there are many images of the strength of family, of the pain of parents who have lost children and children who have lost parents.  But nothing as heart-wrenchingly raw and vivid as the sight of a mother, at the call of a new body being found, rushing over to see if it is hers and on realising that it is, oblivious to the stench of the rotting body, hugs and kisses it as if it were newborn.  The depth of the bond between mother and child is captured here.  For me watching this scene, both grotesque and beautiful, my stomach turns, my heart breaks, my legs go weak but in my mind’s eye I see the strength of the pute (or umbilical cord), the vae vae manava (sharing of body and life), that links mother and child.

On deeper reflection the tsunami not only caused death and destruction, unexpectedly it also gave opportunity for a reappraisal of family and societal values and a cleansing, if you like, of that which, in the light of so much pain and grief, became peripheral, nonsensical, vain and excessive.  

Let me turn to the issue of family faalavelave or to the culture of reciprocal obligations and the social stigma that is sometimes associated with it.  

 Family faalavelave and social stigma

In Samoan the word faalavelave literally means an interruption.  It speaks of an interruption to the family’s usual schedule.  Families would have to reorganise their day or week in order to rally family members for enough resources to meet their faalavelave obligations.  In earlier times faalavelave made it possible for the burden of resourcing large family events to be shared.  The belief was that participating in faalavelave were acts of reciprocity.  In the ideal these acts were manifestations and demonstrations of family love and bonding.  They personified the best of family loving. 

Samoan custom and usage finds the quid pro quo principle relevant in this context.  There is a common saying – ‘A e iloa a’u i Togamau, ou te iloa foi oe i Siulepa (literally meaning, if you do me a good deed in Togamau, I will reciprocate in Siulepa)’.  The reciprocal performance of the custom or duty implicit in the cultural imperatives of faalavelave is not to be motivated only by what one can receive in return.  Rather it should be motivated by the knowledge that if performed with the best possible motives then it will be reciprocated in kind.  

The disparaging comments too often associated with faalavelave today are cries for reappraisal.  This is implicit in the discussion between a chief or matai of my family and his sister.  This matai, who lives in Wellington, rang up his sister, and said gently: “the faalavelave is now over; I suppose you had forgotten about your contribution?” She responded: “Look here dear brother, one of my principal prayers is: Dear God, call us to heaven before our children spurn what we ask for because there are too many faalavelave!”

The tsunami has created the ideal context for reassessing faalavelave.  For years now our funeral culture has been the target of fierce criticism and discussion.  The focus has been on corruption, exploitation and abuse, said to be motivated by vanity and greed.  In one fell swoop the tsunami imposed a context, forum and environment within which to re-examine the core values of the Samoan funeral culture.[2]

Sorting through the scale of destruction and the number of dead, dying and injured preoccupied the community so much after the tsunami that funerals of the deceased victims became very simple affairs.  The sheer number of decomposing bodies requiring immediate burial dictated the imperatives of when to hold the funeral, how, where and who should attend.  When driving past these funerals the absence of the village congregating in the falelauasi [funeral house] and of the Greek chorus which usually accompanied the procession to the church then to the gravesite, was poignantly conspicuous.  The paraphernalia that we have become accustomed to seeing at a Samoan funeral, especially one held in the villages, was so scaled down that one could not help but ask: how much of it do we really need? Will our funerals and their cultural imperatives lose meaning and substance if we gave to the grieving and demanded nothing or only accepted the bare minimum in return?  Would the dignity of the deceased and his or her family be undermined by simple but true gestures of reciprocity?

Funerals are meant to provide relief (financially and emotionally) and do justice, i.e. dignify the memory and legacy of the deceased.  Instead Samoan funerals have become very expensive and stressful, with some families getting into grave debt financially, mentally and spiritually by the end of it.  The social stigma of losing face if family resources are found wanting is so great that family heads are willing to do almost anything to avoid it, including creating inter-generational debt. 

The seeming ordinariness of the tsunami funerals, with the minimum fuss and bother that surrounded them, did not, however, lose any face by their simplicity.  Instead they gained in that they reminded us of what really mattered.  In this instance, rather than raging menace the tsunami chastened and cleansed.  We might say that it forced us to front up to our vanities and cupidity, violently shaking and unmasking us of the façade and exploitations that befalls status at funerals and making profane anything other than what is fundamental to the act of celebrating life and providing relief from sorrow and pain.  In a nutshell, the tsunami has forced us to ask – Are our families suffering because of our own misplaced and inflated expectations?  If the answer is yes, then we must take pause to sort out why this is so.

Humour as coping mechanism

In the Pacific context humour is often used to deflect, if only for a moment, the deadening weight of pain or rejection.  In the opening quote of this text, I stated that I am not an individual because I share divinity with my ancestors, the land, the seas and the skies.  For indigenous Samoans the sea is kin.  For those who lived near the sea before the tsunami, the sea was their friend, their provider; it was family.  The trauma of the tsunami was not only felt in terms of the devastation impacted by a life-threatening force, but also in terms of the pain of being rejected and chastised by kin.

In dealing with family trauma humour offers natural relief.  The ability to laugh at one-self is healthy.  This applies whatever the crisis.  Status and social stigma take on fresh meaning when viewed from different front seats. 

In a story told by and involving a catechist – a Catholic feasoasoni – the idiosyncrasies of Samoan humour as coping mechanism is exposed. Taking full advantage of the opportunity to make a point to his wife, a very large Samoan woman, the feasoasoani becomes infectiously alive as he forgivingly exaggerates his story; delighting all in his audience, except of course his wife.  The feasoasoani shares that in seeing the wave coming towards him he runs for his life, as he passes his house he sees his wife, he turns and nonchalantly says to her, as if going on an ordinary run, ‘fa’ [see you].  He then climbs up a nearby breadfruit tree and looks back towards her, she is now screaming at him to come and help her.  Clinging onto his breadfruit tree trunk, he calls out to her, ‘pii mau [hold on tight]’.  Then he see’s the highest ranked chief in his village, Ale,  being swirled around by the wave, he looks over at him and waves to him.  He yells, ‘fa, Ale’ [good-bye Ale].  There is insight here not only into how our people are coping with the trauma of what they experienced, but also how they make their points about social roles and status and poke fun at the fragilities of our humanity. 

When such natural disasters take place, worrying about social etiquette just seems silly.  In sharing stories, a group of men told of how the wave took one of them, twisting and twirling him towards the sky. In the process this man, who is of significant status and mana in his village, lost the lavalava or sarong he was wearing and that morning he did not have any undergarments.  In an uproar of laughter they explained how two of them were below, looking up at their chief swirling around in the sky, naked from his waist down, his private parts fully exposed and dancing all on their own – one part going one way, the other parts going another.  In those moments one could not care less about the stigmas of society. 

New times, new sources for family power and wealth, each create opportunity for shifting old norms and/or boundaries.  Where Pacific household heads in the past could control and regulate change through stringent appeals to precedence, history, custom or tradition, today the forces of change are too great.  What Pacific household heads can do is to appeal to ideals and values, those that are life-affirming, love-affirming and faith-affirming.

This does not mean we deliberately ignore the depressing challenges, negative contradictions and recurring problems that also face many Pacific families. It means that hope for a positive way out is better generated when leadership approaches are based on strengths-based rather than deficit-based models.  

My final comment reflects on the stigma of single-families and the issues of Pacific fathering.  I do not pretend to be an expert in this area, far from it.  But this is one of the hard issues that we as Pacific leaders must tackle if we are to keep our young men meaningfully employed and out of prison.   

 Fathering and single-parenting

I am told that in New Zealand the proportion of single-parent Pacific families has been increasing over the last 25 years.  The ideals of a Samoan family find the concept of single parenting a misnomer.  Samoan households are extended family settings.  Kin should always be on hand to share in parenting responsibilities.  In the ideal, fathers should always play a role in the care of their children.  Male role models for fathers, husbands and brothers are important.

The emotional strength of men, if I may say, is sometimes underestimated.  In my household it is true that women are the real power, I would dare not say otherwise.  But in searching for what is best of male culture, I was struck by the physical and emotional strength of a young man in Vailoa, Aleipata, another of the villages struck by the tsunami, who battled the elements and the odds to save his family.  His young wife was and still is heavily pregnant, his parents are elderly.  His parents and other siblings lived in the family home right on the seashore.  When the call came to go to higher ground his mother was in the village women’s committee house and his wife and father were in their respective homes.  When the wave hit he searched for his wife and parents.  He saw that his wife and his father had been swept away by the wave.  He swam for his wife and unborn child, then for his father and brought them all back to shore and onto higher ground.  Without a second thought he then went straight back into the fury of the wave to find his mother.  He risked his life but the old lady was not to be found.  Such bravery takes more than just physical strength; it takes an emotional courage that is just as much a part of being male as physical prowess.

With so many of our Pacific young men in prison or youth correctional facilities and with family violence continuing to be an issue, understanding the ideals of Pacific fathering is important to the framing of appropriate solutions. 

We shouldn’t be afraid of the hard questions because we see ourselves as weak or mortal failures.  The lessons we may draw from the stories of the Samoa tsunami survivors is that our imperfections as humans should not demean or diminish our search for what is true and good in family.  There are no perfect human beings and so no perfect families.  People and thus families can only strive for perfection, for those ideals we value and which will stand the test of time.

 Conclusion

The purpose of this fono is to acknowledge Pasifika families’ research and to meaningfully discuss its findings.  The fono launches valuable research into changing Pasifika household compositions, into family wellbeing, parenting, the influence and importance of Pasifika cultural values and the resilience of Pasifika families and youth despite adversity. 

Pasifika families are like flowers, they are both strong and fragile, they need constant love and tenderness to survive and grow to their blooming best.  We need to nurture our young, care for our old and sick, and affirm our strong.  Social stigma can stunt growth and cause disease and ill-health.  In Samoa the tsunami of September 29^th was potent not only for the death and destruction it caused, but also, as has been the case throughout history, for the invitation to reassess, cleanse and make anew. 

Samoans will remember for some time the power of this tsunami.  We will remember this one not just for the paradoxes of its rage, but more poignantly for its rallying, reaffirming and cleansing of the ideals of family.  The essence of family I believe is its ability to come together in times of need.  The Pasifika family extends beyond the shores of the Pacific.  The love and support to Tonga and Samoa that poured in from countries all over the world demonstrates our shared humanity.

Today I want to acknowledge our kinship with New Zealand.  Samoa and New Zealand share so much.  We share history, culture and rugby players.  We share genealogy, faith, common environment and a future. 

New Zealand and Samoan family values and ties have changed so markedly over the years that the response of New Zealanders to the September 29^th tragedy can only be described in terms of what would be the response of loving kin.  The same must be said of Australia.

The idea that we share and believe in our kinship bond is evidenced most vividly for me by the gestures of kindness shown by different communities all around New Zealand.  But for sheer impact factor, I have been most struck by the image of the young Whangarei pre-schoolers who together with their teachers and community rallied together to carry out a hikoi to raise funds for the tsunami victims.  Nothing offers as strong or as powerful a message of the heart of family as the purity of children in their gestures of love. And, nothing tests the strength and longevity of family as the legacy of Sir Maui Pomare and Sir Apirana Ngata, who fought on principle for Samoa’s behalf in the late 1920s.  Each of these acts continue to grip my heart and gives power and substance to the Samoan saying – ‘O le e lave i tiga, ole ivi, le toto ma le aano.  He who rallies in my hour of need is my kin.’ 

Soifua.

 

 

References

 

Tui Atua, T.T.E. 2009. Eulogy – Tuifeamalo Tuatagaloa Annandale. [See appendix].

 

Tui Atua, T.T.E. 2009. ‘More on meaning, nuance and metaphor’. In Suaalii-Sauni, T., Tuagalu, I., Kirifi-Alai, T.N., and Fuamatu, N. [eds]. Su’esu’e Manogi; In search of Fragrance, Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese Ta’isi and the Samoan Indigenous Reference. Apia; National University of Samoa.

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Eulogy: Tuifeamalo Tuatagaloa Annandale

 

Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese Ta’isi,

Tanumapua Plantation

29 September 2009

 

 

I was hesitant to talk last night because I was aware of Tui’s discomfort with politics, politicians and status.  My reservation was allayed when Tuatagaloa asked me after the service to say something this morning.  I decided to speak because I felt that his request was also hers.

 

Nothing becomes Tui more than the manner of her leaving.  As Carol, said last night, in this tragedy she put the safety of her mother and Joe before her own – a gesture underlining selflessness and humility.

 

Her family admits that her funeral was carefully planned and today one senses that she’s still very much in command.  She has orchestrated the time and space: the order of the rituals, liturgies and testimonies.  The programme was and is:  the funeral within twenty four hours of death;  a quiet family service at 8pm;  a funeral service at Tanumapua at 5.30am; and her burial at Siusega.  All this is metaphor for moving on lest we dwell too long on death and tragedy – a salutary lesson not only for our family but also for a grieving nation.

 

As the wife of Tuatagaloa, she is entitled to the protocols, rituals and conventions befitting the funeral of the wife of a Falealili grandee.  This includes a funeral service at the official residence of Tuatagaloa in Poutasi.  But, in opting for less fanfare, Tui was and is claiming space: space for privacy.  She wanted a funeral where the ambiance would be markedly different in tone and context; she simply wanted to move on with grace.  Whereas she became the mainstay of the Poutasi hierarchy, in the end she preferred a quiet and private funeral.       

 

Her outstanding gift to us was the example of how she eased her way with finesse and aplomb through the different corridors of Samoan society.  She would reincarnate herself many times, sometimes all in the same day.  One moment she could be entrepreneur, the next a chair of a charitable organization, or Board member of an art or culture group, or a lead person in the village women’s committee, or a delegate to an annual Malua EFKS Fono tele.  All this achieved with quiet wit, thoughtfulness and grace.  Through this she brought people from different persuasions and cultures together.  This is high achievement.

 

She saw the Sinalei staff not as workers or employees to be bullied or put down but as human beings that you need to work in partnership with.  She did not pretend to a knowledge or expertise that she did not have.  She was quite comfortable in learning from others or from books.  She was successful in the village because she had the common touch; she understood people and was humble and modest.

 

How did she do it?  Through an innate sense of humility.  Whether she knew it or not, her humility gave her an uncanny insight into what the Bible refers to in Ecclesiastes as the “vanity of vanities”. 

 

Tui was humble yet not meek.  She sought and celebrated simplicity which was not simple because of the allusions to metaphor and nuance.  She was most accommodating and alluring when she stood firm on what she believed to be principle.

 

Tui was a deeply spiritual person.  For her, God was not distant and formidable; God was always present and an integral part of loving.  He was present when she planted flowers, when they sprouted, budded, blossomed, bloomed and withered.  He was present in her love of animals, especially in her love for her dogs.  He was truly present for her when the sun rose and set.  He was present when she loved Joe, her family, friends and especially the disadvantaged.  He was present when she and Joe prayed in the morning and in the evening.  Knowing her, she would have prayed for the last time for the safety of Joe, her mother Anna and Tafa her mother’s nurse.  I believe God heard and heeded her prayer.

 

If I’m struggling to capture the essence of Tui, then I invite you to take a good look at her face, her glow, her gentle smile and her sense of inner peace.  That is her legacy.

 

I loved Tui dearly for a very simple reason: she loved Joe, and because of this love, Joe and her family and all who came in contact with her became better people.

 

 

Soifua.

 

  

 

 

---

 

 

Unemployment rates for Pacific Island New Zealanders are continuing at double the rate of the general population and there is still no action from the Government, Labour Associate Pacific Affairs spokesperson Su’a William Sio says.

“Figures released today show that 12.3 percent of working age Pacific Island Kiwis are out of work, compared to 6.5 percent of the general population,” Su’a William Sio says.

“Pacific Island people want to support their families by working, but right now many people are struggling to even feed their loved ones.

“Since the National Party came to office 3000 more Pacific Island people have been thrown out of work.

“Where is the plan from National? Pacific Island families like all New Zealand families deserve the opportunity to get ahead, but right now the Government is sitting on its hands while people suffer.

“Labour has continually called on the Government to do more to help people into training and to develop new job opportunities, but instead it’s getting harder to get into training thanks to cut backs.

“Pacific Island workers just want the opportunity to get ahead, but this Government doesn’t seem interested in creating new opportunities.

“What is the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs Georgina te Heuheu doing to help the people she is meant to be representing? Her silence on issues such as Pacific Island unemployment is deafening,” Su’a William Sio said.