Speaker by Various Artists

At least now we know what all the Greeks supposed to be building the Olympic village were doing. They were suffering the indignity of loincloths and lugging spears and shields around in the seething Maltese sun. Hopefully the pay is better.

Troy was a city, or rather nine or so cities, the scholars say, built one on top of the other, layer upon layer upon layer, like a huge Sara Lee Danish made of stone. It was probably built in north-western Turkey, suggests Wikipedia.

Because it was big and beautiful, it was attacked 3200 years ago by warriors from a thousand Greek ships. They were also incensed that the young prince Paris, looking a lot like a very pretty Orlando Bloom, had stolen away Helen, the wife of King Menelaus, looking like the splendid Irishman Brendan Gleeson (the king, that is, not Helen, who is some tasty German). His brother, Brian Cox, pardon, King Agamemnon, wanted to invade Troy anyway, so he got Brad Pitt to be superman Achilles and lead the battle. Troy's King Priam, aka Peter O'Toole, is still a feisty old bugger with an eloquent growl. But dad is getting old ... (anyone remember Inky Pinky the Elephant?). His first son Hector, or Eric Bana, or The Hulk, or Chopper, has long since taken over the family business.

Or so they'd have you believe ... Apparently the seige took maybe nine years and Hector had help from other great warriors. Etc. If Homer's Illiad has any basis in truth at all.

Anyway, the thousand ships land at a Mexican beach (this and E Tu Mama Tambien are better than any brochure to make you want to visit) because they couldn't find the right one at Malta. Bit of a detour but well worth the air miles and pina coladas. The tricky Trojans have put up tall wooden spikes to slow progress, reminding you freakily of Saving Private Ryan and Matt Damon's gloriously white teeth, and that war hasn't changed much in 3140 years and is still a Really Dumb Thing.

So seige and seige. Achilles has already proven what a man he is by bedding two women at once and killing some huge brute of a man -- with one blow (anyone remember Mickey Mouse in The Brave Little Tailor?). This anonymous extra is no usual Hollywood big-at-heart person, say, like Tom ... I mean Peter Dinklage. He must be seven foot, and built like a Greek dunny.

But Achilles is a complicated man, a caring, sharing kind of buff Venice Beach surfer-killer dude. He takes the captured cousin of Hector under his protection because she's, er, nice looking and feisty (spoiler: yes, he does bed her too; he's an Iron Age ladies' man, get over it).

Women are passive initiators of events. Hence the cliche about Helen, "The face that launched a thousand ships", and those others: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" (a dodgy one, that), Trojan horse and Achilles' heel.

Troy's Achilles' heel was the Trojan Horse, which lets in the generous Greeks. Hence the gore. As usual you don't actually see much of it on screen, but the crunch and squelch of bodies giving way to sharp hard things is quite sickening to some tender folk. The sound guys should get Oscars, or be locked away. It will be a very interesting day when the chief censor slaps an R18 rating on one of these bloodlusters.

Anyway, so the women get little to do apart from gape and gasp and whimper, while blokes fight and glower and stare into the middle distance. All very traditional in sandal epics. Peace is for women and the weak, after all. Empires are forged by war, we're told in that kind of heroic language made cool and respectable by Peter Jackson's writers ("It's too early in the day for killing princes"). Battlefield supremo Wolfgang Peterson, who helmed Das Boot and The (imperfect) Perfect Storm, lets everyone be Greek and Turkish in their own accents, which are mostly Brit and Aussie. This is just as well, given that no one remotely looks Greek or Turkish. Perhaps Brad's wife should have made a guest appearance for a touch more ethnic veracity.

The hot, barren locations, grand sets and CGI spectacle are suitably spectacular, and the wooden horse looks thrown together, which is appropriate. Everyone tries hard, especially Pitt and Bana and Sean Bean as another king, as well as O'Toole, though it just shows you how much physicality counts toward a convincing performance when you're a bit frail and rheumy-eyed. The arrow expertise Orlando gained in Lord of the Rings gets put to good use, which is good 'cos he's not up to much in the close-in stuff. Still, it gives the ladies a clear choice of hunk.

In truth the real heroes are those who threw themselves manfully in front of the chariots and horses and the rolling balls of fire (whoops!). I can just imagine the smoko chatter around the Olympic village, echoing the unnamed hordes from Lord of Rings now drifted quietly back into society. "That's me, third corpse from the left. They reckon I'll get another half-second on the DVD."

A talk at St Columba's on Friday 7 May 2004:

I had not thought in this talk tonight that I would say much about the foreshore and seabed. Positions for and against the legislation are so polarised at present that it is difficult to see what could be added that might suggest a different way this issue may be tackled. But some of you may feel justifiably short-changed if I didn't at least give you my view of some of the principles on which this matter might be advanced even though the Bill has now had its first reading.

So let me do so briefly. I would take you back to a talk I gave to the seabed and foreshore hui at Waipapa in February this year. The hosts wished for a Pakeha perspective and I obliged. My view has not changed since.

To deal with this issue we must return to the spirit and principled approach of our founding charter. Most importantly, the time must be taken to reach a result that leads to the enhancement of mana (honour, dignity and respect) of all participants. If either Treaty partner wins at the expense of the other then the issue will not be solved. If we have learnt anything in this last thirty years, it is that the past for Maori, is never forgotten.

What is more, all New Zealanders must be able to understand the substance of the resolution and a broad consensus will need to be gained in support. It will need popular sign-off by the people. It is a moment for the cultural and historical education about our nationhood, not a return to active denial of our history.

So how might the parties act in this matter?

• The Crown could acknowledge that it has not extinguished aboriginal title and could explicitly recognise Maori rangatiratanga in this matter and confirm support for the 1840 manawhenua position of tangata whenua in respect to foreshore and seabed

• Tangata whenua could acknowledge the unfettered sovereign right of the Crown to govern and the unfettered right of navigation and the non-commercial access to the seabed and foreshore for all New Zealanders.

• The Crown could invite Tangata whenua with manawhenua in a region to jointly manage the seabed and foreshore exercising their obligation jointly with the Crown of kaitiakitanga (guardianship).

• Tangata whenua could clearly agree that where there exists possible commercial development of the seabed and foreshore, those with manawhenua who have an explicit and beneficial interest would have to submit to conflict of interest provisions, and not vote in such matters.

• Tangata whenua would acknowledge that in the matter of commercial development of the seabed and foreshore they have no more or less than the same rights provided to all New Zealander citizens.

• Finally any solution must confirm the basic founding principle of our collective security as a people. That we can all expect to be treated the same way under the law and that we all have access to the law in the in a fair and transparent manner.

And what might such a resolution achieve?

• The Crown will have confirmed with absolute clarity its sovereign right to govern in all matters without qualification and all New Zealanders will have regained certainty about their unfettered access to the foreshore and seabed.

• Tangata whenua will have experienced their rangatiratanga as confirmed by the Crown, manawhenua recognised and aboriginal title retained. In addition their joint management of the resource is confirmed with the Crown in all matters of a non-commercial nature thus ensuring the appropriate exercise of kaitiakitanga.

• For all new Zealanders, the commercial opportunities are exactly the same.

• And all parties will have the same rights of access and protection under the law.

Ask yourself the questions. Do the current proposals in the bill before the house enhance the mana of all parties? Do they operate within a win/win paradigm? Can most New Zealanders understand them? Do they derive from recognition that we are all the same under the law? Will they in their current form lead to a durable solution?

If your answer is 'no' to any of these questions, then we might have a problem. The hikoi turnout on Tuesday suggests that one party at least to this process is naming that problem. It need not be so. We have the ability to constructively resolve this issue.

My challenge to New Zealanders, most particularly my fellow Pakeha, is simple. Let us commit to a fair and equitable resolution. We have it in our power to do so.

What does this say about us all belonging within Aotearoa/New Zealand?

The conduct of this debate does bear on our knowledge of our cultural selves, our history and our Treaty. It goes right to the heart of our sense of belonging, particularly as Pakeha. A recent experience of mine will illustrate what I mean.

A couple of months ago I called a cab to go to town. The driver made to head off in a direction that I didn't expect. E te alu ifea? (Where are you going?) I said in my best and only Samoan. He nearly leapt out of his seat hearing this from a palagi and we both fell about laughing. How had been his morning, I asked. Busy, he replied, taking people to the cricket test at Eden Park.

Oh, the Pakeha hui, I said. What do you mean, he responded with eyes raised. Well, it goes on for five days, everybody gets fed at least twice a day, there's lots of controversy, for long periods nothing seems to happen and then suddenly people seem to be at each other's throat. In the end they shake hands and mostly it ends in a draw. Sounds like a hui to me, I said. He had the grace to chuckle.

There's only one place in the world where that conversation could have taken place and be understood inclusive of all its cultural nuance. That place is here.

What therefore does it say about belonging?

Let me talk more of Eden Park. My great grandfather, Alexander Snedden was one of six Auckland businessmen who in 1903 purchased the swamp, drained it and turned it into a sports ground. Such has been our continuous connection over four succeeding generations that when members of our family played at Eden Park at either rugby or cricket, it was hard to escape the feeling that with this sporting whakapapa we had home advantage!

Now not all Pakeha have this same sense of ownership about our country. I read a commentator recently suggest Don Brash's speech at Orewa tapped at a very emotional level the sense of Pakeha feeling "strangers in our own land". In short we need to reclaim our sense of belonging.

Brian Turner wrote recently in the Listener asserting a deep and intimate Pakeha connection with the land, a connection denied he believed by many Maori, including Ranganui Walker, to whom he was responding. When Walker says, "I have been here a thousand years. You arrived only yesterday" Turner objects. This view, he says, very clearly denies a similar depth of feeling to almost everyone else. He fundamentally disagrees with a presumption about the way in which non-Maori feelings for land and water are dismissed as less heartfelt, less sensitive, less spiritual.

So am I, as a Pakeha, indigenous? Well, emotionally yes and technically no. For me to claim my 140 years of direct ancestry here is a source of pride and this is my home. But can I fairly claim to be indigenous in the same way as Maori who have been here from around 1300 AD? To do so would be to sideline 500 plus years of Maori experience prior to my forebear's arrival. What's more my forebears were not the first people to settle here, an important element of the definition. So to claim to be indigenous in the same way as tangata whenua is unfair and technically it is not factual. And if there is one matter that we need to do today is to stick to the facts.

But nor do I wish to tug my forelock in this matter. As Pakeha we claim our belonging through being descended from the settlers who agreed the Treaty. The same Treaty that by joint agreement of tangata whenua and tauiwi, gives all subsequent migrants and their communities the right to call this place their own. The importance of this cannot be understated. It was the Maori Land Court Chief Judge Durie in 1990 who first described Pakeha as tangata Tiriti, those who belong to the land by right of the Treaty. It is our unimpeachable security, our right to belong passed from generation to generation.

On one side of my family my migrant ancestors arrived at Port Albert near Wellsford in the 1860s. They became farmers. At the Port Albertland wharf there is a plaque thanking Ngati Whatua for their assistance in settlement and acknowledging that without that they would not have survived.

Today we are shaped by a set of cultural reflexes toward the land, our environment and as my taxi driver conversation shows, the interaction between Maori, Pakeha and Pacific peoples that exists nowhere outside of this place. And increasingly, especially in Auckland, our population is playing host to many new communities and will continue to do so. For the vast majority of us tauiwi, most especially Pakeha, we no longer have a bolt-hole to escape to anywhere else in the world that accepts us as their own. I have visited the heart of my Irish and Scottish roots and except for the most surface of acknowledgement they did not see anything of themselves in me nor me in them.

I am here in Aotearoa New Zealand for good because I have nowhere else to go. And I am content with that.

My view is that it is this concept that so many of us post-Treaty migrants have emotional difficulty with. We passionately and intuitively know we are not strangers in our own land, but we are unresolved as to how to describe ourselves.

Resolving this will help us deal with this current debate. Denying the distinct and different world-view of our Treaty counter-party will not satisfy this need. At present my observation is that Pakeha (and for that matter many new migrants) look at the Treaty as being not our Treaty but their Treaty, a method of leverage for resolving Maori claims. So once we finalise their grievances the relevance of the Treaty will be no more.

How much more satisfying would it be if we all claimed and acknowledged our own sense of belonging, different but authentic to its core, Treaty-based in its origins? Then this discussion would be quite different. The Treaty would become our Treaty and our behaviour in relation to the principles of that Treaty would be inclusive not exclusive.

How can we deal then with different worldviews or indeed a dual worldview?

We need this confidence in 'belonging' if ever we are going to relax about the different world-views that sometimes separate tangata whenua and tauiwi. The foreshore and seabed debate is the current point of tension. Why is this the case?

In the last week two examples may help us point to an answer.

The Sunday Star times carried a report of a poll that found Pakeha believed themselves more likely to experience racism in this country than Maori, but less likely than Asian migrants. This result, I suspect, would have been news to most Maori.

As a working definition, one might describe racism as prejudice plus power. In short it connects the dislike of a person or group because of their ethnicity with the ability to exploit that prejudice to the disadvantage of that person or group.

I don't in my experience remember any anecdotal experience of Pakeha friends or family who couldn't get a rental property because of their ethnicity. I have never heard of Pakeha not being able to get a bank loan because their ethnicity comes into the higher risk category relative to other borrowers. Nor have I read a news report of a Pakeha not being allowed to speak in court in the English language or say prayers in their own language at the hospital bedside. I don't remember hearing about a situation when members of my own ethnicity have been prevented from applying our cultural manners or standards of politeness in the welcome of strangers or colleagues into our business meetings or public gatherings.

By now you will got my general point. So what perceptions might this poll on racism be about? On a common sense basis it is hard to match its conclusions with the available evidence. So is it talking about something else then going on within the perception of Pakeha?

Is this indeed reflecting a view that some individual Pakeha are missing out versus some individual Maori? In cheaper primary health care perhaps, or in scholarships to medical school? Do we think Maori are getting preferential treatment from WINZ or Housing NZ? Is the idea of 'closing the gaps' a litmus test of this sort of racial preference?

Before I attempt to answer this let me go to my second example.

On the same day as the poll report I attended the opening of a new wharekai at Pukaki marae in Mangere attended by Dame Te Atairangikahu. There were perhaps 500 people present, 10 of whom were Pakeha. This was an occasion for the affirmation of manawhenua (tribal authority within a region) by the collective represented by affinal based kin groups known as tribes (iwi) or sub-tribes (hapu). This form of collective activity is happening every day in the Maori world, but as I had cause to reflect, it is only tangential to the world of those who are not Maori.

Here we have some of the clues to the puzzle.

There is a Maori world in existence that operates within collective structures (iwi/hapu) and has at its core expressions of rangatiratanga (chiefly authority/trusteeship) and manawhenua (tribal authority within a region). These collectives relate to other Maori and to the Crown and all its agencies in a way not paralleled with any comparable Pakeha cultural institutions and they have done so since 1840. What's is more these collective structures exist in perpetuity.

They are recognised by Article Two of the Treaty which explicitly affirms and acknowledges this leadership of the collective (rangatiratanga).

Pause to consider the impact of this for a moment. If those opposed to the Treaty deny rangatiratanga, it is an inescapable extension of that same logic that they are denying their own legitimacy to be here. For it was precisely by exercise of this collective rangatiratanga on behalf of their tribal groups that the chiefs consented to being a party to the Treaty with the British sovereign. Without explicit recognition of this rangatiratanga, so obvious both to their own kin groups but also to the British Government representatives, a Treaty could not have been agreed in the way that occurred.

As tauiwi we have an obligation to recognise rangatiratanga, because it provided us with the corresponding right of citizenship of this country. Clearly a subsequent denial of this legitimacy is not what any of us want. Nor should we be afraid of the implications of such recognition, which requires first and foremost acceptance and understanding, not the wholesale transfer of resources.

However our previous practice in this matter has not always been exemplary. Most Maori collective structures have for over a century prior to 1975 been largely ignored by the Crown, or dealt with remotely, through the Courts. Their presence has not therefore resided in the hearts and minds of our received Pakeha historical consciousness with anywhere the same force as they reside for Maori.

So therefore as a nation, when we come to pass judgement on the nuances of an issue like the foreshore and seabed debate the Pakeha mind goes to the rights, privileges and obligations of individuals and assumes this includes Maori as well. Conversely the Maori mind goes to goes to the rights, privileges and obligations of collectives, and for Pakeha this counts as an extra, a benefit not available to themselves, a second bite of the cherry.

Perhaps it is not surprising therefore, that Pakeha start to feel Maori are getting one over them. But are Maori to blame for this sense of imbalance?

How does rangatiratanga work?

I suspect at the heart of this Pakeha sense of imbalance is this fear of rangatiratanga or tino rangatiratanga as it is often most commonly expressed. What could this mean if it is not a direct attack on the Crown's right to rule, the subtle undermining of the 'one law for all' concept?

In recent times it has been usual to juxtapose Maori sovereignty with Crown sovereignty, both in direct competition for precedence. It does not have to be so. There is evidence that the original intent of the parties to the Treaty allowed for joint protection under the law but separate sovereignty over assets and taonga. If this was the case are there contemporary examples of this working today? The answer is yes.

The story I wish to share with you tonight turns on the examination of rangatiratanga exercised, lost and then recovered. My experience at Orakei with Ngati Whatua suggests such an idea is not beyond us. Some of you may have heard or read of my summary of the Orakei experience and the founding of Auckland previously. I will not repeat it here.

Suffice to record that Ngati Whatua o Orakei, the once proud people of the Tamaki isthmus, at 1840 holding sway over the whole of Auckland; the people who invited and induced Hobson to Auckland to form the seat of government; were reduced in precisely 112 years to a landless few living off the state. By 1951 they were without a marae on which to fulfil their customary obligations and were left with a quarter acre cemetery being the last piece of land they could tribally claim as their own.

In his second claim before the Waitangi Tribunal Joe Hawke outlined the case relating to the disposal of the Orakei Block, the land ordered by the court in 1869 to be forever inalienable. The outcome was unequivocally in their favour and Bastion Point in 1991 was finally transferred back into Ngati Whatua's hand by Act of Parliament. The area vested included the whenua rangatira now known as Takaparawhau park and the smaller Okahu Park comprising the original papakainga and the foreshore.

(How ironic. This vesting of the title to the foreshore at Okahu Bay was completed under a National Government!)

The first thing it did was to give a huge chunk of Bastion Point back to Aucklanders. That's right, they gave it back to you and me for our unimpeded use. I refer to the most expensive land with the best views in all of Auckland. The land where Michael Joseph Savage rests. Ngati Whatua agreed to manage this jointly with the Auckland City Council for the benefit of all the people of Tamaki Makaurau.

What therefore is it that enables a people who sought for 150 years to get some form of justice that recognised their cultural destitution, to react in their moment of triumph with such generosity to those who had dispossessed them?

What underpins such an act of munificence? To put it simply; the recovery of the hapu rangatiratanga. What therefore has changed since 1991?

In practical and contemporary terms the Ngati Whatua hapu at Orakei is now once more in control of their own affairs as defined and expressed through their own:

• socio-cultural activities (related to housing, education, health and marae based activities)

• economic development (especially joint ventures where external finance and development expertise would be joined to hapu land), and

•political relations (such as agreements with central and local government and regional institutions and organisations)

The 1991 Act meant the full and unfettered return of their marae. The hapu had the chance to rebuild their wharenui and improve their facility to offer manaakitanga (appropriate hospitality) to honour their obligations to others within their rohe (tribal area), both Maori and tauiwi. It also provided the cultural locus for the tangihanga (ritual farewell of the dead) for those who have passed on, an absolutely fundamental reflection on hapu mana.

The Act also foreshadowed potential for a comprehensive Treaty and currently Orakei is in direct negotiations with the Crown.

Its social development extended to reaching agreement with Housing New Zealand as the Crown agent on the transfer of ownership of 100 state houses in the early 1990s along with the attendant deferred maintenance and mortgage. A focus on educational achievement now sees the hapu claim tertiary educated graduates to Masters and PhD level across many disciplines whereas pre-1987 such numbers with first level degrees were in single figures. On another front health services have grown to the extent that Orakei is today the most extensive Maori primary health provider in the Auckland region.

The economic development potential unleashed by this statutory recognition of manawhenua has transformed the quarter-acre hapu of 1951 to a significant land-holder, including significant parcels of downtown Auckland. The Crown in this time has provided two separate allocations of funds. One of these, $3 million, came as an endowment with the 1991 Orakei Settlement. On a second occasion the Trust received financial consideration for lifting the moratoriums on surplus rail land when the railways were privatised for Crown profit in the mid-1990s. The Ngati Whatua commercial presence in the marketplace is now recognised as substantial and saavy.

Recognition of manawhenua re-introduced Ngati Whatua into the political and cultural life of Auckland via a structural relationship with the Crown and its agents. Such a reintegration is evidenced by Orakei now playing host to every significant dignitary visiting Auckland including the presidents of China, Russia and the United States. This kind of public recognition had been almost entirely absent in their experience from the late 1870s. Successive generations of the hapu had seen their land and taonga disappear and with it their tribal manawhenua, so critical to the practical exercise of rangatiratanga. Today the restoration of mana is plan for all to see.

It is therefore precisely the process of this recovery that has re-ignited the capacity for the exercise of rangatiratanga. An essential feature of this rangatiratanga is that it relates to the group, not to the individual. In this respect the coherence of the group is evidenced by its size, its leadership, its marae base, its facility for manaaki and its relevance to other Maori groupings of similar kind along with its political relations with the Crown (and/or its agents). This has determined its capacity to exercise rangatiratanga. It has reached a kind of cultural 'critical mass'.

All this has been achieved without threat to the Crown's right of sovereignty. If this is possible with Orakei, why is it not possible elsewhere? I believe it is.

Now what are the substantial and usually 'silent' achievements under a Treaty-based process that New Zealanders can be proud of but usually no nothing about?

Over my years of work with Maori groups and communities I have come to a critical awareness of a central proposition. When the Treaty is working well the nation is prospering, full of confidence. When it is a matter of fundamental strain between Maori and Pakeha we lose vital momentum as a nation. We are in one of these troughs right now. We have been there before and emerged. But it need not be the case.

There are plenty of examples where observing the mutual respect for mana inherent in Treaty lifts the performance and outcome for all New Zealanders. Let me take you through three examples.

In the last five years I have been involved in two of New Zealand's most capital intensive building programmes; the rebuilding of the waste water treatment plant at Mangere in South Auckland and the rebuilding of the Auckland City Hospital. These projects have budgets amounting together to just under a billion dollars. Both projects represented opportunities for the sponsors and tangata whenua to engage in constructive discussions to enhance the project outcomes for all New Zealanders. The outcomes have been stunningly successful.

In the 1960s when the Mangere oxidation ponds were built, consultation with Maori was perfunctory. As a result the outcome was awful. Foreshore disappeared, shellfish were poisoned by toxic outflow into the Manukau harbour, the birdlife went away and the hapu with the marae on the foreshore saw their access to seafood disappear.

Today, the result could not be more transformative. The rebuilding of the plant has seen as part of the whole package the restoration of the foreshore and the enhancement of the environment for all recreational users. The birds and the fish have returned. It is safe to harvest and swim again. And the Tainui hapu (Te Ahi Waru) at Makaurau marae has been intensively involved in the reconstitution of this wonderful piece of foreshore.

Why has this occurred? Because the Resource Management Act required it in the first place and secondly, Watercare Services recognised having local Maori with manawhenua in this area involved from the beginning could only be advantageous for everyone. No big cheques, no scandals, just respectful understanding that the Maori insight to be incorporated into restoration of the environment adds a dimension that enhances the outcome for all New Zealanders.

Auckland City Hospital has experienced something similar. The rebuilding of the hospital provided an opportunity to think about how a Maori worldview on health might enhance outcomes for all users of the hospital facilities. So Ngati Whatua were involved at the early planning stages. They made a dramatic difference to the design of the mortuary by introducing a place for families to gather with the deceased. They made simple suggestions about hospital design that provided for a 'tupapaku route', a method of allowing families to remove their deceased relative from their place in the hospital down to the mortuary out of the public eye. This has been a great relief for all users of the hospital. The Maori perspective on respect for the dead has been embraced by all because it adds a dimension from which all can benefit. The hospital has clear and dignified signage in English and Maori showing how to find services you are after. Small but important symbols that show by their presence that living with dual worldviews can be celebrated. It need not be feared.

A third experience relates to the work of Health Care Aotearoa. It is a primary care health network with 55 providers nationwide, over half of whom are Maori owned services. The other services are Pacific owned and trade union or community clinics. I have worked as their business consultant since 1994, the year of its founding. This is a bi-cultural, not-for-profit network that provides first level primary care for 150,000 patients, the majority of whom are on low incomes.

There are over 300 staff employed throughout the independent providers and they are all sign on aware of the Treaty thrust of this network. For many of them this is a new experience. It is very clear that most Pakeha do not have the on-the-ground experience of working and living in circumstances where a Maori view of the world is just as important and as relevant as their own, and where what's more, that view counts.

In the Health Care Aotearoa environment the experience, however messy, is the reverse. Maori views do count and do shape decision making along with Pakeha and the health outcomes for patients are steadily improving.

This teaches me at least three things. Firstly, a Treaty-based approach to managing our lives is possible and practical. Secondly, that it can produce for the most part better results. And thirdly, therefore, it need not be feared. What we have worked at in this last ten years to make ordinary and normal within Health Care Aotearoa is not replicated in the general community experience of Pakeha. And people without this experience fear it or expect the worse.

Yet the reverse is my constant experience. So often the right thing to do in respect to Treaty processes is manifestly the right thing to do for all people. Time and again.

So where does this all leave us, Pakeha in particular?

Don Brash's Orewa speech and this government's foreshore and seabed bill have ensured that the health of our race relations are now being talked about at the dinner table. This is similar to the way the 1981 tour got into everybody's entrees complete with the on the street activism. While the resultant climate has managed to relieve many people of the need to suppress their prejudices and this has had some ugly consequences, not least in the parliamentary debate, another debate is opening up that is more potentially constructive.

One of the characteristics of this debate is that it is less a matter between bigots and liberals, but more between those who are actively trying to understand our history and those who don't think it makes a jot of difference. It is not a debate the historians are winning at present.

Overwhelmingly those opposed to the practical and intellectual grappling with the Treaty and its consequences characterise themselves as 'forward looking'. The subtle pull of this appeal is that it allows for settlement of Treaty grievances and then closure. So they can claim to be retrospectively just, but constitutionally pragmatic. Now the grievances have been settled contemporary NZ does not need a Treaty.

What's more, the parliamentary political process in attempting to silence a part of the Maori contribution to this debate risks trying to marginalise it as fundamentally self-interested. Pakeha must take therefore responsibility for righting the balance in this discussion and resetting the tone.

Many Pakeha, even those who have been sympathetic to the Treaty and the supporters of Treaty application in public life, initially shrank from the blowtorch effect of the Orewa speech. In fact many supporters discovered that they didn't know enough to defend the positions that we had been silently advocating, especially when the conversational and political environment around the race discussion became toxic. This retreat from instinct occurred politically and well as personally.

Michael King provided many of us with a morale boost with his recently published history, now having sold over 70,000 copies. But his deeply sad passing has been an acute reminder that we all need to be confident in our grasp of our own nationhood and how it has developed, and not be so reliant on others. The need to know has become paramount for without the knowledge and the perspective offered by understanding of the Maori and Pakeha interface over the years, issues like the foreshore legislation are truly unfathomable, (no pun intended!).

This is a seriously challenging issue being handled at constitutionally breakneck speed. One hopes that the time for the mature reflection it needs will not be elusive. The opportunity for submission via the select committee needs to be taken. Getting this wrong will continue to be bad for all of us.

The difficult progress of this debate is a significant alert to those of us who feel intuitive empathy for a pathway to nationhood that has the Treaty as a clear and present sign-post. Maybe many of us have been intellectually lazy supporters of these Treaty processes because we saw them as right and just in themselves. We assumed they would just go on, mostly unchallenged. Well that is no longer the case. Informing ourselves to a greater degree is one way of meeting these new challenges.

On the way it is important to deal with some of the dross. The side issues that inevitably hamper debate about the substance, whist the form is endlessly discussed in the minor detail. Again consider the foreshore. Ask yourself which has received the most illuminating attention; the content of the bill or Tariana Turia's 'will she or won't she' stand on crossing the floor or creating a bi-election.

Most New Zealanders will have made their own judgements about Tariana's move but hardly any will have been well served with the kind of information that might inform their judgement on what motivated her to move or indeed what galvanised 20000 to join the end of the hikoi. Thus time and again irritation inevitably takes precedence over explanation.

So what can we say of the constant irritations that get under the Pakeha skin?

A reasonable observer in touch with a range of our national media could be forgiven for thinking that it is open season on Maori. If it isn't alleged corruption with the setting up of a new prison, it's naked self-interest in parliamentary voting. If it is not Maori holding up developers over resource consents relating to waahi tapu sites, it's the distraught medical student's mother who has complained that a less talented Maori student has taken her child's place in medical school. If it's not the school that allows for the wearing of pounamu but not Christian crosses as jewellery then it's the primary health organisation that has 50% of its governance as Maori representatives even though the population of Maori is much smaller than that in the area.

The sub-text of this message is clear and simple. Being Maori in New Zealand gives you no special standing either individually or collectively. And if you don't believe it just stick up your head and see who waiting to lop it off for you.

Just what is going on here and how can it be dealt with?

Perceptions change governments. The Orewa speech altered the popular view of Dr Brash. The hikoi has tilted the political axis for both Labour and National. The political calculus of gaining and losing office is moving. There is a simple message here.

New Zealanders need exposure to new ways of seeing how the Treaty practically works in everyday life and how it adds value to our daily experience. They need to see and hear that this works and can work for all of us.

Further, Pakeha in particular need to actively encourage resistance to the everyday invitation in the media to demonise Maori because what they are portrayed as doing is aggravating us. Treat this for what it so transparently is: a one-sided portrayal of the people and the issues designed to present and elaborate on the conflict without insight as to the resolution.

I need to also say that part of our Pakeha apprehension and irritation relates to language. The Treaty language has been the codified text of the power elites on both sides of the equation. Brash's Orewa speech disposed of that codified level by (mis)representing many issues in plain unambiguous English. This struck a chord. Treaty supporters need to strike a similar chord in response. These matters are explicable. Let's explain them.

Finally, why not consider the simple strategy I have adopted which has been to use evidence, example and enthusiasm?

For instance, the PHO (primary health organisation) preference funding argument for Maori criticised by Dr Brash is evidentially wrong. More and more people when examining the detail of the policy and practice now know this to be true.

Conversely the contribution of Tainui hapu input to the wastewater treatment plant in Mangere results in stellar environmental and recreational outcomes for everybody. We need to celebrate this.

The example of the hospital 'tupapaku route' is another illustration, so respectful to all cultures. Just like the genuine treaty commitment within a network such as HCA which takes dual world views seriously and achieves better health results for all patients.

So too with the Orakei example of rangatiratanga. Ngati Whatua are beginning to flourish and so yet we build closer to an inclusive society where the benefits are more evenly shared, a sharp contrast to our recent past.

These are all practical down-to-earth responses that people can understand. It is then much easier to talk of Treaty principles and applications against the background of this common sense experience.

New Zealanders are in my view fair and reasonable in the long run. The current risks are higher than they have been for some years. But so are the opportunities for genuine breakthrough in our cultural appreciation of ourselves.

It is plain that as Pakeha we simply do not know enough about Maori and our own joint history. Ten years ago we could claim genuine ignorance. We cannot do that now.

I believe we must create a new more sophisticated paradigm if we are not to return to the tactical belligerence of the recent past. Such a test is ahead of us with this foreshore and seabed bill. Let's do our best to pass that test with creativity and genuine dialogue. Near enough will not nearly be good enough.

Glossary (how terms have been used in this paper)

• Pakeha - descendants of settlers from Britain and Europe
• Maori - descendants of tangata whenua (first people)
• Mana - honour, dignity, respect deriving from authority and control
• Aboriginal title - underlying title existing prior to extinguishment post-1840
• Rangatiratanga - chiefly authority exercising trusteeship

• Manawhenua - tribal authority within a rohe (tribal region)
• Tangata whenua - Maori, first people of the land (modern)
• Tangata Tiriti - non-Maori who belong to the land by right of the Treaty
• Kaitiakitanga - guardianship over resources
• Hikoi - step, deputation in support of an issue or for a defined purpose
• Whakapapa - genealogy by ancestral connection
• Tauiwi - descendants of all non-Maori, includes Pakeha and immigrants
• Hapu - sub-tribe of an iwi (tribal grouping)
• Marae - meeting place, locus of tribal mana
• Whenua rangatira - noble/chiefly land, undisputed ownership & control
• Manaakitanga - manawhenua obligation to offer appropriate hospitality
• Tangihanga - ritual farewell of the dead, funeral wake
• Taonga - tribal treasures
• Tupapaku - deceased person

Get out your togas and sandals, it's the Circus Maximus of British press battles.

In gladiatorial combat, complete with tridents and nets, are The Sun - that hugely popular fighter sporting the blue-collar of the British worker - and the Daily Mirror, the liberal underdog with the fierce left-hook.

Of course I'm talking about the scandal over photos printed by the Mirror last Saturday (May 1) allegedly showing British soldiers committing abuses against Iraqi captives.

In Friday's (May 7) Sun Says, the paper rages that British soldiers‚ lives have been put at risk by printing fake photos (which is fair enough if this proves true) and it says the handling of the "dodgy" pictures has turned it into a laughing stock. The first paragraph of the editorial noted Trinity Mirror has always been a highly reputable newspaper publishing company (written to the sound of lawyers collecting their pay cheques), but the paper went on to say in the interests of fair and accurate journalism the Mirror should apologise for running the pictures, "and to our troops".

All of Britain is talking about it. Most British papers, including the broadsheets, have given space to the issue. A war reporter for The Independent, Kim Sengupta, asks if the Mirror's editor, Piers Morgan has gone too far. Other papers were much more forthright. The Daily Express ran with "Shameful Truth of Fake Mirror Photos", while the Daily Star simply said: "Mirror torture pics: they are fake".

Yet, in the face of stinging criticism, the Mirror won‚t back down - which seems incredible considering the evidence that seems to be piling against it. Morgan is even traipsing off to Parliament to explain the finer points of the story to MPs.

In the Voice Of The Mirror, it says the case it exposed is not the only one and troops are facing increased dangers "not because a few pictures appeared but because some soldiers are treating prisoners brutally". "Publicity-hungry MPs and rival newspapers may enjoy attacking the Daily Mirror but by ignoring the real problem they are not helping our troops or our nation's reputation," it moralistically declares.

It would be wrong to say the Mirror is viewing with glee the growing scandal over the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison by US soldiers, but it obviously helps its cause - and many US newspapers, usually blind to British rumblings about the war, picked up on its world exclusive. On the plus side for the beleaguered daily, there must be some satisfaction in reports that President Bush is squirming over the issue AND that his popularity has hit an all-time low.

The Sun‚s criticisms seem fairly reasonable. If the Mirror has been conned - and The Sun says there are military and photographic experts queuing up to declare the Mirror's photos are fakes - then the paper has a duty to apologise. Profusely. It's not that stance I take issue with.

While The Sun was typically scathing in its editorial, it seemed to stay away from muck-raking and the spinning of things to a right-wing agenda. Enter columnist Richard Littlejohn. What starts as a (possibly legitimate) rant against the Mirror is slowly twisted by Littlejohn into his sustained campaign against the left-wing press, notably the Guardian.

Any right-minded person would agree that with the troubles the coalition is having, such photos were the last thing the troops needed. But to say the printing of such photos is "handing a spectacular propaganda coup to our enemies", as Littlejohn does, is a bit of a stretch for me.

Apart from him leaving open a broad interpretation of who the "enemies" are, it seems ordinary Iraqis don't need much help to dislike the fact their country is being occupied by foreign troops. You can quote all the figures you like about the supply of electricity, water or petrol - which still seem shy of pre-war levels - but from what I read the coalition "liberators" have promised much and have delivered not nearly enough.

Littlejohn mentions the scandal involving US soldiers‚ treatment of Iraqi prisoners and says Bush's apology should draw a line under it, since it was only "the stupidity of a handful of morons". Noting it is an election year, he says he can‚t help wondering if ever again it will be possible to win a war in an age of "human rights" (his use of quotes) and a hostile media. He adds: "Who needs al-Jazeera when you've got the Guardian and the BBC?"

Pardon? First of all, what has this issue got to do with winning a war that, apparently, was won a year ago? And what is wrong with protecting the rights of prisoners of war? (Interestingly, as Littlejohn notes, The Sun broke a story about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners some months ago). I'd like to hear the columnist's views on Americas concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay.

As for the hostile media call, that sounds a little rich from a columnist for the most aggressive paper on the market, which almost single-handedly forced the British Government to hold a referendum over the EU constitution.

And then there's al-Jazeera. Sure, Littlejohn can continue to wage his war against the BBC and the Guardian, but why lay the boot into a channel that is gutsy enough to show the real images of war, grotesque though it may be, while Western stations have to be mindful of upsetting our delicate stomachs at dinnertime?

To give his readers "perspective" (read: to write left-wingers off totally), he says some people see no difference between Saddam Hussein slaughtering and torturing millions and a handful of rogue US troops abusing a dozen internees. They‚d have left Saddam in place, he cries, and now they want troops out and the Iraqi people condemned to their fate.

These are very hard conclusions to draw. I don‚t know any anti-war people who supported Saddam or his methods. What they didn't like was the unseemly rush to war and what seemed like a bunch of excuses to justify it. They also objected to the Bush administration having no clear strategy as to what would take place once the evil regime was toppled. The people I've talked to are realistic about a prolonged presence of foreign troops in Iraq and, as far as they‚re concerned, any fate which hurts the country is all to do with the warmongers whose oil-soaked fingers were pulling the strings last March.

Bizarrely, Littlejohn's tirade included this remark: "I can't help thinking that if Damien Hirst put a pile of naked bodies with sacks on their heads on display at the Saatchi Gallery, it would be hailed as a work of genius and someone would pay £30million for it."

Not satisfied with attacking the opposition media, he uses his column to take a swipe at modern art - a topic which sits much more comfortably with BBC viewers and readers of, yes, you guessed it, The Guardian.

The British press is right to question the authenticity of the Daily Mirror's photos, considering the understandable outrage it has provoked in the Arab world and the damage the British Army's reputation may suffer. If they prove false the Mirror will be forced to make a highly embarrassing apology and may take a hit in circulation as a result. However we need to make sure we don‚t lose sight of the real issue, the treatment of prisoners of war and the conduct of our armed forces. It‚s too easy for the whole debate to turn into a slanging match which is more about points scoring and hidden agendas than any supposed moral stance.

Something I thought was worth noting in the American press this week. In Monday's Florida Times-Union, out of Jacksonville, next to an editorial slamming "preposterous" claims that Bush lied to take the nation to war, is a letter to the editor under the headline "Terrorists have ties to Iraq". That old chestnut. Sigh. Will it ever end?

Readers of my column mentioning Coca-Colas Dasani bottled water will be interested to hear the entire UK supply of Dasani was pulled off the shelves because it was contaminated with bromate, a cancer-causing chemical. Unfortunately for Coke, that meant it topped a rather insulting marketing poll.

Am I an oxymoron? Dame Kiri said that all Maori are lazy at home on the dole. That means I'm not really Maori, right? Can a sickly brown liberal ever live up to the standards of the Hongi Snobs? Am I doomed to forever dwell on the Faux Iwi fringes?

Whanau today face the dilemma of raising tamariki in a Jihad vs. McWorld diaspora of traditional collective tikanga vs. modern atomised western life. Modern models of success are anathema to our culture — yet economic achievement is critical to our future. We must begin by examining the essentials of who we are. Where we are from. Where we grew up. Go back to the Ahi Kaa, and commence a process of reconciliation. Who am I? I am Leo Koziol, and I am from Nuhaka. Welcome to my world.

* * * *

Over the past year and a half, I've been posting discussive essays and articles on the future of Aotearoa New Zealand in the 21st Century. Given the recent inflammation of debate on national identity and race relations in our country, my decision to commence such a narrative seems remarkably prescient. At the heart of what I have been writing about is an exploration of the notion of "Sense of Place" -- the shared experience of living in a unique, remote and somewhat "alien" part of the world; New Zealand's place in the world, in particular our "identity" and "presence" in the America-driven global media matrix. The shared history of our immigrant Maori and Pakeha peoples, a shared history written on the land in blood, toil, sweat. soul and spirit.

I write from Nuhaka, the small East Coast rural settlement where I was born, and where I lived out my childhood and teen years. Nuhaka to me seems to be the nexus of the remainder of a relatively untouched and undeveloped coastal landscape fast disappearing in the northern half of Te Ika a Maui, the North Island of New Zealand. This place is special. This place is authentic.

I view this part of our land as the "Spirit Coast", stretching from depressed Opotiki, to depressed Wairoa (and perhaps on further to depressed Wairarapa). In some ways, it could be argued that economic depression in this part of the nation is what has enabled local iwi (tribes) and hapu (subtribes) to retain their identity and their soul. The cultural changes that come with economic development -- such as the presence of large amounts of foreign tourists -- are still yet to make a significant impact.

A geography of genealogy stretches the Kahungunu tribe from Mahia and Nuhaka -- the meeting place of Rongomaiwahine and Kahungunu -- down to Ahuriri (Napier) and Heretaunga (Hastings), across the Takapau plains and further onwards along the coast to Porangahou and the Wairarapa. A geographical expanse rivaled only by Ngai Tahu in the South Island (Te Wai Pounamu).

Rongomaiwahine and Kahungunu came together in the lands around Nuhaka. This is a tribal birthplace with new values that were singularly indigenous to these lands. A connection of wairua and whanaungatanga took place here that marked a shift away from the warfaring of previous tribes. The Kahungunu mantra was indeed "Make Love, Not War."

The descendants of these two eminent ancestors have intermingled, but are yet to become one. At Mahia, the people are of the Rongomaiwahine tribe which is, to my knowledge, the only tribe in Aotearoa to have an eminent female ancestor as Arikinui (chiefly) figurehead. Yet many, if not all, Rongomaiwahine people have strong Kahungunu tribal connections. Here at Nuhaka, we have a strong line of descendance from the grandson of Kahungunu, whose name was Rakaipaaka. Te Iwi o Rakaipaaka. The grandmother of Rakaipaaka was Rongomaiwahine.

To the north are strong links to the peoples of Turanganui-a-Kiwa (Gisborne), a shared waka (original canoe) in the form of Takitimu, mythically guided to Aotearoa by the whale Paikea. The waka Takitimu made its final rest at the settling place of the aforementioned southern Ngai Tahu people.

The story of Paikea was recently presented to the world on the silver screen in the internationally lauded "Whale Rider" film. The story resounded for all New Zealanders and for all Maori, but particularly so for the peoples of the East Coast. The Takitimu was a sacred waka; all its occupants from Hawaiki were Tohunga (spiritual seers), all were male, and their journey here included strong protocols of tikanga (belief systems) tapu (sacredness). Takitimu was the "wairua waka" (sacred voyager) for all the peoples of Aotearoa.

The Maori people of Aotearoa NZ now find themselves at a profound point of social change -- and possible dislocation.

As a result of the Brash-fuelled controversy over foreshore title, Maori are scapegoated as the ones with "special rights" attempting to restrict the average Kiwi from accessing beaches and coastline. Nobody is pointing out that it is foreign ownership and skyrocketing property prices that will ultimately transform our coastline and resort areas (lakes and high country) into exclusive playgrounds for the rich (mostly foreigners or wealthy immigrants). How long before coastal "gated communities" are developed across our country? It is Pakeha property tycoons like John Spencer at Waiheke who seek strongly to secure private beach access; not Maori. Not yet.

The stereotype is that Maori are lazy dole bludgers and DPB addicts. Living on the East Coast, I would be the first to readily admit that a high number of my people live such lives. But many more do not. Being on the dole is often seasonal in nature, with work on forestry, in freezing works, and in horticulture taking up a fair chunk of the year for a transitory labour force (there's also the odd bit of "under the table" work). Up until recently, local residents have had the luxury of a low cost of living to work in such a transitional manner. Skyrocketing coastal property prices threaten this, as do changes in government policy.

It is truly ironic that the recently released list of "No-Go" zones for unemployment beneficiaries includes some of our nation's most high-priced coastal localities. Take Hot Water Beach on the Coromandel. Is there likely to be a flood of dole bludgers dropping out to relocate there, what when the only beachfront sections available are in the $900,000 to $1 million mark? Where else is on the list? Let's try Pauanui and Ocean Beach.

* * * *

It is the worst of times, and it is the best of times. Dr. Brash has unfortunately created a nasty racial split in New Zealand in 2004, picked at the hardened-over (but not yet healed) scab of New Zealand race relations that last reared its ugly head during the Springbok Tour and the Bastion Point occupation. The spectre of a right-wing government that will roll back a whole series of progressive social and economic programmes is clearly apparent. This is the bad stuff, indeed.

The good stuff, is that division brings people together. There is nothing like a common enemy for people in opposition to such dire pathways to put aside their differences and work to secure the future they want to see happen.

For the Left in New Zealand, it will mean a moderating effect for relations between Labour and the Greens. Globally, the Left has been energised by a common cause: opposition to the global U.S. dictator-state lead by President George W. Bush. It is now a year since millions around the world marched in opposition to war in Iraq, in a wave of oppositional energy not seen since the heady days of 1968. The centre can hold; the centre must hold. Here in Aotearoa NZ, NZ First must make its mark as a conservative party that nevertheless recognises the fundamental place of Maori to the identity of our nation (all "treaty gravy-train"-gates aside). United Future also takes a fundamentally centric position, socially conservative but nevertheless recognising the importance of sound race relations for a sustainable social future.

Politics is 51%. Over the past decade, we have moved profoundly to a new political system in our country in the form of Proportional Representation. This system has resulted in the splintering of former political cores (Labour and National) and a shift towards a negotiation-based form of political operation. The idea of a Maori political party raised in our media this past month has a significant potential to make a real difference; to tip this political balance to the required 51% mark to secure a centre-left government in 2005; one that then must put Maori concerns at the heart of it's policies.

Ironically, Brash's race-baiting has the potential to embolden and draw together Maori visions of the future of our country. The call by Tuariki Delamere and Derek Fox to secure Maori party support from Dame Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu (The Maori Queen) and preeminent Tuwharetoa chief Sir Hepi Te Heuheu has the real potential to spur a new political movement into reality.

Demographics and cultural influence are on the side of Maori, if the existing MMP system stays in place.

Such a new political movement for Maori faces significant challenges. There will be competing visions among Maori for our economic and social development futures. Competing value sets. Should we adopt mainstream western models of economic success which promises a "McMaori" social culture and has already eroded our tikanga? Or should we all go "back to the land" and return to our traditional communities that we were pushed out of in the 1950s?

The reality is that the only option lies somewhere between these two futures.

My perspective is that western economic development models are both anathema to our communal culture, as well as ecologically and socially unsustainable in the long-term. Are Maori to become the handmaidens to a global tourism and resort elite, with only a select few of us joining the rich at the top?

I believe that Maori must base our plans for future economic development on the "real world" -- a "RealPolitik" approach according to Ngai Tahu intellectual Dr. Te Maire Tau -- but that we must also focus on securing a future that does not compromise the spirit of who we are. Our Wairua. We must begin by examining the essentials of who we are. We must commence important national dialogues on the future of our Maori people, of our place in this world, and our place in the future development of a shared nationhood.

* * * *

"Kia mura tonu nga Ahi Kaa mo te matemateaone"
Keep the home fires burning so loved ones will always return.

* * * *

I have found profound strength in returning to the Ahi Kaa. After a time traversing the world, I have come back to Nuhaka, to the birthplace of my tribe, to the homelands, to look after my whanau and my tama and live daily life among our wise kaumatua. I have found that this gives me great strength, and a secure sense of identity.

Coming back to New Zealand was as much a "return to the Ahi Kaa" as coming back to Nuhaka. Living here, you immerse yourself daily in the nation's media, in daily life and experience, and in shared social mores. You travel the roads that all others travel, experience the landscapes that all other see and the elements that all others feel.

This gives us strength. This is what makes us truly unique. Place matters.

The challenge for Maori is to harness the power of their iwi, hapu and whanau ahi kaa identity, and marry this to a sense of Aotearoa ahi kaa identity. Aotearoa New Zealand's unique and authentic place in the world.

The challenge is to envision this future, and then set about creating the world we want to see happen. The challenge – for Pakeha as well as Maori – is to Envision Aotearoa.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS:

Ahi Kaa: The "home fires", the homelands. "Yeah cuz, the putea's a bit erratic out here on the coast and I've thought about goin' back to the Big Smoke, but somebody's gotta keep the Ahi Kaa burning, ya know?"

Faux Iwi: Pakeha who want to be Maori, highly supportive of and well educated about Te Tiriti. Often spotted wearing taonga (greenstone pendants). "Russell looked all faux iwi pro at the barbie, decked out in his oversized Pasifika print shirt matched with oversized taonga and authentic Huffer jandals."

Hongi Snob: Maori establishment, often endeared to British titles and in positions of important power within Maoridom. "Dame Huia greeted the Governor General with such grace and charm, her hongi snob deportment told you who was really in charge. She was."

Putea: Money. As in, "Show me the Putea

This post originally appeared here on ahikaa.com, which gathers all the writings of Leo Koziol under the banner Naked in Nuhaka.

Just for a total change of tack from the last Wire interview posted here (with Bruce Logan of the Maxim Institute) I thought I'd set the transcribing monkeys to work on Simon McCallum PhD, the founder of The University of Otago's Computer Game Design course. It's a paper covering the various disciplines of game design, from hardcore programming to theatre studies and character development.

Simon is also an organiser of the first New Zealand Game Developers Conference, to be held in Dunedin from June 26 to 29 2004. Further details are available from the conference website here.

PS: It wasn't really transcribing monkeys (although I'd be prepared to set aside any qualms about animal rights if such a thing did exist) but my Wire producer Damien Lay. Thanks Damien.

Cheers,
RB

Geek of the Week interview with Simon McCallum of Otago University, by Russell Brown, The Wire, 95bFM, April 21, 2004

RB: Simon, welcome.

SM: Hi.

RB: What actually prompted you to devise this course?

SM: Interestingly, what happened, one of our students got a scholarship to a conference in America, the GDC, and came back all fired up about game development, came in and asked us what we could do for the club he was starting up and it sort of snowballed from there and I created this paper and we just kept growing and growing and now we’ve got a conference and all sorts of things happening.

RB: And you’ve had some international help in putting the course together haven’t you?

SM: Oh yes, essential international help. I had an intern come over from Germany who’d been doing a degree in computational visualistics, which, sounds a bit weird. They claim that they do things with pictures in the same way linguists do things with words. He was majoring in game design over there and he came over and helped and I’ve got various friends in the industry including Chris Butcher who is one of the lead developers of Halo 2. So we got some good international contacts.

RB: Halo’s an interesting one isn’t it? It’s a good example of what makes a game good. On one level it’s just a shooter - yet there seems to be something a bit more to it.

SM: Yes. Chris is actually a New Zealander. He started in a small town just outside of Oamaru and came to university and went over and got a job in America. He’s been developing some artificial intelligence: when your partners/colleagues in Halo wander around and talk to you and each other, he did some of the development of what they’re doing and how they react to you which is some of the most engaging part of Halo.

RB: Do you think your students understand the breadth of skills required in game development as they come into the course? There are things like plot and character, as well as being able to program, aren’t there?

SM: Oh yeah, it's an enormously creative discipline, which I think is underestimated and certainly some of our students, are as you say … quite geeky. They just don’t realise the breadth of the discipline and when you look at a game out , a 100-person team, you might have 10 programmers, and the rest are artists, musicians, storywriters, script developers, directors even. So, it’s just an enormously creative discipline.

RB: How many opportunities are there in game development in New Zealand though? You’ve talked about Chris Butcher who’s in America. Is it realistic to think about working in game development in New Zealand?

SM: Well, until recently, probably not. We’ve got one large company - and by large I mean 30 people - and that’s Sidhe which develops Stacey Jones Rugby League, which people might have seen around in the stores recently. They are in Wellington. We’ve got a few other companies who are starting up. Binary Star, Right Hemisphere do some stuff, there are a few companies. But realistically, it’s a bit like the music industry. Everybody, well, not everybody, but lots of high school students want to get into it. They want to start their band, they want to become famous, but it’s about the same ratio of people who want to get into game development as people who want to get into music and the ratio of who ends up actually making money.

RB: As you said, Sidhe interactive did Stacey Jones Rugby League which has been a success. I understand it was the biggest pre-sale of any console game into Australia ever.

SM: Indeed. In fact they were at number one on the Australian charts for five weeks over Christmas. They sold somewhere over 120,000 units which compared to records … I mean, when you look at New Zealand bands if they sell more than 10,000 records they’re happy. So,120,000 units at $100 a pop is like $12 million dollars of product they’ve produced.

RB: That’s a sports game. Is that a pointer to where the potential is for game development in New Zealand?

SM: Sports are definitely one of the areas for development. We also have to look internationally. Our local market isn’t large enough to support game development companies. We need to look at Australia and the UK and the US. That’s part of what we’re doing is bringing in people from overseas to actually look at what we’re doing and saying look, we can actually make really great games. Luckily with Lord Of The Rings you can actually get a hold now, internationally, because we can say, look, we can be technical and creative.

RB: Now I presume this is the kind of thing that’s going to be discussed at the New Zealand Game Developers Conference. Can you tell us about that? When is it, where is it and what does it involve?

SM: Right. Well it’s down here in Dunedin. The 26th to the 29th of June. We’re going to have five or six keynotes coming from various places. Ernest Adams, which sounds strange in New Zealand, but he’s a well-known game designer and Daniel Sanchez-Crespo, and various other people are coming over. We’re going to be discussing New Zealand gaming culture and looking at how academics like me can set up internships for students with companies so that a student, while they’re doing their degree, can go and work for a game company to see a) if they like it and b) if they’re good enough. We’re going to have the government come in and talk to us about what’s available to start up new companies. I’ve got a small company that’s started up out of this games course that I gave. There’s a group of five students who’ve started their own company and they’re going reasonably well and they’ll be presenting at the conference as to what they did and how they got to where they are. We’ve got some funding from the government so its probably going to be about $100 to attend for a student, which is pretty cheap compared to some conferences. We’ve set up accommodation so it’s like $40 a night accommodation with a Bed and Breakfast down here. We’re trying to keep costs down for students.

RB: That sounds extremely reasonable. One thing that strikes me about game development is that it’s kind of at the intersection of practicality and creativity, which is sort of where New Zealanders have always prospered.

SM: Yes, I agree. Its one of the things we’re ideally suited for, because you have to be practical, you cant just make incredibly pretty millions of polygon count models, you cant have lots of details on your models because they’ve got to run on a computer and move around and stuff. It’s a trade-off between getting something working and making it fun and being creative and new and innovative.

RB: The staff on your course list their favourite games on the webpage and I noted that your number one is a really old-school arcade game called Time Pilot which I recall playing 20 years ago. What’d you like so much about that?

SM: Well, for me it when I was a teenager and it really engaged me It drew me in, I felt that it just kept giving me small rewards because you’d get through the level and there was the standard sort of feedback from the game and I spent many hours crossing over on the Cook Strait ferry playing Time Pilot when I was a young kid. It's still one of my favourite games as a game to play when you’re just relaxing. In terms of more recent games, you can get some pretty interesting games - like the Ultima series is quite a lot of fun if you’re wanting a story based game. There are different types of games, some people don’t recognise the difference between a computer toy and a computer game. We generally think of things like the Sims as a computer toy because it doesn’t actually have an objective. You’re not competing against anybody; it’s just a toy that you play with.

RB: Now, one mildly controversial element of the game scene is the rise of the console and arcade emulator. Looked at one way, these things are piracy. Do you think they’re also good for gaming culture?

SM: I think they are reasonably good for gaming culture. The idea of having emulators on your computer certainly allows you to play some of the games that you would only be able to play if you had those consoles. Certainly the older consoles which you can no longer buy or computers that you can no longer buy, the Amiga’s and things. Those games and those emulators are really great because they revive some of those old games. In terms of game selling, so long as you are actually willing to purchase those games, if you’ve played them on your emulator and you think "no, I really like that game, I want to see more of that game developed" you should go out and buy it because just like the music industry, in fact games have probably been stuck with this longer than the music industry, games have probably been stuck with this longer than the music industry. If you don’t buy the game, the company that made the game will go under. So if you want more games like that you should go and buy it as an investment into future games of that sort.

RB: Well I ask, because I’ve got a nine year old boy who’s downloaded just about every console emulator he can find. He also plays Warcraft and Runescape and so on and he actually wants to be a game developer. He’s nine years old. Is there anything I can do to help that dream along at that age? I mean, you started fairly early on computers didn’t you?

SM: Yes, yes. I was given my first computer at the age of 10 and I started programming games at that age with the old ZX Spectrum. So, that was 19 years ago. What you can do is encourage him to understand maths: games require a bit of an understanding of maths and geometry. The game developers generally say play a lot of games - which if he’s doing that already that’s probably easy. The other thing is to think about the games. Encourage him to actually sit back and say "why was it fun?". Just like, instead of just sitting and watching movies, if you want to actually make movies you ask questions like "why did the director show me that scene?" ‘What was the point of that bit of the movie?’ and that’s how you start to think about how to make your own movies. And the same thing with games. Why did the game give me a reward then? Why did it have that particular sequence of events? What was fun about playing that game? By just thinking about that, 9 year olds can do that; they can talk about why things are fun. They start to think ‘Well ok, if that’s why things were fun, how would I make a game that was fun?’

The New Zealand Game Developers Conference is to be held in Dunedin from June 26 to 29 2004. Further details are available from the conference website here.