Maui Street

Government to water down s9 (updated)

2012-02-24T09:43:00.000+13:00

Claire Trevett reports on the Maori Party’s partial victory:

The Maori Party has claimed a partial victory after a government promise to include a Treaty clause for partial state asset sales - but will not quite abandon the possibility it will walk out until it sees the final clause.

After three weeks of consulting, the Government yesterday said it would include a Treaty of Waitangi clause in new legislation to cover companies in which minority stakes were sold to private investors.

The Maori Party warned it could walk out on the Government if Treaty rights were not properly recognised in the new legislation and said its preference was for section nine to be used or, if that was impossible, to include a new clause which carried equal weight and scope.

The Maori Party comes out of this looking strong. The party took a stand on principle and strong armed the government – or at least that’s how it looks. In reality, the government is not making a firm commitment to retaining s9. Instead, the government will use a new section that retains the “concepts” of s9. The word “concepts” is very, very vague and, if the government is not careful, could open a whole new can of worms and take Treaty jurisprudence in a direction that no one intended. S9 as it stands is well developed and well understood, so why opt for a different clause? To me, this looks like an attempt to water down the clause and send the right signals to investors. Bill English has admitted as much saying that this was not a back down, but about providing certainty for investors.

However, a new clause would provide less certainty for investors. S9 as it stands is well developed and well understood. It is more dangerous inserting a new clause as there would be uncertainty as to how it applies. In time Maori would take the issue to Court and, in my opinion, the Court would interpret the new clause broadly and in line with s9. The Courts have always taken a favourable approach to interpreting the Treaty. After all, s9, read treaty clauses, amount to a "constitutional guarantee".

The Maori Party is claiming this as an example of what can be achieved “at the table”. Fair enough, without a position in the government the Maori Party would have no leverage and no avenue to lobby Cabinet and the PM. However, this is an example of how an imperative of the table is to sell out. The Maori Party has not achieved complete victory. The new clause will, most probably, be watered down. The Maori Party claims that they’ll walkout if the clause is not sufficiently strong. Well, I’ll believe that when I see it. As Marty Mars points out, they didn’t walk on the weak solution to the foreshore and seabed, so why walk out now.

UPDATE: Joshua Hitchcock, an expert on Treaty law, blogs that s9 (as it stands) is unsatisfactory and essentially "meaningless". He provides a very interesting perspective.

Wedge politics and Maori

2012-02-22T09:39:00.000+13:00

Shane Jones is driving a wedge between Labour and iwi (read the Maori Party):

Iwi leaders should spend less time dreaming of ways to profit from sales of state-owned assets, and more time on salvaging the children of their tribes, says Labour’s Economic Development (Maori) spokesperson Shane Jones.

“What we need are short, sharp solutions. In the absence of leadership from Dr Sharples, iwi leaders must focus on salvaging the children of their tribes instead of sucking at the teat of asset sales that won’t solve anything long term for Maori.

“In times gone by issues concerning our children were often seen as a responsibility for the state,” Shane Jones said. “Well, the state can’t solve everything, especially when Dr Sharples is ripping the heart out of Te Puni Kokiri. Our iwi leaders must stand up, if Dr Sharples won’t.”

As far as wedge politics goes, this is good stuff. The divide between the iwi elite, which increasingly includes the growing Maori middle class, and the Maori underclass is a source of tension in Maori politics. Jones’ is siding with majority opinion on this issue. Many Maori, read the Maori underclass, resent the fact that wealth from Treaty settlements has not ‘trickled down’. I’ve said before, many iwi take a top down approach to distributing income. For example, tribal executives are paid handsomely, a tribe’s tertiary students receive decent financial support and kaumatua and kuia often receive financial support too. However, those on the bottom of Maori soceity – for example single parents – receive no support. This approach serves to perpetuate the privileged position of the Maori elite. I should add that privileged is a relative term, meaning the Maori elite are privileged in comparison to the Maori underclass – not in comparison to Pakeha.

The largest source of tension is, in my opinion, the priorities of the Maori elite. Some iwi leaders, and others like Wira Gardiner, are enthusiastically pursuing asset sales. However, Maori overwhelmingly oppose asset sales. Many in the Maori elite also seem more concerned about maintaining their power and pay checks than serving their people, the most prominent example is Tuku Morgan and a handful of other members of Te Arataura.

The prevailing feeling is that iwi should be looking at investing more heavily in their people rather than fretting about their bottom lines. This is an idea I sympathise with, but do not agree with. Social services are the responsibility of government. Iwi have a social obligation, no doubt about that, but iwi do not have the means to offer social services. Firstly, iwi do not have the economy of scales, but most importantly iwi are not self sufficient. In other words, iwi can not fund social services out of their pocket unless, of course, they pay more attention to growing their bottom line. I hope you can see that it's a bit of a paradox. Sure, if Maori were paying taxes to iwi, then iwi have a social and moral imperative to fund and deliver social services. This, however, is not and never will be the case.

Anyway, back to the politics of this issue. Jones’ is siding with the Maori underclass here and painting the Maori Party into a corner – a corner with the Maori elite. It will be interesting to see how Jones’ plays this. I would expect to see him cultivate tensions further.

Another interesting aspect of this issue is Hone Harawira. Hone has, over the past year or so, owned this issue to the exclusion of Labour. Jones is, in my opinion, more capable than Parekura Horomia, but Hone has never lost a battle against Jones. I think it comes down to whether Jones has any credibility on this issue. For those that don’t know, Jones comes from the Maori elite. He was, in his opinion, born to rule and he was heavily involved with Maori business and treaty settlements. The same treaty settlements that have done so well in creating and entrenching a Maori aristocracy, or a Maori ruling class would be the more appropriate term. Hone, on the other hand, comes straight from the Maori underclass.

To be honest, I don't like the use of wedge politics in Maori politics, but this is a debate Maori need to have. Do iwi have their priorities right? What is the role of iwi in contemporary Maori society? Are treaty settlements creating a Maori elite and so on.

Complaint template

2012-02-15T06:05:00.000+13:00

Further to my promise yesterday, here is a generic complaint template. Just copy and paste this and bang it off to the relevant person/organisation. This template mainly applies to complaints to the Herald, but you can play around with it to make it more relevant to the Human Rights Commission. You can complain to the Press Council here and use this as a base, but you have to complain to the Herald first and then there are a number of other criteria.

----------

Generic Complaint Template:

Dear Mr Hastings

Please consider this a formal complaint against Paul Holmes column published in the New Zealand on February 11.

1. Mr. Holmes employs unfair, offensive and discriminatory language when describing Maori. Mr Holmes describes Maori as “hateful”, “loony”, “irrational” and “greedy”. Such language serves to disparage Maori.

2. Mr Holmes characterises Maori in an unfair, offensive and discriminatory light. For example, Mr Holmes contents that “Maori” beat their children, “feed themselves silly” and live in a “perfect world of benefit provision”. This is a gross misrepresentation and does not serve any purpose other than to fuel negative sentiment against Maori.

3. The unfair, offensive and discriminatory language and characterisations Mr Holmes employs amounts to hate speech. Hate speech is not defined under New Zealand law, however the following definition is a useful guide: any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic, for example race. Mr Holmes, through offensive language and fallacious characterisations, disparages Maori as a race. Mr Holmes comments amount to sustained, racist abuse against Maori.

4. The first nine paragraphs, when viewed as a whole, actively encourage negative feeling towards Maori. In fact, the first nine paragraphs serve to vilify Maori.

5. Mr Holmes does not distinguish between individual Maori and Maori as a race. Mr Holmes describes Waitangi Day as a “loony Maori fringe self denial day”. This passage clearly refers to all Maori. Mr Holmes also refers to the “hopeless failure of Maori”. Again, Mr Holmes is referring to all Maori. Mr Holmes continues saying “no, if Maori want Waitangi Day”. Mr Holmes is referring to all Maori – there is no other reading of this sentence.

6. Mr Holmes makes a number of factually incorrect statements. For example he speaks of the “never defined” principles of the Treaty. The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are, after over two decades of judicial refinement, clear, well defined and widely applied. Mr Holmes also implies that Maori want Waitangi Day for themselves when he says “no, if Maori want Waitangi Day, let them have it”. Maori have never requested Waitangi Day to be a day for Maori only.

7. When Mr Holmes speaks of his ancestors who fought in WWI he actively encourages racial division. He draws a line between Waitangi Day, which Holmes incorrectly characterises as a Maori day, and ANZAC Day which Holmes implicitly paints as a Pakeha day. No only does this encourage racial division, but it diminishes the important role Maori played in WWI.

8. Free speech is not at issue here. Mr Holmes has a right to free speech, but free speech does not extend to hate speech. The line is drawn where speech disparages another person or group on the basis of some characteristic, in this case race. When hate speech is the case, freedom of speech is irrelevant.

9. Freedom of speech must always be accompanied by social responsibility. Meaning freedom of speech does not guarantee one the right to vilify another group.

10. In publishing Holmes racist rant, the Herald failed to uphold acceptable standards of media ethics. Media organisations are under an obligation to run a range of views, but those views must meet requirements of good taste, decency and acceptability. Holmes piece did not meet these, in my opinion, low requirements. The Herald also owes it to society not to print racist rants. If they do, they legitimise that racism and provide a platform for the other racists to perpetuate their views. This, more often than not, hurts the race, usually a minority race, on the receiving end.

11. The Herald’s decision to print Mr Holmes column serves to entrench poorly informed opinions and, more significantly, drags public discourse down to the sewers. The sick comments under Mr Holmes’ piece are a testament to this.

12. Mr Holmes’ column arguably breached s61 of the Human Rights Act 1993. Specifically s61(a) which makes it unlawful to publish written material that is likely to excite hostility or bring into contempt any group on the basis of race. The racist comments under Mr Holmes column, as well as comments on many blogs, prove that Mr Holmes’ column excited hostility and brought into contempt Maori as a race.

13. Mr Holmes column may also be unlawful under s131 of the Human Rights Act 1993 – inciting racial disharmony.

14. Mr Holmes column was inaccurate, unfair, offensive and undeniably racist. The Herald was irresponsible to publish the column.

15. I ask that you sack Paul Holmes without delay. His racism has no place in New Zealand society. I will be boycotting the New Zealand Herald as long as Paul Holmes remains as a contributor. Please do the right thing.

Kind regards,
[Insert name]

Remember Hasting's email address is David.Hastings@nzherald.co.nz

More on Holmes and the Herald

2012-02-15T06:00:00.000+13:00

We all know this Paul Holmes rubbish annoys me, but to be honest, I don’t care so much about what he said, it’s the fact that the Herald published it and that 99% of Pakeha don’t care when Maori are on the receiving end of abuse.

In publishing Holmes racist rant, the Herald failed to uphold acceptable standards of media ethics. Media organisations are under an obligation to run a range of views, but those views must meet requirements of good taste, decency and acceptability. Holmes piece did not meet these, in my opinion, low requirements. The Herald also owes it to society not to print racist rants. If they do, they legitimise that racism and provide a platform for the other racists to perpetuate their views. This, more often than not, hurts the race, usually a minority race, on the receiving end.

Holmes piece, and the Herald’s complicity, serves to entrench poorly informed opinions and, more significantly, drags public discourse down to the sewers. The sick comments under Holmes piece and on some right blogs is a testament to this. I’m not going to quote any of it, if I do I’ll probably throw up on my keyboard. Holmes has really brought the scum out of the woodwork.

Another aspect of this that disappoints me is the lax, don’t care response of most Pakeha. Sadly, Bryce Edwards (who is very sensible 99% of the time) holds that Holmes has raised legitimate views. This is a common sentiment. However, he hasn’t. Holmes is resetting the Treaty debate and taking race relations back to the 80’s. In terms worthy of the 19th century, Holmes is relitigating things that are settled. The Treaty is an accepted and important part of our constitution and society. Maori are an important part of our political system. Maori grievances are legitimate and work is progressing to heal the wounds. Historical grievances and contemporary struggles still fuel Maori anger. There is no debate over these things.

Imagine if the situation was reversed and a prominent Maori broadcaster slammed greedy Pakeha land thieves, slammed paedophilia as a Pakeha problem, slammed the propensity of loser Pakeha men to take Asian brides, slammed fraud as a scourge on all Pakeha. There would be outrage and rightly so. It’s untrue, it’s unfair and would constitute racism. Holmes rant is on a similar level. Slamming Maori as hateful, loony, irrational, fat and so on. Imagine for one second that Holmes was vilifying you. And imagine it from the position Maori are in. Powerless. No one listens (hell, no one cares), you don’t know how to respond (i.e. don’t know about complaint mechanisms, public pressure etc), the list goes on.

Complaint template

2012-02-14T15:35:00.002+13:00

I've had a few people ask me to draft a complaint template. I think it's a good idea and will encourage more people to actually do something. Tomorrow I'll post a template to complain to the Press Council, the Human Rights Commission and David Hastings. I'll also post a template for you to ask our Maori MPs to stand with us on this.

Herald rushes to defend Holmes (updated)

2012-02-14T14:48:00.000+13:00

The Herald is compounding the Paul Holmes problem with this generic response to complaints:

Thank you for your formal complaint regarding the Paul Holmes column of Saturday Feb 11.

As you are no doubt aware, it is one of many messages we have received on both sides of the ledger since publication. Those supporting his right to his opinion have markedly outweighed those against. Having said that, we are concerned that a number of people have taken such strong exception to it.

There is no question the piece was written in a raw and provocative style. But we do not believe it constitutes "hate speech" or close to it. It is not, as many people have suggested, a commentary on all Maori people or Maori culture generally but on the few protesters who disrupted proceedings. Nor does it breach Press Council principles, which accommodate freedom of opinion in comment pieces.

It was one of a series of opinion pieces discussing Waitangi Day and its place in New Zealand society which began the previous Saturday with a front page cover story by Buddy Mikaere and included an editorial which recognised the obvious divisions in society but supported the idea of the day as being our national day.

The column in question was clearly aimed at the behaviour and attitudes of Waitangi Day protesters at Waitangi itself – similar to criticism by former Prime Minister Helen Clark of protest leaders as ‘haters and wreckers’, in another context. Disparaging and critical words, but neither intended to cast all Maori in that light. Holmes expressed his opinion as a columnist as he is entitled to do in a country where freedom of speech is regarded as a central pillar of public discourse.

Although many have objected to it -- as is their right -- I hope they can recognise that the very ‘freedom’ in the concept of freedom of speech is meaningless if it applies only to speech that offends no one. As has been recognised by the Press Council, true freedom can mean the freedom to be ignorant, offensive and wrong.

The same points can be applied to his comments about anti-fluoride campaigners, La Leche and Syria. They are, as you point out in paragraph 12, opinion.
We strive to publish the breadth of opinion on major public issues and no doubt will carry strong views in the paper and on our website in response to the latest Holmes column.

Yours sincerely
David Hastings
Editor
Weekend Herald

This makes me sick, fuckin’ sick. Hate speech is, outside of the law, any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic, in this case race. Holmes consistently casts Maori in a negative light, calling us, among other things, “irrational”, “loony” and “hopeless”. Holmes speaks of the “hopeless failure of Maori to educate their children and stop them bashing their babies”. Holmes continues saying that Maori should be left to go and “raid a bit more kaimoana” and “feed themselves silly”. This isn’t disparaging Maori, it’s vilifying us. I don’t know how the Herald can, in the face of this, say that Holmes’ column did not amount to hate speech. The message of the piece, whether intended or not, was that Maori are misbehaving, ungrateful, failures. The first nine paragraphs actively encourage negative feeling towards Maori. Those paragraphs describe us in offensive and unfair terms (in other words racist stereotypes) and, at the same time, perpetuate incorrect perceptions about the Treaty. If the Herald doesn’t think that what Holmes has written is hate speech, then they have glaring double standards. The Herald launched a crusade, and a crusade that continues may I add, against Hone Harawira in the wake of the white motherfuckers comments. Of course, that comment was racist and hateful and I’m sure the Herald agrees. But why are Holmes comments not? After all, where Hone’s comment was more of a throwaway than anything else, Holmes comments are sustained. He launches a systematic tirade against Maori – paragraph after paragraph. Although he falls short of using profanities, the terms he describes us in are much more hurtful.

The Herald is also claiming that Holmes was not targeting his verbal diarrhoea towards all Maori. Again, I don’t see how the Editor can make this claim in the face of what Holmes has written. In reference to Waitangi day Holmes says “it’s a loony Maori fringe self denial day”. Maori, in this context, refers to us as a group. Holmes does not distinguish. He also speaks of the “hopeless failure of Maori”. Again, Maori is referring to us as a group. Holmes continues “no, if Maori want Waitangi day”. No surprise, Holmes uses the word Maori again, and again referring to Maori as a group rather than an individual(s).

No one says Holmes shouldn’t be allowed to say what he wants, but he cannot say racist, offensive, unfair and ignorant things without consequence. Nor can he hide under the cloak of free speech. As I said in a previous post, free speech does not extend to hate speech. And this is hate speech even under the most onerous definition.

So, given the Herald’s lax response, it’s time for more complaints. Here is a link to complain to the Press Council. Remember you can also complain to the Human Rights Commission here. Finally, you can send a complaint to David Hastings, the editor of the Weekend Herald (sorry, Tim Murphy is the editor of the weekday Herald, I’m sure he forwarded your complaints though) at David.Hastings@nzherald.co.nz. Oh, and there will be a picket of the Herald’s office on the 16th. Here’s the link. Keep up the pressure and don’t let the racists legitimise Holmes’ bullshit.

(ps where is Maori TV and Maori radio on this story??)

UPDATE: for further perspectives see this from Reading the Maps, Tumeke and this from the Jackal.

Comments on the water claim

2012-02-13T05:00:00.000+13:00

John Roughan is a good columnist, but I think he misses the mark with this offering:

Protesters forget that Maori have to act in good faith too.

(On the partnership principle): "rested on the premise that each party would act reasonably and in good faith towards the other within their respective spheres".

Lands, forests, fisheries and treasured things were expressly in the Maori sphere. Government and good order were entrusted to the Crown. Cooke stressed that the obligation to act "reasonably and in good faith" was reciprocal. It applied no less to Maori than the Government.
Is it "reasonable" of them to ask that Meridian, Genesis, Mighty River Power and Solid Energy should continue to be bound by an obligation on the Crown to observe Treaty principles? I think so; the Crown will remain their major shareholder.

Is it reasonable that those companies might be obliged to consider Maori interests if they ever want to change the flow of rivers or drown land? I think so.

On the Maori side, is it acting "reasonably and in good faith" to invoke the Treaty simply to oppose partial asset sales? I don't think so.

Management of the state's assets is in the Government's sphere.

Protesters forget the Treaty cuts both ways. With good faith on both sides, the Government and the Maori Party can take another big step.

I don't agree. Maori are not invoking the Treaty for the sake of invoking the Treaty. Maori are concerned that 1) if state assets pass in to private hands the government’s ability to settle current and future claims will be affected AND 2) Maori, as well as the Crown, are unsure what rights, if any, Maori have to water resources (i.e. ownership and management rights).

Selling state assets while question 2 is still under consideration breaches the principle of partnership and good faith. The Waitangi Tribunal holds that the Treaty guarantee of rangatiratanga requires a high priority for Maori interests where proposed works may impact on Maori taonga. With this in mind, the Crown is, arguably, obliged to consider Maori interests above private interests. The Crown is also under a duty to actively protect and give affect to property rights, management rights, Maori self regulation, tikanga Maori and the claimants (i.e. Maori) relationship with their taonga. In light of this obligation, it would be inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty for the government to ram ahead with partial privitisation without 1) determining Maori interests 2) giving those interests a “high priority” and 3) actively protecting those interests.

The duty to actively protect is a serious one. New Zealand’s greatest jurist, the late Sir Robin Cooke, held that the Crown’s obligation is not “merely passive but extends to active protection of Maori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable”.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People also supports this position:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

To be fair, the government is consulting Maori and credit to them for doing so. First criteria satisfied. However, article 32(2) – i.e. the article above – sets a requirement for “consent”. Of course, this isn’t binding on the government, but it will guide and inform any decision of the Court.

There is legal authority to support the proposition that Maori have rights to water. Lord Cooke’s obiter statement above, where he implies that Maori have rights to water, is an example. The article above also signals that the UN believes indigenous people have rights to water too. Most significantly though, the Lands case held, roughly speaking, that if the Crown was going to transfer land that was potentially subject to a claim the Crown must take steps to ensure its ability to meet the claims is not adversely affected.

John Key seems to think that no one can own water. Audrey Young's excellent overview holds that this position is correct at common law. However, Maori can, and Te Arawa is an example, own beds, banks, and potentially the airspace above. This, however, ignores the fact that Maori did not distinguish between river beds, lake banks and so on. Beds, banks and the water itself were one in the same – not constituent parts. The Courts can take this into account, and even incorporate this notion into the common law (assuming it does not offend any common law principles), however the Courts have proved reluctant to incorporate Maori customary law into the common law (the recent Takamore case is an example). As an aside, this is unfortunate and, in my opinion, hinders the development of a uniquely New Zealand legal system.

Most significantly, as No Right Turn points out, Maori water rights could persist under the doctrine of aboriginal title, or customary title as it is more commonly known in New Zealand. Customary title is a lesser form of property right than fee simple title (freehold title) and only exists if it has not been extinguished. That's the crux of it there, I think. Was Maori customary title extinguished? I agree with I/S in that I think customary title has been extinguished through various pieces of legislation. I/S holds that this is a breach of article 2 of the Treaty which guarantees Maori rangatiratanga. Of course, we have to look at this through the principles of the Treaty rather than applying the strict meaning of the text so I'm not so sure this is correct.

For the sake of this post, let’s accept that Maori do not have ownership rights. The Crown is sovereign and, under the Treaty principles, has the right to govern. Okay, Fair enough. Maori do, however, have management rights. The Crown has already explicitly recognised these rights under the Waikato river co-management deal. Ngati Tuwharetoa, Te Arawa, Raukawa and Tainui all have co-management arrangements with the Crown. Ngati Maniapoto will also, if they have not already, sign a similar deal.

Considering this, at the very least Maori have management rights and the Crown cannot move forward with partial privatisation until those rights are clarified and a regime to recognise and implement them is put in place.

Anywho, back to the main thrust of Roughan piece (you can probably tell I’m not so concerned about his column I just wanted to use it as a springboard for this discussion). I respect John Roughan, but I think he misunderstands the nature of the partnership principle. Maori and the Crown are under different, but in a few instances similar, obligations. The Crown’s obligations are similar to a fiduciary duty. This means the Crown has a legal and ethical duty as the dominant partner. Therefore, if the Crown’s duty is analogous to a fiduciary one, then the Crown must act to a stricter standard. Maori operate under a less onerous standard.

Ultimately, I think Roughan’s piece is based on a shaky premise. Maori are not opposing for the sake of opposing. There are legitimate concerns around Maori rights and the Crown’s actions. Surely, if Maori were opposing for the sake of it, then other iwi would join the fight. This isn’t the case though, in fact iwi have refused to join the legal battle, preferring instead to take a more diplomatic route. Whether this is the right choice, well time will tell, in any circumstance I think it signals the growing maturity of Maori as a people. Then again, it could mean that the iwi elite are trying to gun for private gains for themselves and their iwi, rather than Maori as a whole.

Holmes: morally repugnant and deeply racist

2012-02-12T05:35:00.000+13:00

I don’t read Paul Holmes – the man has no credibility, little sense and somehow, god knows how, his arrogance jumps off the page and strangles anyone in sight. With that in mind, I wasn’t going to give this piece the time of day, but someone needs to call Holmes on his racism.

In the vilest column I’ve ever seen, Holmes comes out swinging against Maori. The column is undeniably racist. At several points Holmes slurs the entire Maori race. For example, Holmes taints Maori as “loony” and “irrational”. The offensive and unfair language he deploys and the overall message of the piece encourages discrimination. Take this, my favourite passage in which Holmes asserts the following:

“No, if Maori want Waitangi Day for themselves, let them have it. Let them go and raid a bit more kai moana than they need for the big, and feed themselves silly, speak of the injustices heaped upon them by the greedy Pakeha and work out new ways of bamboozling the Pakeha to come up with a few more millions”.

Initially, I was furious with this. Well, I was furious with the whole piece actually, but this paragraph really rarked me up for some reason. After stewing on it, I just found it sad. Sad that someone would say something so nasty, hate filled and utterly unfair. This would go unnoticed in private, but this was published in New Zealand’s leading daily – the Herald. It was totally irresponsible for the Herald to publish Holmes’ hate speech. And that’s what it is, hate speech. Holmes, in the most blatant terms I’ve ever seen, disparages and vilifies Maori, thus encouraging prejudice against Maori. That satisfies the definition of hate speech for me.

Sadly, Holmes doesn’t distinguish between individuals and Maori as a race. Although Holmes’ bases his hate on the actions of a few individuals, he taints the entire Maori race. It’s unfair and it’s racist. What also annoys me is that Holmes is furthering highly offensive and unfair stereotypes.

There is no place for racism in the media. Of course, some people are going to rush to Holmes defence. This is the saddest part. No doubt some people will prasie Holmes for ‘telling it like it is’, but he isn’t telling like it is. Holmes is basing his claims on spurious grounds. He isn’t taking into account the deeper meaning of Waitangi day, he isn’t taking into account the socio-political context and, quite simply, he is misinterpreting the actions of Maori at Waitangi. Waitangi protest needs to be interpreted taking into account the history of the day, the history of Crown-Maori relations and the contemporary political situation. You can’t boil it down to lunacy or irrationality. I guess it goes to show that Holmes mind operates on a very, very shallow level.

Others will defend Holmes right to free speech. A right he undeniably has. However, free speech does not extend to hate speech. The line is drawn when ones speech incites prejudice or disparages another. There is international consensus that hate speech is irrelevant to free speech. ~~Importantly, hate speech is also illegal under both domestic and international law~~.

Unsurprisingly, Holmes also makes a number of factual errors. For example, he speaks of the “never defined principles of the Treaty”. This is a ridiculous claim. The principles of the Treaty are well defined and are, to quote a legal expert, not vague and unknowable. After over two decades of judicial refinement, the principles are unambiguous.

Holmes then takes aim at breast feeding advocates. This part of the column was just as nauseating as the beginning. No mean feat may I add. Holmes then tops it off with a crude and simplistic reading on the situation in Syria.

He must be in a bad place, old Paul Holmes. I tend to think his column was an attempt to comfort and confirm his own self righteousness. Pretty sad really. If the Herald had any sense (or dignity), they’d sack Holmes. The rubbish he produces is unbecoming of our major daily. You can make comparisons with Michael Laws, but Laws knows where to draw the line – and at least he’s literate. I suspect Holmes is not. He must go.

Over the next few days I’ll be laying a complaint with the Editor of the Herald, Tim Murphy, I’ll also be laying a complaint with the Race Relations Commissioner. Lastly, I’ll be boycotting the Herald as long as Holmes remains. I encourage you to do the same. Send the message that there’s no place for Holmes and his hate in our public discourse.

As an aside, it's interesting to compare the contrast between Holmes piece and this from John Roughan. Where Holmes is offensive, ill considered and rude, Roughan is sober, analytical and fair (even though I don't really agree with what he says, but that's for a post on Monday).

(You can, I think, complain to Tim Murphy at tim.murphy@nzherald.co.nz)

(You can also lodge a complaint with the Human Rights Commission here)

(For another perspective see this at Reading the Maps, this from TW.com and Danyl writes here)

Hangi ban? Nonsense

2012-02-09T06:00:00.000+13:00

According to Facebook, John Key is going to ban hangi. Not National, not the government, but John Key personally. John Key is going to ban hangi - at least that’s what my newsfeed says. Of course, in reality, John Key is going to do no such thing, nor is his government for that matter.

The rumour seems to have stemmed from concerns with the Food Bill. However, it's my understanding that the bill only covers food exchanges such as selling and bartering. If this is correct, I think it would be safe to place hangi outside of the ambit of the bill - at least when hangi is being prepared and served on the Marae. It would be a different matter if, say, someone was selling hangi to fund raise.

To repeat: John Key is not going to ban hangi. Tell your friends.

Whanau Ora comes under fire

2012-02-08T11:37:00.000+13:00

The Maori Party has come to the defence of Whanau Ora. From Stuff:

The Maori Party has defended a Whanau Ora grant which paid for a 'family reunion', despite New Zealand First leader Winston Peters questioning the entire premise of the scheme.

Whanau Ora is the Maori Party's flagship programme and aims to help families by redirecting funds rather than having multiple agencies working at loggerheads to each other.

In the past questions have been raised about other successful programmes being cut in order to fund Whanau Ora.

Yesterday Peters said about $6 million of tax-payer cash had been "squandered" on a Whanau Ora programme that funded "family reunions".

An official Whanau Ora report showed more than 200 applications for the scheme - known as "Whanau Integration, Innovation and Engagement funding" - had been accepted, he said.

You have to question the benefit of funding family reunions as opposed to funding, say, uhhm, real social problems. This is bad news for the Maori Party because it undermines the case for Whanau Ora – a case the Maori Party never really made. Although I agree with and support Whanau Ora in principle, I don’t think the Maori Party sold the idea to New Zealand. The party highlighted a structural problem in social service funding and delivery, but Tariana Turia (and to a lesser degree Pita Sharples) never really convinced the public why Whanau Ora was the right response. As a result, support for the program is soft.

Expect Whanau Ora to be a common theme with Winston Peters. Peters has been waging an ideological campaign against the program for some time now. He attacked the program during the election campaign and, more recently, managed to steer a RNZ interview on s9 and the Maori Party into a tirade against Whanau Ora. This isn’t entirely unexpected, Whanau Ora doesn’t play well with Peter’s base, nor blue collar rednecks (Peter’s wider base), but most significantly the Maori Party is an easy target. Poor performers in the House and politically incompetent, the Maori Party is easy meat for Peters. Expect more of this from Winston Peters.

On a side note, none of the Maori Party's MPs were in the House yesterday. I don't know why Turia wasn't, but Pita Sharples and Te Ururoa Flavell were attending the opening of a new Kura Kaupapa in Kawerau (Sharples is the Associate Minister of Education and Flavell is the local MP) - I don't think they were hiding from Winston like some have suggested.

A Maori Holocaust?

2012-02-08T09:08:00.000+13:00

The slow news week continues with this non-story:

A Maori academic has been slammed for saying that the colonisation of New Zealand resulted in a holocaust for his people.

Keri Opai, a Taranaki-based language teacher, told a Radio New Zealand discussion that Maori had been through some "awful stuff that really does break down to a holocaust".

He cited the pillaging of Parihaka - where 1600 troops burned houses after being greeted by singing children - as a damning episode, and said many New Zealanders did not realise the extent of the devastation.

There was no direct comparison to the Nazi Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed.

But Jewish Council president Stephen Goodman said calling what happened a holocaust was ignorant and improper.

"It tries to elevate Maori grievances by associating with the Holocaust, and I find it very hard to draw a comparison between the European colonisation of New Zealand and plain genocide," he said.

Firstly, the definition of a holocaust is, roughly speaking, thus: destruction or slaughter on a mass scale. According to the article above, the Maori population fell by over 40% and, as nearly everyone knows, the Maori race was brought near extinction through a combination of war, disease and state sponsored discrimination and depravation. Certainly, this amounts to “a holocaust” in a loose sense of the word. However, I see Goodman’s point. In ordinary usage, the term Holocaust refers to the systematic slaughter of over 6 million Jews. I agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a link between European colonisation of New Zealand and the Shoah (the Holocaust).

Goodman goes on to say that Keri Opai was “trivialising” the Holocaust. I think this is plain wrong. Opai was taking what you could probably say is the dictionary meaning and applying it to the New Zealand context. Certainly, using the term is hyperbolic, but what’s wrong with that? Hyperbole is a effective language tool.

It’s interesting to note Goodman has revised his statement. Imperator Fish points to the original statement:

It is totally unacceptable for anyone to attempt associating European colonisation of New Zealand with the Holocaust. This is not the first time that Maori have trivialised the Holocaust by trying to associate it with their own perceived grievances. There is absolutely no valid comparison between the settlement of the country and the organised, state sponsored, genocide that was the Holocaust. As a language lecturer Mr Opai is obviously totally ignorant of world history; as an “academic” he should know better. His words are extremely offensive to the Jewish and other communities that were the target of the Shoah.

This is insulting. It’s good to see that Goodman revised his comments, but I reckon he still holds these anti-Maori sentiments. I take particular offence with his description of “perceived grievances” – as if Maori grievances aren’t real – also note how “settlement” is used as opposed to colonisation. Settlement is a neutral word and doesn’t carry the negative implications of colonisation.

Anyway, to my mind, what ever way you look at it this is a non-story.

Maori issues in 2012

2012-02-06T06:00:00.000+13:00

Last year the Parliamentary Library released a number of research papers. The papers deal with selected issues from different portfolio areas. I’ve taken a look at the Maori affairs paper, here are some key points:

----------

It is estimated all historic claims will be settled by 2016 (not 2014 which is National’s “aspirational” date). The relativity mechanism in Tainui and Ngai Tahu’s settlements are expected to be triggered this year or next. The government is expected to respond to the WAI262 report, Ko Aotearoa Tenei, this year.

----------

The Maori Economic Development Panel will present their report in July. The panel will produce a Maori economic strategy and action plan.

----------

The implementation of Whanau Ora is expected to continue. TPK is providing ongoing monitoring. As part of the government and the Maori Party’s plans to restructure TPK, a new high level policy unit will be created and, according to my sources, focus on Whanau Ora.

----------

The discussion phase of the constitutional review will begin in 2013. The review will consider, among other things, Maori electoral participation, Maori seats in government (local and national) and the role of the treaty within New Zealand’s constitutional framework. For some odd reason the only legal expert on the panel is Professor John Burrows.

On the farcical scenes at Waitangi and the possibility of NZ Day (updated)

2012-02-05T12:09:00.000+13:00

News is breaking of some ~~despicable~~ appalling behaviour at Te Tii Marae this morning. From the Herald:

Protesters ignored pleas to show respect at Te Tii Marae this morning, where Prime Minister John Key and fellow politicians were verbally abused during ugly scenes at Waitangi this morning.

Protester Wi Popata heckled prominent Maori MPs regardless of party affiliation, calling Dr Pita Sharples, Te Ururoa Flavell and Hekia Parata "niggers."

Around six to 10 protesters rushed onto the marae when Mr Key first arrived at 10am, knocking aside members of the media as they moved. Two photographers, including one from the Herald, were seen bleeding after the rush.

This isn’t on. What do these protestors, and I use the term protestors in its loosest sense, expect to achieve? Actions like the above serve only to reinforce negative opinions and galvanise the public against your cause. Of course, these village idiots wouldn’t know the first thing about making gains for Maori. They know how to make a lot of mindless noise, but they don’t know what progress looks like, let alone how to achieve it.

The temperature at Waitangi was always going to be high. Coming on the back of cuts at TPK and the possibility of dropping s9 from new SOE legislation. I don’t think anyone was expecting thug-like protest though. What makes the protestors' actions even worse is that they're playing right into Key's hands. The average Kiwi will sympathise and side with Key in the face of, what appears at the moment, to be thuggish protest. Public opinion was always on the PM's side and that support will solidify in the face of rancorous "Maori's".

There are suggestions that Key wanted this sort of thing to happen. After more than a week of negative headlines Key was, apparently, searching for an event to regain public sympathies. What better time to do this than Waitangi. In the run up to the weekend Key baited Maori - or at least that's how I see it. For example, he promised to talk about hot bottom issues like welfare reform at Te Tii. This intensified feeling following the TPK cuts and s9 controversy.

Anyway, I’ve said time and again, the protest generation is over. Maori have a foothold, the path goes from there. We don’t need to keep alive the fight for things we already have. Maori must work for gains from within. Within Parliament, government, the National Party and the Labour Party. Jodi Ihaka made a salient point this morning when she noted that most of the protestors of the past were sitting at the Copthorne Hotel with the PM – think the Maori Party leadership and the Iwi Chairs Forum. This is where progress will be made, not on protesting one day a year on Te Tii Marae.

These protestors risk reducing Waitangi Day to a farce. It’s all well and good to hold protests. Maori, after all, remain at the bottom on the heap and festering wounds from historical injustice remain. This is to say nothing of contemporary injustices. But you need to have a strategy – a realistic one and one suitable for 2012 conditions. New Zealanders will gladly ditch Waitangi Day for, say, New Zealand day if mindless, violent and intimidating protest continues to occur. Should a New Zealand day come about, Maori will be deprived a legitimate platform to bring attention to Maori concerns and discuss ways forward.

This brings me to another point. I don’t think we need a New Zealand day. Our nation was founded on the signing of the Treaty, therefore, there is a day no more appropriate for celebrating NZ than Waitangi Day. The calls for New Zealand day come from, more often than not, Pakeha who would rather ignore historical and contemporary injustice. People who would rather ignore the fact that the NZ government, and many an average NZ citizen, treated and in some cases continue to treat Maori like crap.

NZ day would be a backward step that would create more racial division rather than less. The significance of the Treaty would be diminished and, as a result, the place of Maori in NZ.

I’m not trying to portray Waitangi Day as a day for Maori to have a piss and a moan. Waitangai Day should be a day for reflection, discussion and, most importantly, celebration. For the past three years, probably not this year, I think we got the balance right. It’s a shame this isolated gang of fools are taking us back a decade or two.

New Maori Affairs Select Committee

2012-02-03T06:00:00.000+13:00

The makeup of the Maori Affairs Select Committee (MASC) was recently announced. The opposition parties love the MASC because National doesn’t have a majority. Of the 12 seats, Labour, the Greens and Mana control six while National holds five. This gives the Maori Party’s Te Ururoa Flavell the casting vote. The members of the committee are:

Tau Henare (Chair)
Parekura Horomia (Deputy Chair)
Jami-Lee Ross
Katrina Shanks
Louise Upton
Nicky Wagner
Rino Tirikatene
Louisa Wall
Metiria Turei
Hone Harawira
Brendan Horan
Te Ururoa Flavell

Shanks, Upton and Wagner are not Maori. That’s fine with me, but, in my opinion, non-Maori are at a disadvantage when it comes to the committees work. The other members come to the committee with knowledge of Maori issues, Maori culture, Maori nuances and so on. Those members will find it easier to engage with Maori, grapple with Maori issues and produce conclusions from a Maori perspective.

No surprise to see Tau Henare as Chair or Parekura Horomia as Deputy. Simon Bridges is a notable omission, then again he now chairs the important Finance and Expenditure Committee and has been careful not to pigeonhole himself as a “Maori MP”, rather an MP of Maori descent.

I find it interesting that the Green’s have inserted Metiria Turei on to the committee rather than a junior Maori MP like Denise Roche. No surprise to see new MPs like Rino Tirikatene and Brendan Horan on the committee. They’ll cut their teeth on what is, pretty much, a friendly committee for opposition members.

The committee is due to report on their inquiry into the determinants of wellbeing for Maori children. I don’t think this inquiry was really necessary, but it will fit well with the growing narrative around child poverty and inequality. Other than that, there isn’t too much to expect from the committee in the coming months.

More on TPK and the Maori Party

2012-02-02T12:20:00.003+13:00

The picture at TPK is becoming a little clearer. Pita Sharples has finally released a statement, a short one at that, expressing his support for staff. Sharples claims:

“How the Ministry manages their fiscal pressures and efficiency dividend is of course an operational matter for management. I expect to be consulted on the Chief Executive’s proposals for how Te Puni Kokiri continues to deliver the most effective services to the public, within the budget they have been allocated,” he said.

Firstly, passing the ball to management is a cop out. But most importantly, Sharples statement is, if one reads between or beyond the lines, a couched endorsement of the cuts. The Maori Party made no secret of their intentions to reform TPK, but I don’t think anyone knew their intentions were to cut jobs.

Winston Peters continues to hammer away at the Maori Party. He accuses the party of gutting TPK as a trade off for increased funding for Whanau Ora. Parekura Horomia also highlights the inadequacy of the Maori Party’s “at the table” argument. Horomia notes that as a Minister outside of Cabinet Sharples was unable to fight for the survival of TPK when Cabinet, or the appropriate Cabinet Committee, was thrashing out the details. However, that logic assumes the Maori Party actually wanted restructuring at TPK to be neutral, meaning no cuts, no increases, just a reshuffle. I tend to think the Maori Party supported cuts all along.

The Maori Party isn’t attacking National’s decision to impose cuts, nor is the party publicly lobbying for cuts to be deferred or cancelled. Instead, the party has remained silent, bar Sharples one statement expressing support for people who are about to lose their jobs. It appears the Maori Party wanted this, they just don’t want to wear the consequences. Hence Sharples attempt to deflect this as an operational matter.

What support the Maori Party clawed back with their threat to leave National has now evaporated. I struggle to see how the party has any future post-2014.

Te Puni Kokiri to face cuts (updated)

2012-02-02T01:00:00.000+13:00

Hone Harawira has revealed that Te Puni Kokiri, the Ministry of Maori Development, is in line for massive cuts:

The restructure of TPK is said to include:
• Major redundancies
• Closure of many branch offices
• Reducing TPK’s role to social issues (education, employment and housing)
• The removal of major responsibilities (economic development, Matauranga Maori including WAI 262, Marae Development, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights, Te Reo Maori, Broadcasting, Land and Resource Development, and Whanau Ora)

This doesn’t come as a surprise. Wellington rumour has had it that TPK was always in the government’s sights, it was just a matter of when.

TPK advises the government, including other government agencies, on all issues Maori. From Maori economic development to Maori social well being. TPK has a $60m budget, employs over 300 staff and operates, from my count, 21 offices including a head office in Wellington. Media reports so far have indicated that 50 jobs will go. This comes on top of 60 redundancies and an $8m funding cut in the last three years.

The Maori Party signalled their intentions to restructure TPK prior to the election. This was consistent with their intentions pre-2008, but upon taking office Pita Sharples backed down and assured TPK employees that there would be no cuts. I would have imagined the Maori Party’s idea of restructuring differed radically from National’s understanding of the word. The Maori Party would be thinking reshuffle, but National would be thinking redundancies. However, judging from the Maori Party's silence on redundancies one can assume that they support the cuts.

In my opinion, TPK probably doesn't need to be restructered. The Ministry has one of the widest briefs of any department, but is, relatively speaking, small in terms of staff numbers and budget. As above, TPK has already downsized significantly, but its workload has increased. In 2010 TPK was tasked with planning, implementing and evaluating the Maori response to the Canterbury earthquake. That same year TPK was given responsibility for developing, implementing and evaluating Whanau Ora.

Sure, TPK has come under fire in the past and rightly so. For example, in 2010 Leith Comer, the CEO of TPK, advised staff not to work so hard following their, in my opinion, excellent work in the wake of the Canterbury earthquake. However, that same year TPK, apparently, rated highly in performance reviews. This contradicts information from TVNZ that TPK was judged the worst performing ministry in an independent survey.

If the government decides to go ahead with a demolition job on TPK the quality of advice Ministers and government agencies receive will be poor to pathetic. The DPMC doesn’t have the in-house capabilities to properly and expertly advise Ministers on Maori issues. No other government agency has the in-house capabilities either. The result will be a government that fumbles Maori issues.

Ordinary Maori will also be hit. Many Maori will lose their jobs if, or when, regional offices are closed. Maori trying to access TPK services, like business grants and advice, will have to deal with a decreased service.

Once again Hone Harawira is on top of this. He's slammed the Maori Party and National. He's taken the high road while the Maori Party is left searching for an appropriate response. Like their response to the s9 controversy, they've found themselves on the back foot. On Closeup last night Pita Sharples didn't show, instead Leith Comer did. Actually, Sharples refused to front any media yesterday. It looks like he's running from this. The same is true today, Winston Peters and Hone Harawira fronted Morning Report and poured acid on the Maori Party and National. Labour also released a statement criticising the cuts.

Hone Harawira, Annette Sykes and even Winston Peters are landing blow after blow on the Maori Party. It's almost cruel to watch, then again they brought it upon themselves.

Come Waitangi day, the government is going to find itself in a tight spot with Maori. S9 was a big issue for Maori and cuts at TPK will be another kick in the guts. Expect a lot of noise come Monday.

Further comments on the Maori Party's threat

2012-02-01T10:40:00.000+13:00

A few commentators have rightly pointed to the Maori Party’s ineptitude around s9 and the new state asset legislation. Treaty clauses are, and have been, central to Maori progress over the past two decades and the Maori Party must have known said clauses would be up for review. After all, the government was open in their intentions to sell state assets, meaning they were open about their intentions to reform the SOE act. The party must have been aware that s9 would come under review.

The party is either 1) receiving poor advice OR 2) whipping up Maori fervour for political gain. I think it’s a bit of both. The Maori Party would have known what was coming when National announced a series of hui to consult Maori. So they were in the loop only a few days ago. They sat on the information for a day, Hone Harawira then found out s9 was up for review and went public with the claim that s9 can stop asset sales proceeding. Hone hogged the headlines and threatened to own what was, in the Maori Party’s eyes, their story. As a result, they went nuclear with the threat to leave, thus reclaiming the story and positioning themselves as the champions of Maori interests. They, the Maori Party I mean, needed to shift left and reposition as the real Maori Party. The party continued to bleed support and, until now, failed to treat the wound. Meaning they continued to drift right and further right. Given this shift, the party needed to steer left and also bust the perception that the party was selling out Maori interests. The perception that the Maori Party were “sell outs” took hold last term and always threatened to sink them.

Like I said yesterday, I don’t think the Maori Party is going to walk. The Prime Minister has put what appears to be a sensible, or elegant as he terms, compromise on the table. A treaty clause will inserted, but it will apply to the government only and not private investors. It wouldn't be a massive loss if the Maori Party accept the deal. In the eyes of Maori they appear to have strong armed the government and, as an added bonus, they get to keep Whanau Ora, the constitutional review, the poverty committee and so on. Most importantly for them, they get to keep a seat at the table – after all their entire re-election was predicated on the fact that the party would occupy a seat at the table.

On the other hand, if the Maori Party cut their losses and leave their survival post-2014 would almost be guaranteed, however it would be open season on the Maori seats. Taking the principled road, read leaving National, would be a move that would go along way towards reclaiming the tino rangatiratanga vote. The Maori Party comes away having reasserted their independence and their credentials as Maori advocates.

Although, having the Maori Party in opposition would leave little room for the Mana Party. There isn’t enough real estate for two Maori Parties in opposition. With that in mind, I’d rather see the Maori Party stay. Better to have a Maori party on each side of the fence (i.e. one in opposition and one in government). Ultimately, the Maori Party will probably stay. This seems to be the opinion of most. But don’t underestimate what a potent issue this is. The Treaty has always meant far more to Maori than it ever has for other New Zealanders.

Morning Report

2012-02-01T06:01:00.000+13:00

I'll be on RNZ's Morning Report today sometime between 8.00 and 8.30 . I'll be speaking on the Maori Party's threat to walk away from their deal with National. Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer will be speaking beforehand on s9 of the SOE Act (Sir Geoffrey was the architect of s9). You can stream the show here.

Jones advocates mining

2012-02-01T06:00:00.000+13:00

Shane Jones is running an interesting line – a pro-mining line:

The Labour Party says it might come as a revelation to some that not all Maori are opposed to mining and oil drilling.

Maori Economic Development spokesperson Shane Jones says there is a fossilised view that Maori aren't interested or capable of making pragmatic decisions.

While he acknowledges there are been pockets of resistance, Mr Jones says there's a variety of views - not a monolithic one.

He’s right in one respect: there isn’t a singular view. However, I would guess, that the vast, vast majority of Maori oppose mining. Case in point, the almost universal opposition of the East Coast against oil prospecting, let alone oil drilling. In 2010 iwi leaders also rejected government suggestions to mine Maori land and Northland iwi sent a strong message that exploratory miners will be treated as “trespassers”. I think Dayle Takitimu’s open letter to the Maori Party represents Maori feeling well.

It’s interesting to see Shane Jones searching for what he keeps terming “pragmatic” ideas. Jones should be applauded for stepping out, but advocating mining, as I have said previously, runs contrary to Maori values (think kaitiakitanga) and David Shearer’s (read Labour’s) vision for a clean, green and clever economy.

I come back to the idea of hypocrisy. We, as Maori, share a special connection with the land and we like to remind people of this. However, Maori advocacy for mining is out of step with our claims to be the kaitiaki of the land. We cannot, on the one hand, denounce mining as a crime against Papatuanuku, while on the other hand, one of our leaders trumpets mining as a panacea.

Surely other options for economic development exist. For example, aquaculture, like this aquaculture set up in Opotiki, may provide economic growth for Maori on the East Coast. Maori have generations of experience in primary production, therefore, we probably have a competitive advantage when it comes to food production. Aquaculture products, like the sea cucumber which is a sought after delicacy in Chine, are value added products. Any operation on the East Coast would have to deal in value added products as the operation would lack the ability to produce high volumes of product. Therefore, value added products like sea cucumber, lobster/cayfish and so on fit nicely in a low intensity operation.

It isn’t harmful to have a debate about mining. Either way, I think Jones’ idea would be soundly rejected.

Tania Martin takes aim at Te Arataura

2012-02-01T05:55:00.000+13:00

Tania Martin, the Chair of Tainui’s Te Kauhanganui, has released the latest Chairperson’s report. The report deals with a number of issues, including comments on the performance of Te Arataura at 9.9 as well as comments on the distribution of Tainui funds at 10.1. Ms Martin notes that:

“we’re (Tainui) spending more and more and distributing less and less”.

The report states that the distribution in the 2009 financial year was 48% of tribal income, but in the 2011 financial year that figure dropped to 22%. Ms Martin juxtaposes the total distribution figure against expense figures. In the 2011 financial year Tainui, or more accurately Te Arataura, spent 65% of tribal income on expenses. Expenses include operational costs like admin and contracting costs.

Ms Matin states “we’re spending more and more” and holds that this is unacceptable. Fair enough. Tribal funds should, in the main, be distributed to tribal beneficiaries rather than towards incredibly high running costs.

The report also comments on the ongoing litigation in Tainui at 11 and cites five cases that have come before the Courts. The report concludes saying that the troubles in Tainui don’t have anything to do with the structure of the tribe, rather the “people in that structure”. I agree, but I also stand by my criticisms of the ridiculous complexity of post-settlement iwi structures. Tainui is the most prominent example. Complexity breeds uncertainty and affords bad characters the ability to muddy the waters with legal obstruction.

Hat tip Eraka's blog

Apologies

2012-01-31T15:42:00.000+13:00

In the comments section of a post I wrote a few days ago I labelled Wira Gardiner, while Sir Wira Gardiner, a house nigger. In hindsight, that was both unkind and inappropriate and I apologise unreservedly to Wira Gardiner and anyone who took offence. It’s the nature of blogging, really, sometimes you say things in the heat of the moment that you regret. I accept that it was wrong and that I am doing more harm than good. I have my moments, fresh out of my teenage years I sometimes revert to teenage stupidity. That’s one of the big downsides of blogging. You sometimes say and do things you otherwise wouldn’t after mulling over it. However, with blogging you write something and then fire it off to be preserved in cyber space forever. Anyway, I do reiterate my comments were inappropriate and I extend my apologies. I have to realise now, with the increasing weight my word holds, that I cannot go undermining my credibility with silly and hurtful comments.

Maori Party contemplates split (updated)

2012-01-31T14:27:00.000+13:00

The Maori Party seems to have found it’s backbone. From the Herald:

The Maori Party is considering breaking from the National-led Government over asset sales.

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says the party will consider walking out of its relationship with the National Party if a Treaty clause is not extended to those state owned enterprises tagged for partial sale.

Ms Turia said today that the issue was similar to the foreshore and seabed issue for Maori.

"If it comes down to the wire, the Maori Party will have to consider its position with the Government."

She said the party would meet with iwi leaders to gather their reaction, although some had already made their displeasure known. She said the party was beholden to iwi and its constituents and would follow their lead.

You have to wonder whether the Maori Party intended to break from the agreement all along. The party’s decision to re-enter a relationship with National defied logic, although it was consistent with the party’s rhetoric around being “at the table”. If, and it’s a big if I should add, the Maori Party turn their back on the government Maori faith in the party will be renewed and the Maori Party will, I think, have a fighting chance at the next election.

Of course, it’s a big decision. The Maori Party built their election campaign around the idea that it’s better to be at the table, read the Cabinet table, than outside banging at the door. The party will also have to sacrifice it’s baby – Whanau Ora. The National Party will, out of spite, axe the program. Tariana Turia has spent her entire parliamentary career building Whanau Ora. With that in mind, I find it difficult to imagine her sacrificing it.

The refusal to insert a treaty clause is a significant issue for Maori. It’s about progress. Maori fought hard for treaty clauses and now that we have them we are dead set against taking a step back. S9 has been central to the Maori rights movement for the past two decades. The Maori Party realises this. After all their selling out last term, they still have a feel for tino rangatiratanga.

It will be a delicate compromise for Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia. Do they walk away and risk leaving Maori out in the cold for three years. With the Maori Party out of the picture the government has no cover when passing left wing and pro-Maori legislation – meaning the government will probably opt to pass on anything pro-Maori. After all, pro-Maori stuff doesn’t exactly play well with National’s base.

Without the Maori Party Maori funding is likely to come under the gun. Cuts at Te Puni Kokiri, cuts to Maori education, Maori health and any other Maori program that speaks to perceived “special treatment”.

The party leadership have announced that they will consult with iwi and Maori generally on whether a treaty clause is make or break. I’ve already pointed out that Maori support for asset sales is dwindling. I think the overwhelming message will be ditch the deal with National. The absence of a treaty clause will diminish the power (mana) iwi have in relation to NZ resources. The Maori elitie will not take a threat to iwi power lightly. The consensus among flaxroot Maori will echo the iwi consensus. Diminishing Maori mana and rangatiratanga is unacceptable.

Pita Sharples has warned that this issue may flare tensions at Waitangi. All governments should know by now not to give Maori a reason to protest at Waitangi, because everyone knows Maori will take it. It’s a bad look for the Prime Minister too. Minus some moments from a few fringe activists, John Key has enjoyed a positive reception at Waitangi. This year, should the government keep their current course, Key can expect massive protest as well as, rumour is having it, a hikoi later in the year. Then again, nothing will boost the PM’s popularity like a Maori hikoi.

Without the buffer the Maori Party provides John Key’s government will be fragile. Peter Dunne is a reliable subordinate, but it doesn’t take much to bring down a one seat government. Julia Gillard’s shaky coalition is a case in point. Then again, a one man majority is still a majority. This means the Maori Party doesn't hold much leverage. As I said, a walk out means the government has no cover to pass left legislation, thus compromising their centrist appeal. However, I doubt National intends to run a centrist line this term, therefore the Maori Party becomes expedient.

Anyway, I’ve dragged this out longer than intended to. The next few days will be interesting.

Iwi hypocrisy

2012-01-31T13:24:00.002+13:00

I don’t often agree with Cactus Kate, but – surprisingly – I think she is right to take Ngai Tahu to task for selling off their land.

Ngai Tgahu know all about asset sales so should be supporting National's privatisation programme. Here are just two recent examples of Maori more than happy to flog off their assets to foreigners who need OIO approvals.

In 2010 they sold 1348 hectares in Kaikoura to an American couple for 7.5 million dollars. They paid 8 million dollars so made a $500,000 loss.

In 2011 they sold 18,000 hectares of forest to a Swiss owned family company for 22.9 million dollars. And continue to manage it. Alf Grumble reported it at the time on his blog noting the hypocrisy and lies of Tuku Morgan in relation to asset sales. Ngai Tahu sold this land under the euphemism of a "change in investment strategy". National are having that same change in investment strategy selling stakes in SOE's.

“Iwi won’t sell and the investment is intergenerational,” Morgan says.

Iwi shouldn’t be flogging off their land. It runs counter to Maori values. Ngai Tahu tipuna spent generations fighting for the return of their land. And for what? For iwi corporates to sell it off in the name of “investment strategy”. The whenua is, in Te Ao Maori, inalienable. Why don’t our so called leaders know this?

When you sell the land you also sell your rangatiratanga. Therefore, you sell your right to a place.

But most importantly, Ngai Tahu is undermining Maori in the eyes of the public. On the one hand, we talk about the land as sacred, inalienable and so on. While on the other hand we slyly flog it off for a handful of cash. Those aren’t my values and those aren’t Maori values.

Treaty won't stop asset sales (updated)

2012-01-31T12:12:00.000+13:00

I was in a rush to write this post, so it's not as considered as I'd like.

Despite Hone Harawira’s enthusiasm, I doubt s9 of the SOE Act can stop asset sales. From TVNZ:

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira is making a bold claim that the Treaty of Waitangi can be used to stop state owned asset sales and is calling on Maori to reject the necessary law change at a series of Government-organised Hui.

The Government has planned a series of hui to consult with Maori on legislative changes it considers necessary in order to float the minority shareholdings of four State Owned Enterprises (SOEs).

"Section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act says that the Crown must not act in a manner inconsistent with the Treaty. And to sell off assets that Maori still have claim over is inconsistent with the Treaty," Harawira told TV ONE's Breakfast.

"The Treaty is stopping the Government from flogging off the nation's assets, so they're gonna throw the Treaty out," claims Harawira.

The Waitangi Tribunal (WT) sets out the following principles: reciprocity and partnership, active protection, equity and options and redress. The Court follows, roughly speaking, the same principles. However, unlike the WT, the Court explicitly recognises the Crown’s right to govern and the duty to consult as stand alone principles.

A Maori claimant could lodge a claim with the WT, but a WT decision would have no binding effect. A claim would have to be filed in the High Court. In my opinion, a case exists, but not a very strong one.

If I were the claimant, I’d argue that the Crown is breaching the principle of active protection. Under this principle the Crown must take active steps to ensure Maori interests are protected. The sale of SOE’s runs contrary to Maori interests as, arguably, the Crown’s ability to offer redress is affected through the loss ongoing revenue and the loss of land that could be included in any settlement. A broader argument is that Maori consumers will be affected through higher power prices and decreased government services in the long run. The late Sir Robin Cooker, NZ’s greatest jurist, held that the Crown’s duty is “not merely passive but extends to active protection of Maori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable”. As you can see, a strong obligation rests on the Crown.

The sale of state power companies will also impact on Maori relationships with their taonga. The WT holds that “The Treaty guarantee of rangatiratanga requires a high priority for Maori interests when proposed works may impact on Maori taonga. If the Crown is ever to be justified in exercising it’s power to govern in a manner which is inconsistent with and overrides the fundamental rights guaranteed to Maori in Article II, it should be only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort in the national interest”. Reducing the deficit is in the national interest, however on any objective measure asset sales are not the option of last resort.

Selling state power companies will also affect the relationship Maori have with their waterways (i.e taonga). Maori will have fewer rights when it comes to determining the status and use of rivers, tributaries, dams and so on.

The debate around what, if any, rights Maori have in relation to water is still not settled. Given the Crown does not know exactly what rights Maori have, or should have, it would be unfair to pass off water rights to private entities. It is incumbent upon the Crown to actively give affect to and protect Maori property rights and management rights, however if water rights are passed onto private interests Maori customary rights will be diminished against private property rights. Clearly, if the government passes on water rights to private interests this will run against the principle of active protection.

These are just some of the arguments that can be made against the government. I have not taken into account previous decisions of the Court that may favour or harm a claim against the government. At the end of the day, the Crown has a right to govern as they see fit. I come back to Sir Cooke who said “the principles of the Treaty do not authorise unreasonable restrictions on the right of a duly elected government to follow its chosen policy. Indeed, to try and shackle the Government unreasonably would itself be inconsistent with those principles”. Hone Harawira can hope that the Treaty will stop asset sales, but if you ask me he’s hoping in vein.

UPDATE: I should add that it makes perfect commercial sense to exempt a treaty clause, meaning a s9 type clause, from the new legislation needed to sell shares in the SOEs. A treaty clause would add some uncertainty around the assets and drive the share price down. However, refusing to insert a treaty clause in the new legislation is probably a breach of the principles.

Maori elitist to consult on asset sales

2012-01-27T15:02:00.002+13:00

John Hartvelt reports that Wira Gardiner, the ultimate Maori elitist and former candidate for the presidency of the National Party, will travel the country selling the government’s privatisation plan to Maori:

The husband of a Cabinet minister will broker a series of talks with Maori on the Government's partial asset sales plan.

Sir Wira Gardiner, who is married to Education Minister Hekia Parata, was today announced as the "facilitator" of a series of hui to consult with Maori on legislative changes for the partial float of four state-owned enterprises.

"We promised to talk with iwi when we originally announced plans to partially sell the four energy companies and Air New Zealand last year," Finance Minister Bill English said.

"We want to understand Maori views before we take final decisions."

State-Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall said specific investment opportunities would not canvassed at the hui, but iwi investment on a commercial basis would be welcomed.

Support for asset sales among iwi is dwindling. The Maori Party switched positions on the issue and now oppose the sales. Tuku Morgan came out in support of the Maori Party’s position so, presumably, he opposes the sales too. Ngai Tahu’s Mark Solomon appears to be the only iwi leader left interested. The other members of the Iwi Chairs Forum have not stated their positions, at least not publicly. However, we can probably assume Mana Party supporter Professor Margaret Mutu opposes the sale. Ngati Porou are directing their treaty resources towards agriculture, forestry and science and innovation. So, I would assume, Apirana Mahuika will not lend Ngati Porou’s support for asset sales. I’m not prepared to take a stab at the positions of the other leaders, but their positions aren’t that important anyway. Ngai Tahu and Tainui are the only iwi with any chance of getting a decent slice, and even then they will have to pool their resources.

Of course, iwi politics will prevent an iwi consortium forming. Tuku Morgan, who first floated the idea of forming an iwi conglomerate, cannot control his own table let alone a dozen more. Toxic politics affects most iwi and will undermine efforts to form a functioning and sustainable company.

Hopefully the iwi leaders, or whoever turns up to these consultation hui, voice the position of the majority of Maori – no asset sales.

Breakfast blows it on toi moko

2012-01-27T11:45:00.000+13:00

Did anyone watch Breakfast yesterday? If so, did anyone else find it strange that Breakfast selected one Fiona Pienaar, a South African counselling lecturer, to speak on the return of the toi moko heads? The main thrust of the interview was; will Maori obtain closure with the return of the heads? Well, it’s not really about closure. Rather, returning the heads is a cultural imperative. In accordance with tikanga the heads must be returned to their people and whenua (land). I’m not having a go at Pienaar – it’s not her fault Petra Bagust conducted a poor interview. Bagust couldn’t see outside her euroentric prism and failed to grasp what Pienaar said at the beginning of the interview: the toi moko repatriation was about reconnecting the heads to the land – not relieving some sort of grief on the part of Maori. Comparing the toi moko return to Pike River was unhelpful too. Apples and oranges as they say. Bagust’s poor form continued throughout the interview. At the end of the interview she asked Pienaar, the South African counsellor remember, how Maori would be feeling. Uhhhm, if you wanted to ask those sorts of questions why didn’t you just get a Maori, Petra? Surely it’s easy to find a Maori who can speak competently on toi moko. I wonder if the Breakfast team is too lazy too find one, or they think an academic knows more than the average Maori.

UPDATE: Having said that, Lucas De Jong did well this morning covering the toi moko ceremony at Te Papa. Or at least it looked like he did - I wasn't paying much attention after yesterday's effort to be honest.

Eraka's blog

2012-01-26T18:17:00.002+13:00

I forgot to mention that a few days ago I added a new blog to the Maori blog list. Eraka's blog is an anonymous blog focussing on Tainui politics. It's a fascinating read. The author provides a valuable, albeit frenzied, perspective and sheds some light on the rotten goings on in Te Arataura and Te Kauhanganui. You can check it out here.

Let a Woman speak

2012-01-26T09:42:00.001+13:00

The Manawatu Standard reports:

Labour's Te Tai Hauauru candidate has blamed "iwi politics" for preventing her from addressing her party leader on her home marae at Ratana celebrations.

Soraya Peke-Mason was stopped from speaking during a powhiri to welcome members of the Labour, Green and Mana political parties on to Ratana Pa during yesterday's traditional political gathering.

Ms Peke-Mason, who finished second in the Maori electorate in November's election, said she was not disappointed at what happened as the message she had wanted to deliver was presented on her behalf by the chairman of the executive committee, Waka Palmer.

Ratana Church secretary William Meremere said Ms Peke-Mason had asked to speak on the marae but that was opposed by "family members".

Mr Meremere said the objection was not because of concerns about anything Ms Peke-Mason might have said, but because of tikanga.

There were protocols regarding who could speak on the marae and whether women could speak, he said.

Special dispensations had been made at times, Mr Meremere said. Former prime minister Helen Clark had been allowed to speak at Ratana in previous years, he said.

A Woman’s right to speak during powhiri is an interesting debate. There appear to be two schools of thought. One side says the rules, or kawa, of the powhiri are laid down by the Gods to protect mauri (life force) and, therefore, cannot be altered. The other view holds that the guidelines, or tikanga, of powhiri are flexible and change with time to meet differing conditions, changing norms and so on. I like to subscribe to the second school of thought, but the first school, I think, is the culturally correct view.

But cultures should be flexible and, in my opinion, there is no need to hold steadfast to the rule that women are not allowed to speak from the paepae. There is no longer any rationale for the rule, other than superstition. The role of women in Maori society is changing and the rules of powhiri should change to reflect this.

I should add that not all Marae prevent women from speaking from the paepae. I think some Marae of Ngati Porou allow women to speak, as do a number of others across the motu. One of my Marae, Kokohinau, is particularly rigid when it comes to a woman's right to speak. Even during the last night of tangi (the po whakamutunga) where a ceremony for the immediate family is held, women are forbidden from speaking. Yes, even the wife of the deceased would be barred from speaking at her own husbands’ ceremony. There appears to me no good reason for this, other than the patriarchy holding steadfast to long diminished cultural rationales.

My explanation for this is thus: given we, as Maori, lost many aspects of our culture we’re determined to keep a tight grip on what we retain. Often this means we’re reluctant to let go of or change what we have. Which is fair enough, but there some things cannot continue into the 21st century.

In 2005 Pita Sharples led the call to give women the right to speak during powhiri. It’s a shame his call didn’t gain much traction. It wouldn’t hurt us to reopen this debate.

Ratana celebrations begin

2012-01-24T09:04:00.000+13:00

The poli-scramble at Ratana begins today. Labour leader David Shearer will be welcomed onto the Marae alongside much of his caucus and, symbolically, Metiria Turei and the Green’s Maori caucus. As is tradition, Labour will enter the Marae and meet with the Ratana leadership before National. If my memory serves me correctly the only occasion where National was invited onto the Marae before Labour was in 2010. Mana’s Hone Harawira will also enter the Marae this week with his Ratana Minister, Kereama Pene (unless he already has). The Maori Party’s Pita Sharples will accompany the Prime Minister when he enters the Marae (Tariana Turia is already on the Marae) and Winston Peters will visit tomorrow.

Interestingly, the Greens will accompany Labour onto the Marae. This is, I believe, a first. The decision to invite the Green’s onto the Marae with Labour signals, perhaps, the beginning of Maori acceptance of the Green’s as a party of Maori and for Maori. Prior to the election, the Greens were viewed as an outlier when it came to things Maori. The party often polled sub 5% among Maori despite strong Maori representation within the parliamentary wing, a comprehensive Maori policy statement and a consistently pro-Maori stance. In 2012 this, coupled with the ascension of Metiria Turei and serious Green candidates in the Maori electorates, appears to be contributing to an acceptance of the Greens as a Maori party.

Labour will also hold their caucus meeting on the Marae and the party will look to make maximum use of Rino Tirikatene. Rino and his whanau are well connected to the Ratana movement. David Shearer and Labour’s media team have lost no time in making this known. Louisa Wall, MP for Manurewa, is also connected to the Church.

Despite the pro-Labour mood, we should expect to see some anti-Labour rhetoric. The Marae is a place for debate and dissenting views are always encouraged. In front of the nation’s media some anti-Labour Ratana members may look to make a point.

The mood at the Pa appears, to me at least, far less favourable towards National and the Maori Party. Labour, the Greens and Mana could, if they play it right on the paepae and among the people, reclaim some of the ground lost to National and the Maori Party in previous years.

Ratana fawning begins

2012-01-23T09:44:00.002+13:00

The year in Maori politics begins this week with politicians red, blue and Green descending on Ratana Pa. From Stuff:

The annual battle for political support from a Maori religious group will get under way tomorrow with opponents looking to deepen the divide between Labour and their traditional Ratana ally.

Labour leader David Shearer will make the pilgrimage for the first time since taking over the party reins.

Just before Mr Shearer and his Labour team are welcomed on to the marae tomorrow afternoon, Prime Minister John Key and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples will lead the government delegation on.

Also in the mix will be NZ First leader Winston Peters, Mana leader Hone Harawira and the Green Party's Maori caucus.

National, NZ First and the Greens will gain nothing, zilch, from the Ratana movement. Ratana will never officially desert Labour, so long as Labour remains loosely pro-Maori. Not even the Maori Party could convince the Church to ditch Labour. Maori, or more specifically Ratana followers, have too much respect for history and too much fear for the consequences of dishonouring their ancestor’s traditions to desert Labour.

To be honest, the Church is no longer a significant electoral force. Ratana claims some 60,000 members. This is, in my opinion, an inflated claim. 60,000 may have an association to the Church, but I doubt that there are 60,000 active members. For arguments sake, let’s say the Church is comprised of 60,000 active members. Even then, for the Church to exercise any real influence the leadership must ensure their followers vote in concert. However, Maori – and by extension Ratana followers - no longer vote in a bloc. Cultural change has led to growing independence – meaning Maori no longer take the word of their leaders as law. Growing political choice has also ensured that Maori can exercise their independence and take their vote elsewhere – for example the Maori Party. As Maori society becomes more secular Ratana’s influence will continue to diminish. 1996, the year NZ First swept the Maori seats, marked the end of the Ratana Church holding the casting vote in the Maori electorates.

Anyway, the point I want to make is that the Ratana celebrations are nothing more than a photo opportunity for Labour, National, NZ First and the Greens. As I said, the Ratana celebrations mark the beginning of the Maori political year. The celebrations are also the first political event of the year and a good precursor, or warm up event, for Waitangi weekend. Bar some extraordinary event, the traditional welcome for politicians onto the pa usually leads the 6 o’clock news and all of the major papers carry a Ratana piece. In previous years John Key has played the week very well. A quick google of ‘ratana john key’ brings up headlines like “Warm Welcome for John Key and National MPs at Ratana” and “Confident Key points to gains in Speech at Ratana”. If you google ‘ratana phil goff’ the first result reads “PM takes swipe at Hone Harawira” which, as you’d expect, is a story about the Prime Minister at Ratana which only gives brief mention of Phil Goff.

If a politician can do something even remotely newsworthy, they can milk the media for the entire week. John Key has done it each year. One year he planted speculation that Ratana was considering cutting ties with Labour. Another year he used his speech to outline National’s work for Maori. Last year he used the week to launch attacks on Hone Harawira. I wonder if David Shearer, unlike his predecessor, can cook up the same sort of media smarts as John Key and his team.

Shane Jones on asset sales and mining

2012-01-19T11:31:00.000+13:00

You might remember Shane Jones’ bout of honesty following Labour’s election defeat. Jones came out saying that Labour got beat and beat good. Jones advocated a new approach and a period of reflection. The media and the commentariat praised him for his willingness to be upfront with the public and his party. However, towards the end of December Jones stretched his honesty a little far. Firstly, he came out effectively endorsing iwi looking to invest in state assets. A few days later Jones, as Labour’s regional development spokesperson, moved to champion mining for job starved areas.

I don’t think it was a sensible move to come out and effectively endorse iwi investment in state assets. Yes, Jones is of the northern conservative breed. He is also a product of iwi politics. But his comments go against Labour’s strong opposition and Maori opposition to asset sales. Labour does not need to cosy up to iwi. Iwi have an agenda and furthering that agenda will always involve cultivating a cosy relationship with the government of the day. Shane Jones, and the rest of the Maori caucus for that matter, would be better served advocating a different approach for iwi. Labour should publicly lobby iwi to invest in their own people. The line doesn’t mean much, but it goes down hella well with Maori.

The less sensible move was Jones’ mining advocacy. Mining is an economic solution for dry minds. It’s also bad politics. Mining is an idea that is in conflict with Maori values. It runs against the idea of kaitiakitanga and most other Maori values you can think of. It also runs against Kiwi values and Labour’s new direction. David Shearer is promoting Labour’s vision for a “clean, green, clever” economy. Surely that economy will exclude dirty extractive industries. Jones would also do well to remember that the largest protest in a generation was against mining.

Shane Jones is now the highest ranked Maori in Labour. So basically the spokesperson for all issues Maori. I hope Jones’ form recently is not something to go by. If it is, Labour’s going to have a hard time.

More trouble in Tainui

2012-01-19T10:15:00.001+13:00

Trouble in Tainui continues with the King signalling his intentions to take over Te Kauhanganui (Tainui Parliament) and Te Arataura (Tainui Executive). From the Waikato Times:

Discussions to replace the Maori King have ramped up after he announced he wanted to take over Tainui's tribal parliament.

King Tuheitia, also the paramount chief of Waikato-Tainui, told a meeting at Horahora marae, near Rangiriri, on New Year's Day he wanted to take control of the tribe's parliament, Te Kauhanganui (TK), and its executive, Te Arataura (TA). He warned Tainui marae not to attend the next meeting of the tribal parliament, scheduled for February 26.

King Tuheitia also said he wanted to see the back of the Tainui executive's controversial leader Tukoroirangi Morgan, and demanded a new TA.

The Kingitanga sits above TK, but in a ceremonial sense rather than a legal sense. TK is, I believe, an incorporated society with its own rules that prevent the King from removing trustees and, for lack of a better term, commandeering the society. Case in point, when the King removed Tania Martin as Chair of TK the Court found that the King had no legal power to do so. Consequently, Martin was reinstated. TK’s rules state that the Chair can only be removed or instated via a tribal vote. The same rules apply to TA. Therefore, the King cannot remove Tuku Morgan.

I think it’s funny that the King wants to use his ceremonial power to remove Tuku. Last year when the King removed, or tried to remove, Tania Martin, he did so at the request of Tuku Morgan. Tuku obviously believed the King had the legal power, or more probably the mana, to remove her. Now, the shoe is on the other foot and the King is looking to use his authority as Arikinui of Tainui to remove Tuku. I wonder if Tuku will cry foul, even though he tried to have the same thing done almost a year ago.

I don’t think the King is going to be removed, nor do I think the King will do any removing. The tribe is too dysfunctional. TA is delaying the election of a new board and there are accusations of financial cover ups and crony appointments. Last year Tainui stumbled from controversy to controversy. Trouble in Tainui erupted when Tania Martin released a damning report criticising TA. In response, Tuku Morgan lobbied Kingi Tuheitia to remove Tania Martin as Chair of TK. The King subsequently sacked Ms Martin only for the Court to reinstate her. Martin then publicly released an affidavit which was a damning indictment against TA. TA responded in kind with Tuku publicly slagging Tania Martin on Native Affairs. The tit for tat battle continued with the main events been the repeated attempts by TA to block meetings of TK, a police complaint against Tania Martin and, finally, a failed vote to remove Tuku Morgan.

I’m not sure how to the tribe will fix their problems, hell, a clean out of TK and TA might be the right approach. However, this will never happen with the cunning fox Tuku Morgan on one side and the blundering bear Kingi Tuheitia on the other.

Having said that, if anyone has the mana to redirect Tainui it’s Kingi Tuheitia. However, the likes of Morgan and the rest of TA think that they’re above everyone, even the King and TK. TA won’t go down without a fight, and if they do go down they’ll bring the whole house crashing down too. I’m not seeing a clean solution to this. Last year I simplified Tainui's problems down to:

Rotten personalities and toxic tribal politics. Tainui has experienced more than its share of internal political dramas, then again most Iwi have, but Tainui’s problems seem to play out on the national stage. For me this saga speaks to the unnecessary complexity of Iwi post-settlement entities and the self-interest many of the Iwi elite operate with. The Tainui Brown Table is a putrid one, one that needs to be destroyed and remade. Remade with the interests of the people at its core. The problem Te Arataura has is that they operate like a business. They treat their operations like they are a massive corporation and the people like they are expendable and marginal shareholders. In my opinion, the sooner Tuku and his mates are removed the sooner Te Arataura can go back to serving the people.

I think that still stands.

Darien Fenton and online discipline (updated)

2011-12-15T09:39:00.003+13:00

This is a comment from Labour’s Darien Fenton on a post from Nov 28:

Morgan : what a load of cobblers. I found this on Annette Sykes website, and I was appalled. You've picked up the anti union/working class MSM line: I'm a working class woman, with ancestry you know nothing about, who has worked supporting low paid workers for many years and who has continued to do so in parliament. I'm no "high flyer" but do the hard yards and your comments are elitist and ignorant. You also need to understand MMP a little better. I was first elected as No. 43 on Labour's list and then 33 the following term. Stu was 28 and Kelvin 23 in 2011 - both great positions that recognised their potential and ability; but 27% of people gave us their party vote and we won four seats we didn't have at the last election. I'm annoyed at the shallowness of your analysis. I thought you might be better than this.

Darien is Labour’s new junior whip (JW). Whips are responsible for caucus discipline. However, as evidenced in the above, she has not exercised discipline herself. It is a cardinal sin for an MP to engage a blogger. The MP adds legitimacy to the blogger and the bloggers’ claim. You cannot win a fight with a blogger. You can win the battle, in other words you can win the argument, but you lose the war. Trevor Mallard smashed Whaleoil in their cycle race, but Whale still won the war. Trevor was pulled down to Whale’s level and smashed in the mud fight.

Darien, as JW, is unwise to go around engaging bloggers. She risks turning what was an irrelevant claim from a small time blogger, read myself, in to something serious. Imagine if this comment was left on Kiwiblog, or any other right blog for that matter. Darien would be crucified.

In my valueless opinion, Darien (as JW) should impose online discipline on Labour MPs. No commenting on blogs would be a good start. Also, don’t acknowledge bloggers, hell, don’t even say their names.

Now, I accept Darien’s right to take me to task. She has an even greater right given my unkind comments towards her. And hey, maybe I am elitist and ignorant. But isn't it just monumentally stupid though, to engage me?

~~(This post is written on the assumption it actually was Darien Fenton who commented, not some online loser. I'm sure I'll be corrected if this wasn't Darien).~~ It was.

UPDATE: I may be elitist and ignorant, but cannot see for the life of me where I have picked up the "anti union/working class MSM line". Also, as a public law student I think I have a pretty decent understanding of MMP. Having said all of this, I accept my comment about Darien's ability was ungracious and uncalled for and I apologise.

UPDATE 2: Originally Darien had a go at Annette Sykes, attributing what I had written to her. I don't know how that mistake is made.

Back Benches

2011-12-13T22:32:00.003+13:00

Sorry, we were filming Back Benches for next weekend, not tonight. The episode will screen next Wednesday.

Back Benches tonight

2011-12-13T06:00:00.000+13:00

I'll be on Back Benches again tonight. The show will screen at 8pm (not 9pm like most weeks) and I'll join One New's Jessica Mutch, Vic pol scientist Ana Gilling and Jordan Williams from Vote for Change.

Is it me or do they stack these panels with righties? Last time I was on I was the token lefty (David Farrar, Mark Unsworth and Ana were the other panelists) and it looks like I'm the token lefty again.

Waatea with Willie Jackson

2011-12-12T09:45:00.001+13:00

I'll be on Waatea Radio today with Willie Jackson sometime after 11 and no later than 11.30pm. We'll be talking about the Maori Party I think.

On a slightly unrelated note, this will be my last post until January. When I'm back I'll whack out my promised election post mortem and I'll update the best and worst performing Maori politicians page.

Thanks for all your support this year. I really do appreciate it. Thanks especially to everyone that's commented and emailed me. You keep me on my toes and, at times, bring me back down to earth. Thank you.

Morgan

On the Maori Party deal with National

2011-12-12T09:31:00.001+13:00

Despite taking a hit, the Maori Party has signed up for another three years with National. The two parties have signed a confidence and supply agreement as well as a new relationship accord. The agreement differs from the last in that the Maori Party can vote on an issue by issue basis (except on matters of confidence and supply, for example the budget). Obviously, this gives the Maori Party room to oppose asset sales. However, as much as the Maori Party would like to distance themselves from asset sales, and the government’s larger agenda for that matter, the party is still going to be tainted by association.

The agreement includes the establishment of a ministerial committee on poverty, chaired by Bill English and deputy chaired by Tariana Turia. With English at the helm I doubt the government will dismiss the committee in the same way Act’s economic taskforce was ignored last term. The Maori Party needs to reclaim Maori poverty from Mana (Mana owned the issue last term) and bust the perception that they favour the symbolic over the substantive. Having said that, with the government committed to returning to surplus the next three budgets will probably be zero sum. With that in mind the committee will just be a flash vehicle for reshuffled funding and, as a result, just another symbolic win for the Maori Party.

The agreement also includes an undertaking to shift the focus of Te Puni Kokiri (TPK) towards jobs, education and housing. Again, an attempt at making substantive gains, however, again, the win is weak. It is difficult for many Maori, if not most, to connect changes in TPK to real world gains. I think this particular policy is more about protecting TPK. TPK was, I think, first in line for cuts this term. However, with an increased and broadened focus I doubt the government can cut staff and funding without crippling the agency and undermining the Maori Party. Then again, when has that ever stopped them.

The big announcement is the retention and expansion of whanau ora – the Maori Party’s trophy policy. A stand alone commissioning agency, whatever the hell that is, will be established and funding for rheumatic fever will be doubled to $24m, 20,000 more low income homes will be insulated and work will progress on iwi providing social housing. The Maori Party’s re-election strategy revolved around whanau ora so no surprise to see the above. The rheumatic fever funding is, in my opinion, a huge win for the Maori Party. For example, in Tai Tokerau rheumatic fever was the dominant health issue and many voters were calling on their MP, Hone Harawira, to address the problem. Of course, Hone was and is in no position to do so – he actually had to point to work done when he was a member of the Maori Party thus undermining his decision to split from the party. The home insulation win is neither here nor there. Iwi providing social housing is not new, but with government backing we should see proliferation.

Overall, a good deal for the Maori Party. The party is free to oppose the government on all issues except confidence and supply. This should, in theory, lead to a more independent image this term. In other words, it’ll be hard to accuse the Maori Party of being the National Party’s proxies in the Maori electorates. In terms of policy gains, I’d give the Maori Party 6/10. Nothing to set the world on fire, but nothing to complain about either. The challenge for the Maori Party will be to distance themselves from National’s agenda and destroy the perceptions created last term. For example, the perception (or reality some say) that the Maori Party sold Maori down the drain with the MCA Act, ETS, GST, ACC changes, the 90 day law and so on while only winning symbolic gains like the TRT flag over the harbour bridge. The symbol over substance argument.

Charter Schools and Maori

2011-12-07T12:13:00.001+13:00

Charter schools: at best the evidence is mixed, at worst the evidence is an indictment against the idea. There is no compelling evidence in clear support of the idea – or at least I’m not aware of anyone who has produced or pointed to any compelling evidence.

Over the past 48 hours a lot of has been written on charter schools, most of it rightly rubbishes the idea, but we haven’t seen anything from a Maori perspective. With that in mind, I’ll give an outline of the idea from a Maori perspective.

On first principle, the charter schools idea is attractive. Allowing iwi to take control of education in their rohe (area) satisfies the very foundation of tino rangatiratanga – the right of Maori to control things Maori. Any idea that will advance tino rangatiratanga is certainly welcome. The idea also fits nicely with the partnership principle i.e. the government funds education while Maori deliver it.

On a cynical level, the charter schools could, hypothetically speaking, mean profit. If the corporate arm of iwi, as opposed to say the social services arm, took responsibility for iwi charter schools then the motive would be profit. Controlling education would be another step in iwi’s desire for more control over New Zealand, especially in strategic areas. The iwi leaders are currently transfixed with delving into strategic resources and companies like geothermal power and Air New Zealand, but control over education is probably a far more potent area. Iwi could, hypothetically and cynically speaking of course, shape how their students see the world.

On a brighter note, iwi would be attracted to the idea as a means of reviving Maori culture. If our charter model is anything like the overseas models iwi would have the power to set the curriculum. Iwi could include subjects like rongoa (broadly speaking Maori medicine) or set up traditional wananga. This probably ties in to the principle of active protection i.e. the government, in allowing iwi to set such a curriculum, is taking active steps to protect Maori culture.

It’s a gamble though, allowing iwi anywhere near education. Iwi certainly have no experience in delivering education and I doubt there are many overseas models to draw on. Having said that, the kura kaupapa model is a good place to start. However, in my opinion kura kaupapa, although successful overall, are still suffering from teething problems. I don’t think it would be sensible for Iwi to deliver Maori language medium schools only too. Young Maori need to be prepared to enter the Pakeha world. This necessitates an element of mainstream education in whatever model iwi adopt.

I tentatively support the idea of iwi having some power over Maori education. This doesn’t mean I support the charter school model. In fact, I strongly oppose charter schools. I think it’s unfair that the overwhelmingly Maori populations in South Auckland and Christchurch East, along with the non-Maori population too, be subject to a trial of what is, at worst, a failed model. Surely John Banks should use his people in Epsom as guinea pigs for his pet idea. When the trial fails, or is repealed as soon as Labour gets in, New Zealand is going to have a subset of failed young people. I don’t think Act and National can see that there is a connection between poor policy and results in real world. Anyway, as above the idea of iwi control over Maori education is decent and if the charter idea goes ahead I’d support iwi involvement.

JT on Nanaia

2011-12-02T12:53:00.001+13:00

This dogshit rant doesn’t deserve the light of day, but it can’t go unchallenged. From Stuff.co.nz:

Former Labour MP John Tamihere has criticised David Cunliffe's choice of running mate for the party's leadership, saying he picked Nanaia Mahuta because she is female and Maori.

''The only thing she's lacking is she doesn't have a limp. Then he would have got the disabled [vote] too. That's the truth of it and that's the way it smacked as soon as I saw it.''

You can always rely on John Tamihere to call it how he sees it, and that’s a good quality, but sometimes the way he calls things is unnecessary and pathetic. The point JT is trying to make is that Nanaia was selected on tokenistic grounds. A fair point, no doubt, but the way he phrased his point was low – offensive basically. He may have got a laugh out of a few racists, ableists and fuckwits, beyond that his comment didn’t serve anyone. JT continues:

Tamihere said Cunliffe's choice of deputy was ''smarmy'' and typical of him.

''I'm the type of Maori that doesn't back dumb Maori, so I'm not saying she's a dumb Maori. I'm just saying if she was awfully meritorious, I'd back her 100 per cent, that has not been my experience.''

Nanaia was the standout in the Native Affairs Kowhiri 11 debates. She defeated her opponents by a Waikato mile in the debates and was, in my opinion, the best communicator of all the Maori candidates who fronted in the different debates. Nanaia is, in my experience, fiercely intelligent too. I don’t know how JT missed that. He must never listen to her I guess.

Jones was a better choice despite not having run a strong campaign in Tamaki Makaurau, Tamihere said.

''Out of the two of them you'd have to rate, on Labour Party values and on the street bringing the men's vote back and a whole bunch of other things, Shane all day long; if he can get over in his own mind the self mutilation that he conducted in that hotel room,'' Tamihere said.

I think this comment gives a hint to where JT is coming from. It seems to me that a little bit of sexism is at play. JT, of course, is no stranger to sexism. Yes, Nanaia is a woman and Shane is a man. That doesn’t make Shane the superior candidate.

JT has overstepped the mark. He didn’t need to launch an attack against Nanaia to prove his point. She’s a strong candidate and strong woman. She deserves respect not this sort of marginalisation.

UPDATE: Nanaia's ripped JT a new one calling him a "failed politician". She advises JT to "stick to his knitting". Nice.

Flavell to roll Sharples

2011-12-02T12:27:00.001+13:00

The Maori Party are neither left nor right. Or so they say. The Maori Party, apparently, do things the Maori way. In light of this, what do we make of these claims?

There could be a new face at the top of the Maori Party as early as next week.

ONE News has been told Te Ururoa Flavell is poised to take over from Pita Sharples as co-leader.

Flavell and Maori Party president Pem Bird flew into Wellington together today from Rotorua.

Bird said the plan to make the Wairakei MP co-leader "is an open secret".

"The issue is around when and how so," Bird said, but it is believed the idea is to have a new leader in place around the same time a deal is struck with National.

"That would be the goal," Bird said.

This is a leadership coup, no two ways about. But is a leadership coup the Maori way of doing things? Surely, after decades of service to Maori and more recently the Maori Party, Pita deserves to stand aside on his own terms? I don’t think Pita should have his mana trampled over in a brutal leadership coup. All power to Te Ururoa if he wants to stamp his mana, but some thought should be given to Pita’s dignity. The party owe him as much.

There’s no question that Te Ururoa should assume a leadership position in time. Both Tariana and Pita have indicated their intention to call it quits in 2014 and Te Ururoa is the only remaining MP. He is, according to many, the Maori Party’s most capable MP as well. With a number of bills in the ballot box and one bill, the Gambling Harm Reduction bill, due to come before the House this term Te Ururoa was, legislatively speaking, the most active Maori Party MP (leaving aside the two Ministers Pita and Tariana).

But is it wise to throw Te Ururoa in the mix now? I doubt it. In my opinion, it’s safer to have Te Ururoa take Tariana’s position when she steps down before the next election. A bloody coup will exacerbate the swing against the Maori Party in Tamaki Makaurau, opening the seat for all parties in 2014, and contribute to the perception that the Maori Party is a sinking ship. The Maori Party need unity, or at least a semblance of unity, too. Voters punish political parties for a lack of unity. Look no further than the Australian Labor Party, or even our own Labour Party.

I don’t know what is driving Te Ururoa and his supporters. With age Pita is losing much of his intellectual ability, that much is clear, but is he a liability? Of all of the Maori Party MPs Pita was and is the most effective MP when it comes to reaching across the racial and political divide. I doubt Te Ururoa, and also Tariana for that matter, possess the same skills.

This reminds me of the Hone Harawira expulsion drama. Te Ururoa and Pem Bird were leading the charge to eliminate Hone. They wanted Hone gone. There was no other option for them. The same is true here. Pita must go with no option two. With such an aggressive and uncompromising approach to politics one wonders whether Te Ururoa and Pem suit the Maori Party. The Maori Party is about careful compromise, but Te Ururoa and Pem don’t seem to know how to compromise. I wish them luck when they hopelessly deploy their bully boy tactics against National.

triple threat

2011-11-30T19:49:00.001+13:00

A few thoughts on Closeup’s interview with the main contenders for the Labour leadership:

Cunliffe:

Easily the strongest. Cunliffe was the most relaxed, concise and prepared. He also varied his tone and expression well. Cunliffe wisely played to his strengths intelligently identifying one of his weaknesses as a tendency to call “a spade a spade”. Of course this isn’t a weakness in the eyes of 90% of New Zealanders – it’s only a weakness in the eyes of Labour’s, and I hate using this term, PC brigade. However, Cunliffe could be perceived as smug, but hell he’s nowhere near as smug as Simon Bridges and the high priest of smug Steven Joyce.

Parker:

Parker stumbled early. A little stiff, which is to be expected, but unlike most he didn’t seem to loosen up as the night progressed. Strangely Parker kept claiming he can “touch people”. I thought that was a strange way to say he can connect with New Zealanders. Surprisingly, according to Parker he has no weaknesses as a leader. Wow. In the face of Labour’s massive defeat humility will go a long way. Someone should tell Parker.

Shearer:

I love Shearer’s story, but he didn’t look ready tonight. Under prepared and not very good off the cuff. That can be fixed though. Easy. Ultimately, he didn’t seem to ooze, for want to a better description, gravitas. Cunliffe and Parker looked and sounded more like leaders in waiting. Shearer, rightly in my opinion, focussed on the fact he’ll be different from the Clark government and he brings a fresh face. But I don't think that was enough in the face of his constantly stumbling. He was always searching for answers rather than firing them out.

Sainsbury:

He conducted a very blunt interview. What kind of serious interviewer asks if Parker, Shearer’s flat mate, has any “bad habits”. What a brain dead dick.

Finally, the txt poll had Shearer on top with 50%. Understandable. Cunliffe polled second and Parker third. On tonight's performance I'm backing Cunliffe. Shearer a close second and Parker a distant third. For me, the ideal ticket is Cunliffe as leader, Shane Jones as deputy, Parker at finance with Robertson, Ardern, Mahuta, Shearer, Twyford, Hipkins and Dalziel rounding out the top 10. Whatever happens I hope Chauvel (arrogant), Fenton (non-performer) and Mackey (non-performer) are kept well away. Labour should make a place for Damien O'Connor (the only Labour MP to win a National seat).

Shearer and Jones...

2011-11-29T15:22:00.001+13:00

Surely Labour need a leadership team like David Shearer and Shane Jones. Both men have "broken ranks" and acknowledged Labour's poor performance and the fact, yes fact, that Labour used the wrong recipe. The party needs to rebuild, rebrand and renergise and Shearer and Jones seem to be the only ones who aren't shying away from admitting this. Parker and Robertson are spinning, quite poorly too, the result. Cunliffe is neither here nor there, but he's a damn sight better than the Parker/Robertson duo. Grant Robertson, as one of the campaign architects, should be taking a long hard look at himself, his plan and his team. Do Labour really want a man who, although not single handedly, took the party to a historic defeat? Hardly leadership material if you ask me. And Parker? He doesn't set the world on fire. He is a weak debater and together with Robertson they are just too "Wellington". Too geeky, too inside, not enough cross section appeal. Cunliffe and Mahuta are my clear second choice, but Mahuta doesn't always come across well on TV. She does confrontational stuff very well, but I think she'll have trouble with soft media.

Mark Solomon on asset sales

2011-11-29T14:26:00.001+13:00

Ngai Tahu’s Mark Solomon joined Kathryn Ryan today in discussing asset sales. Here’s the link. Solomon outlined Ngai Tahu’s thinking on asset sales (as well as the broader Iwi leaders position). I found the following quite interesting: Solomon informed us that at the beginning of National’s first term he and other iwi leaders, by other iwi leaders I assume he means Tuku Morgan, met John Key, Bill English and other senior members of Cabinet. Presumably they met to talk about treaty settlements (relativity clause maybe?) and broader Maori issues. It should be noted the iwi leaders were accompanied by Pita Sharples which indicates that the Maori Party were working to open doors for iwi. Then again I think Ngai Tahu have used Saunders Unsworth in the past so it could be their work. Anyway, in the discussions Key said the government was cash strapped. In response Solomon put forward the idea of asset sales. Apparently he was rebutted with Key informing him that asset sales are off limits in the first term, however Key (or whoever) indicated their willingness to explore the sales in the second term. So it appears that iwi were interested in asset sales before the idea was floated publicly, or at least confirmed publicly. I think this is interesting.

Rino Tirikatene pointed out last night on Native Affairs that iwi should be exercising some entrepreneurial thought rather than relying on the government floating safe assets for them. I agree.

Solomon also acknowledged during the interview that individually iwi cannot hope to become major players; however Solomon holds that iwi can become major players as a collective. He argues iwi could obtain between 10-15% of any assets. This is optimistic, especially given Ngai Tahu’s position as a major infrastructure investor in Christchurch. I don’t think they have the ability to dip into state assets as well as infrastructure in Christchurch. The only other iwi with the financial clout to participate is Tainui, but they’re sinking a lot of money in to other commercial ventures like shopping malls (Te Awa, the Hamilton CBD etc).

Solomon, who I should note seems to be leading the asset sales charge instead of Tuku, believes iwi are the perfect buyers. Long term investors with exclusive interests in New Zealand. This is hard to argue with I guess. However, the other arguments against iwi involvement in asset sales still stand. For example, asset sales will, in all likelihood, lead to a decrease in government services. Iwi, as “major” investors, surely have an obligation to negate the effects of decreased services on Maori. However, iwi don’t have the economies of scale (nor the experience for that matter) to provide what government once did.

Ngai Tahu, and to a lesser extent Tainui, are positioning themselves well. For example Tainui, apparently, own half of the Tainui CBD. Nagi Tahu are positioning themselves to take a similar position in Christchurch. In fact Ngai Tahu own large tracts of the South Island (including many rural stations). The next step is for iwi is a slice of New Zealand’s strategic resources. Power companies are the obvious, and cheapest, choice. The first step essentially. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ngai Tahu make a move for a stake in Christchurch Airport. Tainui already own and operate the only hotel at Auckland Airport and the natural progression from there is a stake in the airport itself. Apparently Tainui’s biggest interest is in Air New Zealand at the moment.

Both Ngai Tahu and Tainui have a relativity clause. When they invoke the clause I think we could see them become huge players in the New Zealand economy.

Native Affairs post-election special

2011-11-29T11:47:00.001+13:00

If you didn’t watch Native Affairs last night, you should. In their last show for the year, and probably the best of the year, Julian and Annabelle hosted a raft of MPs and a brilliant panel (minus Mike King who was pretty bad).

Julian interviewed Pita Sharples, Winston Peters, Hone Harawira, Shane Jones, Meteria Turei, Rino Tirikatene, Simon Bridges and Louisa Wall. Annabelle discussed the interviews with Sandra Lee, Matt McCarten and Mike King. I don’t want to have a moan about Mike King, but I can’t let it slide that following Meteria’s interview King admitted to having never seen Meteria in action before. Even worse King then proceeded to speak of Meteria as if he’s never seen a sharp Maori women nor ever expected to see one. Prior to that King was salivating all over Winston again, just like he did on Saturday night.

Anyway, Pita Sharples came across as despondent. He found himself having to defend why the Maori Party lost a seat, had their party vote slashed and majorities in their remaining electorates slashed. Pita did have the good sense to admit the party’s relationship with National contributed to, or is still contributing to, the decline of the Maori Party.

Winston was, well he was Winston. Hugely charismatic, likeable in a mischief way and abrasive. Winston touched on good themes, for example poverty and asset sales, but he reverted to attacking the media when it wasn’t justified. He tried to dump Maori TV in the same basket as the mainstream media which was, in my opinion, patently unfair and a great way to burn bridges. After all, the Maori media have given Winston fair and consistent coverage.

Hone, true to form, gave a good interview. He was upfront and he added a dash of humour. Nothing really stood out.

Shane Jones. What a waste. The panel pointed out Shane was the first Labour MP to give an honest account of their loss. He didn’t sugar coat it, he didn’t repeat Labour’s lines, he called it as he saw it. 3 out 4 New Zealanders didn’t vote Labour (discounting the one million who didn’t vote) and that’s a problem they need to address.

Meteria Turei was the best performer of the night. As Mike King found out, Meteria is hugely intelligent, incredibly articulate and she’s pretty charismatic. The best Maori leader in Parliament in my opinion. Every thing was to the point and she didn’t deviate from the script.

Rino was given a soft interview and still seems like the win is yet to sink in. Julian almost caught Rino out when he put the proposition to him that would he support Ngai Tahu if they want to snap up SOEs. Rino seemed surprised and quickly stated Labour’s position.

Simon Bridges and Louisa Wall appeared together. Both MPs won huge majorities in their respective electorates. Louisa is the first Maori woman from Labour to win a general electorate and Simon is one of National’s best, no the best, Maori MP. Yes, better than Hekia Parata. In Mike King’s best call of the night he called Simon on his smugness. Mike correctly identified that NZders hate smug politicians, or smug people in general actually.The panel agreed Simon is a future leader of the National Party and maybe the first Maori Prime Minister. Agreed.

Parliament according to the Maori vote

2011-11-28T18:15:00.001+13:00

Here's an interesting graphic via Robbie Ellis. It shows what Parliament would look like according to the Maori vote:

Replacements for Rongotai and Mt Roskill

2011-11-28T08:10:00.001+13:00

Reading the morning papers I see both Phil Goff and Annette King intend to see out their terms as local MPs. That's, I guess, fair enough but they should step down as local MPs too for the good of the party. After all, Goff and King should take a lot of the blame for Labour's disgraceful list. The list that has turfed out three of their best young MPs (Carmel Sepuloni, Stuart Nash and Kelvin Davis) and some of their best old MPs (Steve Chadwick, Rick Barker). Instead the list protected useless nobody deadwood MPs like Darien Fenton. Darien who you say? exactly.

In my opinion King should stand down and hand Rongotai to Wellington City Councillor Paul Eagle. Eagle is widely known and well liked in Wellington, especially in Labour circles, and would strengthen the weakened brown guard in Labour. Unlike many in Labour, Eagle isn't a career politician. Sure, he's a Councillor but this is his first term and he hasn't come out of the Labour Party Parliamentary Office or from Fraser House (Labour's headquarters). Eagle is the rep for the southern ward which is Rongotai so no issue with him not being a local.

In Mt Roskill it's a little harder. I think it's a crime that Nash is no longer in Parliament. Maybe Labour could parachute Nash into the seat if Goff decided to stand down. What about Michael Wood? Hell, even Carmel Sepuloni. Labour are spoilt for choice in the seat if Goff does the right thing and resigns as an MP.

Bad polling

2011-11-27T14:51:00.001+13:00

I posted this in the comments section of another post, however I think it deserves a wider audience so I've copied and pasted here. These are the poll results from the election period Te Karere Digipolls compared with the actual results. Like I've said earlier, it shows that the polls were well out. I've rounded the numbers and have only included the main candidates.

Te Tai Tokerau:

Digipoll – Hone 42
Kelvin 35
Waihoroi 20

Actual – Hone 43
Kelvin 38
Waihoroi 16

Fairly close resemblance between the poll and the actual results in this electorate. Certainly within the margin of error of 4.9% so we’ll give them this one. However...

Tamaki Makaurau:

Digipoll – Pita 58
Shane 23
Kereama 14

Actual - Pita 40
Shane 36
Kereama 16

This poll grossly overstated Pita Sharples’ support. Shit, it was well out. This poll did seem to confirm what many Maori political commentators were thinking though. I haven’t seen anyone come up with a satisfactory answer as to why Shane did so well. Maybe low turnout hurt Pita. With 16% of the vote Kereama Pene certainly did I guess.

Hauraki-Waikato:

No poll from Te Karere on this electorate but the Marae Digipoll from September put it like this.

Digipoll – Nanaia 59
Angeline 18
Tau Bruce 13

Actual – Nanaia 59
Angeline 22
Tau Bruce 17

A decent result from the Marae Digipoll. They correctly stated Nanaia’s support and were thereabouts with Angeline and Bruce Mataki of the Maori Party. Remember this poll did not factor in undecideds.

Waiariki:

Digipoll – Te Ururoa 56
Annette 22
Louis 22

Actual – Te Ururoa 41
Annette 30
Louis 23

Again, this poll was well out. Well beyond the margin of error. The poll overstated Te Ururoa’s support by a country mile. This race was tight – not the cakewalk the poll was predicting.

Correction: I had the wrong figures before - all corrected now.

Ikaroa Rawhiti:

There was no Te Karere poll here too, but we’ll have a look at the Marae Digipoll results.

Digipoll – Parekura 40
Na 49
Tawhai 1

Actual – Parekura 62
Na 24
Tawhai 14

Wow. I don’t think any poll in the history of mankind has ever been this out of whack. However, it should be remembered that this poll was conducted in September and they phrased the questions oddly. Something like “which party will you give your candidate vote to” instead of saying “who will you give your candidate vote to” or something like that.

Te Tai Hauauru:
No Te Karere poll here either. However, Marae Digipoll from September comes in handy.

Digipoll – Tariana 49
Soraya 40
Fred Timitimu 1
Jack (didn’t register I don’t think).

Actual – Tariana 48
Soraya 30
Fred 8
Jack 11

Tariana’s support was about right, but the poll exaggerated Soraya’s support and barely even factored Fred Timutimu. Jack McDonald didn’t even feature in the Marae poll but polled 11% and he wasn’t even going for the electorate vote.

Te Tai Tonga:

Digipoll – Rahui 46
Rino 35
Dora 10
Clinton 9

Actual – Rahui 31
Rino 42
Dora 15
Clinton 8

Again, way off. Well outside the margin of error. The poll got Clinton about right, but failed miserably in predicting the correct outcome and share of the vote.

The polls in the Maori electorates have failed. Theses poll failures follow the Native Affairs Baseline poll which failed to accurately predict the share of the vote each candidate would receive in the Tai Tokerau byelection. I don’t think I can ever take a poll on the Maori electorates seriously again. To be fair, the polls were conducted late October to mid November and things change at the last minute. Polls are, of course, snapshots of a moment in time. The moment these polls were picturing was spread across a significant period of time.

Lastly, I think the other criticisms I have made of polls in the Maori electorates still stand.

On a Maori Party deal with National

2011-11-27T13:31:00.001+13:00

Some on the left are throwing around the theory that once the special votes are counted National could drop two seats to the Greens. On past trends this is plausible. That would give National 58 seats, or 60 with Banks and Dunne, meaning the right would need the Maori Party to form a majority. The question then becomes: will the Maori Party oblige. The answer: yes.

If Maori Party agree, and I’m almost certain they would, the party would expect some heavy concessions from National. The Maori Party have had to, as the minor partner in the relationship, bear the consequences of heavy compromise. However, should the above situation eventuate the Maori Party will be in a stronger position to exact major gains.

I expect the Maori Party to demand retention of their ministerial positions and a guarantee Tariana Turia’s portfolios will pass to Te Ururoa Flavell if or when she stands down. An expansion of Whanau Ora will be the only bottom line. The Maori Party campaign revolved almost exclusively on Whanau Ora and the flow on effects the policy will have on “strengthening the whanau” and addressing problems like poverty. Whanau Ora is inclusive of a range of Maori Party policies like the Marae Hubs idea too. I expect the Maori Party to push for universal access to te reo classes in high schools. Some of the more low key policies which will be a Maori Party priority are establishing a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Treaty, reviewing Te Puni Kokiri and a commitment to implementing the recommendations of the constitutional review (given Bill English is heading the review with Sharples I expect concrete action to be taken anyway). On the subject of the constitutional review this is one of the primary reasons the Maori Party will hesitate to go with Labour – the Maori Party have a number of ongoing projects with National (both visible i.e. the review and behind the scenes with Whanau Ora and Maori education).

Asset sales will not, as both leaders have said, be a deal breaker. The Maori Party opposition to asset sales is hollow. They oppose the sales, but should they go ahead they will support iwi access. Some on the left have hoped, should the above situation eventuate, that the Maori Party block asset sales. This won’t happen. Asset sales will be a bottom line for John Key and the Maori Party will accept this when Key agrees to give preferential access to New Zealanders and New Zealand bodies (iwi, Kiwisaver schemes etc). Key came under increasing pressure in the last week of the campaign to ensure assets will stay in New Zealand hands and I don’t expect Labour and New Zealand First to allow that pressure to ease. Key will not just give preferential access to iwi. He cannot, for the sake of the ‘separatist’ vote, allow New Zealand First to cultivate the perception that National are giving Maori special treatment. However, the electorate has, I think, moved on from the separatism issue. At least the issue doesn’t hold as much salience anymore thanks to the, in Pakeha eyes, reasonable behaviour of the Maori Party and John Key’s symbolic olive branch in 2008. Giving NZders the right of pre-emption if you will satisfies both sides really. Firstly, the assets are kept in New Zealand hands (satisfying a plank where National is weak). Secondly, National will placate a powerful and increasingly friendly bloc – iwi. If National align with iwi interests I don’t doubt that iwi will begin throwing themselves behind the Tories. Certainly Labour and the Green’s platforms may hurt iwi. For example, no asset sales and water charges (iwi and countless Maori land trusts run farms with irrigation etc).

Iwi will also help determine who the Maori Party go with. The Maori Party will, and rightfully so, consult the people. However, the only people to turn up will be conservative, mainly rural Maori with connections to their Marae and Runanga. The sort of Maori who are more likely to support National and whatever is good for the Runanga. The Maori Party is no longer a party where all Maori will flock (like they were in 2005 and 2008). The Maori Party have fractured their base. Some of whom have fled to Mana while others have returned to Labour. The Green’s seem to be benefiting too.

I’m going to break with the orthodox here and suggest that another term with National may not be a death sentence. In fact, if the Maori Party play it right they could hold steady. Over the past term the Maori Party have carved out a niche. They no longer play to all Maori, but the emerging Maori middle class. A middle class that sees Maori rights as paramount, but recognise that they – as in the Maori middle class – need to breach the power structures and insert themselves where they can make change, read the Cabinet table, and this approach takes compromise. They got to the middle, and in some cases the top, by sacrificing things like their cultural values in the workplace and they analogise this to government. Often the Maori middle class comes from existing iwi power structures. Maori who were never as disenfranchised as, if I can use this metaphor, the Jake Hekes of the Maori world. I’ve said this time and again that the Maori Party and the Mana Party represent the divide between the haves and the have nots in the Maori world. The haves are iwi with their settlements and emerging middle class. The have nots are the mainly urban and some rural Maori without trusts, without settlements and sometimes without Runanga. Both groups, although working towards the same goal, embody different approaches. The have nots, who are perhaps naïve in the ways of the world, want to see rapid change and uncompromising politics. The have nots are, in my opinion, probably sick of seeing their whanaunga getting ahead well they are stubbornly stuck at the bottom. They see the way to advancement as tearing down the walls. The haves are a bit more street wise about it. They know how to manipulate the Pakeha game and will do so. Working for gradual change from the inside. Some Maori probably resent the fact that other Maori are engaging like that, but that’s an approach I support (even though I don’t support the Maori Party per se).

Anyway, I’m heading way off track here. The second niche the Maori Party have carved are conservative Maori. Maori are, in my opinion anyway, naturally conservative. Not always politically, but socially. Also on many Marae I think conservatism tends to reign. For example, a lot of Marae like to hold steadfast, and fair enough, to old traditions rather than letting those traditions change like cultures eventually do.

Back to the original topic. Assuming the Maori Party play to these groups and stem anymore bleed then they will not die. If the Maori Party can give practical effect to the line that it’s better to be at the table then survival beyond 2014 will be likely. Giving effect to this will involve tangible policy wins and a perception that the Maori Party are negating the worst effects of the global economic crisis. Of course, much, much easier said than done. If the Maori Party position themselves as a counter balance against National then the above groups will certainly see the value in keeping them around. The only situation where the Maori Party can expect to claim the counterbalance title though is if they stop asset sales, but as I said I doubt that’ll happen. For the counterbalance narrative to work the Maori Party need to stop just one, for lack of a better term, big bang nutcase policy e.g. asset sales. When Tariana abdicates her throne the Maori Party could solve their succession issue quiet easily and, thus, secure their post-2014 future too; they could put up Rahui Katene in Te Tai Hauauru. Though I don’t think she has whakapapa connection to the area which would count against her.

I didn’t intend to write anywhere near this much, so I’ll conclude essay style. The Maori Party will almost certainly renew their relationship with National. The Maori Party will expect heavier policy concessions this time around with Whanau Ora as a bottom line. Asset sales will not be a deal breaker. Iwi will determine who the Maori Party go with and another term with National will not spell death so long as the Maori Party play to their new base – the Maori middle class (of which iwi are a part) and conservative mainly older Maori. I don’t agree with what the Maori Party did last term, but I would feel assured if they were at the table this time around. I think a second term National government with a strong mandate is far scarier than a first term government with a shakier share of the vote. We could be in the shit.

Steve Chadwick resigns

2011-11-27T11:21:00.001+13:00

Sad news from the NZ Herald:

After more than a decade in Parliament, former Rotorua MP Steve Chadwick has resigned from politics.

Mrs Chadwick quit after losing the Rotorua electorate to incumbent MP Todd McClay and failing to win a seat through the list votge.

Mrs Chadwick was generous in defeat, saying Mr McClay ran a clean campaign, but was obviously saddened at her loss.

"I'm really going to miss being in Wellington, especially since my children are down there.

"I'll be taking some time off for myself, its been 12 years, and you spend a lot of that time putting others first instead of yourself. The door's been closed for me by the people of Rotorua and I accept that."

Steve Chadwick was an excellent constituent MP for Rotorua from 1999 to 2008 and an excellent Labour list MP for Rotorua from 2008 to yesterday. Steve is one of the warmest people I have ever met. She has a beautiful aura and was a fine politician. She will be a loss to Rotorua and New Zealand. I wish her well in whatever she does.

(It was a crime that useless deadwood nobodies like Moana Mackey, Rajen Prasad and Darien Fenton were ranked ahead of Steve).

On a related note, congratulations to Todd McClay who had his majority affirmed. Todd is also an excellent constituent MP and he will no doubt continue to serve the Rotorua electorate well.

How the Maori electorates fell

2011-11-27T10:49:00.001+13:00

I’m packing out some fast analysis, but I don’t have much time on my hands and I want to get my thoughts out. What I’m getting at is that these conclusions are provisional, but still sensible of course, and I may change my views over time. Anyway, I’ve been pouring over the numbers booth by booth in the most interesting electorates; Te Tai Tonga, Waiariki and Tamaki Makaurau. Here is how the vote went:

Waiariki:

As I predicted Annette won the Eastern Bay of Plenty. She thrashed Te Ururoa in Kawerau. This happened because 1) Annette grew up in Kawerau and the people know her and her whanau 2) Te Ururoa never shows his face in Kawerau 3) Kawerau is a working town/Maori radical town. Annette also won Whakatane thanks to, I think, young voter turnout and as punishment for Te Ururoa’s support for the Marine and Coastal Area’s Act (Whakatane being a coastal town after all). There are a few very young Mana activists in Whakatane who are selling the message very well.

Annette also won Torere and Raukokere convincingly and also Te Kaha. There was always going to be a swing against Te Ururoa for his silence over oil prospecting off of the coast and, as I’ve said, his support for the MCA act. Annette also won Matata (another tino rangatiratanga town). As I predicted on Pundit Annette won the periphery towns in Tuhoe territory, for example Kaingaroa and Minginui, and she ran Te Ururoa close in the Ruatoki Valley. Taneatua and Waimana fell Annette’s way too.

However, as I said last night, it wasn’t enough to bring Annette over the line. She needed to win the bigger centres like Rotorua and Tauranga Moana. Te Ururoa won Tauranga, but it was very close with both Annette and Louis Te Kani claiming a close second in different booths. In fact, Te Kani actually won a few booths in Tauranga as did Annette, but Te Ururoa won the majority.

Where Te Ururoa won it was in Rotorua proper. Annette’s home base of Rotoiti and the more radical parts of Te Arawa, meaning Ngati Pikiao, swung behind Annette. For example Okere Falls, Rotokawa and of course Rotoiti. This was no surprise. Te Ururoa was always going to win the conservative support that characterises Te Arawa while Annette was going to win the smaller rough edges.

As I picked Tuwharetoa also fell behind Te Ururoa. He won all but one of the polling places in Taupo. Annette’s campaign team failed to really breach Tuwharetoa and incumbency and Tuwharetoa conservatism helped Te Ururoa over the line.

In summary, Annette claimed the Eastern Bay of Plenty and Tuhoe in good numbers. Te Ururoa won Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa. It was extremely close in Tauranga with Te Ururoa just pulling away. What we can say is that the tribes of the Te Arawa waka pulled Te Ururoa through. I’m going to blow my own trumpet here and highlight that I called the regions/tribal allegiances right, but…. I didn’t call the result right did I. So no bragging rights here I guess. Then again I did pull away from calling the win for Annette on Pundit.

Te Tai Tonga:

Like I said last night, Rino Tirikatene held Labour support in the South Island. Ashburton, Blenheim, Bluff and Invercargill fell Rino’s way. It was a close slog in Christchurch, but Rino also pulled away there too. Some people will be surprised with this result given Rahui’s work in the city in the wake of the quake. White flight has affected Chch, but I don't think the same trend is true of Maori so I think we can draw the conclusion that Rahui's work has 1) gone unnoticed or 2) was not as good as people were hyping.

Given Rino’s solid performance in the South Rahui had to, like she did in 2008, win Wellington in sufficient numbers, However, as I predicted (yes I hate to brag), Mana’s Clinton Dearlove stole votes from Rahui while Rino held Labour’s numbers from 2008. Couple this with Dora Langsbury’s polling in Wellington and this was enough to erode Rahui’s support sufficiently to allow Rino to maintain a healthy lead. Karori, Kelburn and parts of the Hutt fell Rahui’s way, but only just. Rino, surprisingly, won the Green Party belts of Wellington, for example Kilbernie, Hataitai and Lyall Bay. It was much closer in working class suburbs like Petone and Newton. In the 2008 election Rahui won these suburbs in large numbers. It seems as if Wellington, with our high proportion of public servants, have punished the Maori Party for their association with the public service hating National Party. The working vote also seems to be returning to Labour in response to their shift to the left. The working vote is also transferring, but in small numbers, to Mana. It’s interesting to see Aro Valley, a strong student area, fall behind Rino too.

Turnout has also worked against Rahui. With a turnout of below 60% according to Maria Bargh you can bet that many of these people who didn’t turn up with young, read Rahui’s voters.

In sum, Rahui seems to be the victim of the swing against the Maori Party. Tino rangatiratanga is not as big in Te Tai Tonga as in other electorates. Labour, and by extension social democracy, is the ideology in these parts. It was always going to be hard for her to face Rino Tirikatene who is, of course, a Tirikatene. He was hand picked by Parekura Horomia because Labour knew Te Tai Tonga was an electorate where support for the Maori Party and Rahui was soft. This assessment has held true. Despite Rahui’s work in Chch Te Tai Tonga is still a Labour electorate, or more accurately a Tirikatene electorate.

I think Rino will be an excellent MP. He’s genuine, intelligent and will now (with a Maori seat behind him) have a lot of Mana in the Maori Caucus. Rahui deserves credit, and lots of it, for her work as a local MP. Two very good candidates but only one could win. It’s also interesting to note that Rino is the first Labour MP to topple a Maori Party MP.

Tamaki Makaurau:

John Tamihere, supporting what Willie Jackson said last, reckons Shane Jones ran a “very poor” campaign. John Tamihere and Willie Jackson, as the two Maori political heavyweights in Auckland, would know too. With that in mind it’s hard to say how Shane polled so highly. I’ll put forward the following reasons: Pita suffered from a reflex backlash against the Maori Party (like Rahui and Tariana who has a reduced majority), Kereama Pene helped exacerbate this backlash and, as a result, steal many of Pita’s votes, lastly Shane is a high profile MP and he benefited from a swing towards Labour in the Maori seats. The commentators on Marae Investigates are pointing out that Labour is rising in the Maori seats.

Unfortunately I can't bring up the candidate vote details polling place to polling place. Only the party vote details. You can possibly analogise the party vote to the candidate vote, and I will since I have nothing else to work on. Labour, and I guess Shane by extension, did very well in Manurewa, Mangere and Manukau. There is a strong Maori Labour organisation in Manurewa, with Louisa Wall of course, a strong organisation in Manukau East with Ross Robertson and Mangere with Sua William Sio. Out of interest Mana did very well in these places too. Shane also seems to have benefited from Labour’s organisation in New Lynn, Mt Roskill and Mt Albert. However, I expect in the candidate vote that Pita pulled away in central Auckland and places like Orakei. Pita’s strong support among Ngati Whatua probably pulled him through I imagine.

This isn’t a killer blow against Shane’s career. In fact Labour need him now more than ever. Pita deserved the win though. All power to him over the next three years.

Labour's Maori Caucus takes a hit

2011-11-26T23:38:00.001+13:00

Labour's Maori Caucus has taken a hit. Parekura, Nanaia and Shane remain. Rino is the only new comer. Kelvin is out and Mita Ririnui is retiring. Deborah Mahuta-Coyles is not in either. One could count Moana Mackey, who should have never ever have received such a high list placing, but she is only a Maori Caucus member on paper. So the Maori Caucus is one member down.

National, by my count, are going to bring in six Maori MPs. If you can count, and I'm sure you can, National now have more Maori MPs than Labour. I wonder if this has ever happened before.

Updating

2011-11-26T22:58:00.001+13:00

I'm continually updating my posts so keep checking in tonight.

Quick comment on the coverage:

I flicked between TV One, TV3 and Maori TV as well as Listener Live and Vote Chat. Good job all round I think. Coverage of the Maori electorates was good on Maori TV (naturally) and strong on One as well. I'm not sure how valuable Mike King and Derek Fox were on Maori TV though. Willie Jackson and Matt McCarten were strong on One. Sandra Lee was easily the best commentator of the night (on Maori issues I mean). Jon Johansson was easily the strongest commentator on any network and Patrick Gower, who's always brilliant, was the best individual journalist. Big ups to Toby Manhire at Listener Live - man it's a useful resource. Bryce Edwards and Andrew Geddis also did an awesome job presenting alternative coverage at Vote Chat.

Maori Party in strong position... (updated)

2011-11-26T22:39:00.001+13:00

As the results become clearer the Maori Party are not Kingmakers, but they can provide National with a useful buffer and, as a result, "stable government".

The Maori Party are in a strong position. They could even be Kingmakers. If this is the case I expect them to side with National in exchange for an expansion of Whanau Ora, possibly a sweet deal for Iwi re asset sales and a review of the MCA Act. However, they will know this is suicide. They are, after all, two MPs down thanks to their their relationship with National. In terms of relationships, the Maori Party have a successful working relationship with National and also a strong personal relationship with John Key and others. Although the Maori Party maintain good relations with Labour's Maori caucus, the Maori Party don't have any sort of working relationship with them. Labour have also tried to, and in the case of Te Tai Tonga succeeded, in burning the Maori Party. A few things to chew over.

The commentators on Maori TV seem to think a second term with National will hurt the Maori Party. Sandra Lee, correctly i think, states that the Maori Party will want a lot more gains in exchange for their loyalty. That's the only option really. The Maori Party need concrete, visible and easily sold policy wins. The, for example, constitutional review and the UN Dec. on the Rights of Indigenous People are too abstract and remote for many Maori voters. They don't connect to those sorts of policies nor see the relevance in a time where material needs are most pressing. The decade for symbolism has passed. For many Maori, this decade is about getting by the basics.

UPDATE: It appears to me that Pita Sharples is hinting on all channels that the Maori Party will support National. He cites on going projects his party have with National and says asset sales are not a deal breaker. In fact, Sharples restates his hollow opposition to asset sales on TVNZ saying that if it happens the Maori Party will push for iwi access. Interesting.

- Key has just publicly invited the Maori Party back. John Key is gracious and correct with his praise for Phil Goff too. If I can add my own comments, Goff is a great man and a great New Zealander. He deserves nothing but praise, praise and more praise.

- Consensus on Maori TV seems to be the Maori Party face some huge challenges in terms of working with National. Everyone seems to be in agreement that it another three years with National may prove to be the Maori Party's death sentence.

First thoughts on the Maori results (updated)

2011-11-26T22:26:00.001+13:00

Most of the results are in and these are my unrefined thoughts.

Te Tai Tonga:

As predicted, Labour’s Rino Tirikatene has dislodged the incumbent Rahui Katene. The specials remain to be counted, but Tirikatene enjoys a healthy lead. The Green’s Dora Langsbury polled well and Mana’s Clinton Dearlove underperformed taking less than 9% of the vote. Interestingly Tirikatene is performing better in the candidate vote than Labour is in the party vote so it appears that Tirikatene has built a personality vote – much like his colleagues Parekura and Nanaia. Turn out among older voters who remember the colossals, Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan and Eruera Tirikatene, appears to have helped Rino over the line. Rino also credits his message that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National. I agree. That is a resonate line. Ultimately, Rahui needed Wellington to pull her through, but it looks like the four way race has split the vote in Wellington and, instead, pulled Rahui back.

Waiariki:

Te Ururoa has put some distance between himself and Annette Sykes. That surprises me. I expected there to be only 10% in it (there's about 12% between them). The complicating factor seems to be that Louis Te Kani has secured more votes than I expected. Te Ururoa has no doubt held Rotorua and stemmed the bleed in other parts of the electorate. Despite Annette’s momentum the advantage of incumbency appears to have done enough for Te Ururoa. Numbers wise, Annette’s strongholds (Opotiki, East Coast etc) are just too small compared to Te Ururoa’s strongholds (Rotorua, wider Te Arawa etc). Louis Te Kani, at around 23%, I think has done well in his home patch of Tauranga Moana and adopted home of Rotorua. I firmly believe if Annette started campaigning four months out (rather than four weeks out!) that she would have snatched the seat. Annette’s campaign machinery, which was stronger than Te Ururoa’s, just did not have enough time to stamp their mark. Considering the Maori Party experienced near operational collapse their win is a real testament to Te Ururoa Flavell as an individual.

Tamaki Makaurau:

No one ever expected Pita to lose this seat, but I don’t think anyone expected Shane to come so close. Even though he isn’t going to win, this is a close loss and it certainly won’t end his career. It looks as if Mana’s Kereama Pene has stolen more than a few tino rangatiratnage votes from Pita. Mana is, of course, strongest from Waiariki tracking north. Auckland especially - think Sue Bradford, John Minto, Matt McCarten, UNITE and the Auckland socialist community. Pene, like Rino, seems to be building a personality vote too. Pene polled over 16% while Mana polled only 14%.

Te Tai Tokerau:

Hone has held his seat.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti:

Parekura has held. No surprise to see such a significant majority too. I expect support would have been split in Tai Rawhiti, but the further south you go the stronger support for Parekura becomes.

Hauraki-Waikato:

Nanaia has held too. No surprise she has secured a predictable majority.

Te Tai Hauauru:

Tariana has secured another win and deservedly so. No surprises looking at her majority.

Other Maori candidates:

Paula Bennett appears safe in Waitakere. This battle was always going to be close and it looks like Carmel Sepuloni, a rising star in Labour, is gone (I don't think she was high enough on the list to make it back).

Hekia Parata had a decent crack at the Mana seat, but Kris Faafoi has maintains a safe lead.

Simon Bridges is, predictably, safe. He wasn't threatened by Deborah Mahuta-Coyle.

Louisa Wall has galloped home in Manurewa.

General Comments:

The biggest surprise is how bloody wrong the polls were. Te Tai Tonga has swung Rino Tirikatene’s way – comfortably too. It was much closer in Tamaki Makaurau and slightly closer in Waiariki. Perhaps my criticisms of polls is justified, having said that my predictions were only slightly more accurate. Meh.

UPDATE: Rino's win appears to be one of the only bright spots in a day of shame for Labour. They look to fall below 28% and lose real talent like Kelvin Davis. Shame on the makers of the Labour Party list.

According to TVNZ voter turnout could be below 70%. I think this is unprecedented and will hurt Mana, the Maori Party and Labour.

The Maori have been punished in Te Tai Tonga, losing to Labour of course, and the Maori Party's share of the party vote has being slashed in Waiariki, Hauraki-Waikato, Tamaki Makaurau and Te Tai Tokerau. Mana's party vote result was small in the other electorates. Labour is still the party of choice for Maori.

The week in Maori politics

2011-11-25T17:35:00.001+13:00

It’s been a long week, don’t you think? I can’t wait for it all to be over. But anyway, here is the summary of the week in Maori politics:

Monday

There were a few stories on Monday. The Maori Party moved to clarify their position on asset sales. The party leaders reiterated that the Maori Party opposes asset sales, but, key word but, if the sales were to go ahead the Maori Party would swing behind iwi. Hollow opposition to be honest, but supremely pragmatic. On the topic of the Maori Party Pita Sharples informed Radio New Zealand that he “must” be at the Cabinet Table if Don Brash is there. Pita, it appears, sees himself as a counterbalance against the redneck Brash.

Te Karere released their last poll this time on Te Tai Tonga. The poll put the incumbent Rahui Katene 11 points ahead of Labour’s Rino Tirikatene. Labour was expecting to win Te Tai Tonga; however this is far from assured now. The Maori Party look set to retain all of their seats.

Native Affairs ran their final electorate debate this time in Tamaki Makaurau. Pita Sharples clashed with Shane Jones, Mana’s Kereama Pene and the Green’s Mikaere Curtis. In my opinion, all four men performed well. Joshua Hitchcock provides a useful review here.

Waatea News led with the angle that Labour relegated Maori issues during the campaign. This was a continuation of the angle they ran last week.

Mana’s foreign policy launch still had legs on Monday. John Minto announced, or re-announced is probably the better description, Mana’s plan to recall New Zealand troops in Afghanistan and use the $40m that would save to “feed the kids”. Make lunch not war as Damien Christie says. Minto also called for immigrants from the Pacific to be given the same status as immigrants from Australia.

Tuesday

Maori politicians bombarded each other with claims and counter claims on Tuesday. Labour’s Nanaia Mahuta claimed that asset sales will diminish the Crown’s ability to settle treaty claims. Once, for example, power companies are sold to private interests the Crown’s ability to recognise, for example, Maori water rights will be diminished because those rights will have to be balanced against the interests and rights of private owners. I hope I have paraphrased her argument correctly.

The Maori Party told us not to send Hone Harawira to do the groceries. The Maori Party claimed that Mana’s costing for their breakfasts in schools program was well over $40m. Pita Sharples reckoned the price of providing breakfast to all children in low deciles schools is closer to $500m.

Labour’s Kelvin Davis gained some traction and came out against Anne Tolley. Davis attacked the Education Minister’s decision to close a successful class for mainly Maori students. According to opponents Tolley closed the class as punishment for Moerewa School’s refusal to implement National Standards.

Wednesday

Hone Harawira delivered his state of the nation speech in South Auckland. Harawira called for a war on poverty. Harawira also outlined some of Mana’s policies, like the abolition of GST, and emphasised the history and strength of Mana’s team (Sykes, Minto and Bradford).

The Maori Party leaders met in Wellington to discuss post election arrangements. Tariana Turia spoke to the Herald’s Audrey Young and seemed to, or at least this is how I see it, be implying that if the Maori Party hold the balance of power they will support National. The Maori Party have already stated that if National can form a government without the Maori Party then they will still pursue an agreement similar to the one the two parties made in 2008. Anyway, Turia informed Young that the Maori Party deal with National was aimed at building “a lasting and respectful relationship”. Emphasis on lasting. It is also worth keeping in mind John Key’s reluctance to use the Maori Party as a bogeyman. In fact Key has openly praised the Maori Party. The Maori Party have also refrained from really criticising National. Another factor that may come into play is Pita Sharples close relationship with John Key.

Thursday

On Radio New Zealand Phil Goff reiterated his position on Hone Harawira – he can’t be trusted according to Goff. Goff went so far as to say he won’t work with Mana rather than just Hone.

Morning Report held their minor leaders debate. For a review see this from Tim Slewyn.

The Thursday night polls from the two main news networks didn’t make great viewing for Maori. Mana dangled around 1%, the Maori Party between 1.5 and 2%. Labour was on 28% in the One News poll and 26% on the 3 News poll. However, the Greens, who are always supporters of things Maori, sat between 10 and 13%.

Finally, I put out my picks for the Maori electorates at Pundit.

Friday

In the Herald I write on how Maori can make their vote count. Willie Jackson and I also discuss the Maori seats on Morning Report.

I think the most significant story today was Te Ururoa Flavell’s claim that the Maori Party have “undersold” themselves.

And that brings the week to a close and, of course, the election. Tomorrow is voting day so please, please get out there and vote. Don’t forget to vote for MMP too. Soon after the election I’ll be posting a few election post mortem pieces. I’ll review each parties campaign, some individual politicians and I’ll also take a look at the issues that I think were important/influenced the way Maori voted.

If you want a full overview of the election in Maori politics see this post on week 1 of the campaign, week 2 and week 3.

Lastly, thanks for reading me over the campaign. Over the past four weeks on average 1000 of you view this blog each day. The lowest number of views was Wednesday with only 700 and the highest was in the second week when it hit over 2000. When the election's over please don't leave me! I think I'll still be interesting.

Tonight's posts

2011-11-25T08:35:00.001+13:00

I'll be on the road most of today so no posting until around 5ish. I'll wrap up the week in Maori politics for the final time and update the best and worst performing Maori politicians page. I think I'll rank the best and worst from the campaign.

I don't want to breach any electoral rules tomorrow so there will be no posts and comments will not be published.

On Sunday and the following days I'll write up an election post mortem and review how things are likely to play out in Maori politics.

In the meantime if you still haven't made up your mind take a look at this useful resource Radio New Zealand have compiled. RNZ have posed a range of questions and invited parties to respond.

Morning Report

2011-11-25T05:00:00.000+13:00

I'll be on Radio New Zealand's Morning Report at 8.35ish. I'll be talking on the Maori vote with, I think, Derek Fox.

My picks and my votes

2011-11-24T21:55:00.001+13:00

If you want to know my picks for the Maori electorates you can take a look at my latest post over at Pundit. My calls are largely consistent with what I’ve been saying for the past year.

On a slightly related note I’m going to tell you how I plan to vote. Deciding to whom I’m going to give my electorate vote isn’t hard. Readers will know I’m openly supportive of Annette Sykes so I guess it’s no secret that’s where my electorate vote will fall. Yes, I live in Wellington, but I’m still enrolled in Waiariki (I’ll get round to changing this soon). If I was enrolled in Te Tai Tonga I’d be casting a vote for Rino Tirikatene. Rahui Katene hasn’t impressed me over the past three years.

Readers may, however, be a little surprised when it comes to my party vote. I thought about this pretty hard and I’ve decided to cast my party vote for the Greens – not Mana. Although I support Mana and almost everything the party stands for, I don’t agree with all of their policies. On the other hand, scrolling through the Greens catalogue of policies I found myself agreeing with almost everything. My vote will not be informed on Maori issues alone, if it was I’d vote Mana, but across the board the Greens have the most comprehensive set of policies and, in my opinion, the best plan for moving New Zealand forward. This doesn’t mean I’m all of a sudden an enthusiastic Green Party supporter. I really, really, really dislike Russell Norman.

I should add I’m not voting strategically. I’m voting on principle. Annette Sykes is the best candidate in Waiariki and the Greens offer the best plan for New Zealand. That’s it.

How not to help your cause

2011-11-24T17:38:00.001+13:00

I take issue with this sort of shit:

Education minister Anne Tolley may be used to facing protests from school teachers, but on Friday night it was a group of school children shouting and jeering at her (Kawerau Intermediate students and supporters).

The youngsters’ anger and frustration appeared close to boiling over into a direct confrontation at the meeting’s conclusion at 9.20pm, with their attempts to get the minister to explain her actions being stymied.

Mrs Tolley declined to answer a question posed by pupil Kunere Timoti about why she had decided to close the school “when you did not even visit it”. Her response that she was unable to comment on the issue because it had entered a 28-day legal process proved far from satisfactory for the assembled school crowd – and when the meeting’s chairman Mark Longley pulled the plug soon after, it appeared the pupils were on the verge of breaking into a spontaneous haka or finding some other way to vent their anger.

Although there are legitimate questions around Tolley’s refusal to visit Kawerau and front the Intermediate supporters, it is the height of arrogance for those supporters to gate crash a meeting for East Coast voters. Kawerau is part of the Rotorua electorate. The Intermediate supporters have no right to barge into a candidates meeting for East Coast voters, emphasis on East Coast voters, and demand Tolley’s attention and, in the process, distract her from issues that affect the East Coast electorate. This was not an appropriate venue for the Intermediate supporters to attend. Tolley’s first obligation in the above situation is to her electorate. Her obligation to the Intermediate supporters is secondary. The story continues:

Some of the now-shirtless youngsters gathered on the driveway outside the church in an apparent bid to confront Mrs Tolley as she was leaving. However the minister and her supporters remained inside the church.

The caregivers, evidently anxious to avoid an incident involving their charges and no doubt aware it had already been a late night for them, quickly herded them back onto an awaiting school bus for transport back to Kawerau.

Good one. Now you’ve made Kawerau look like a town of nutters. This was my biggest worry when I heard the school was putting on some buses and ferrying their supporters and students to the meeting. I was afraid some one would lose it or, as appears to have happened, a few of the kids have lost it and further damaged the already dim view many people hold of Kawerau.

Which brings me to another point. Why were the kids there anyway? What useful purpose do they serve? Other than to add an emotional element to what should be a dispassionate debate. I think it is tantamount to child abuse that the Intermediate supporters keep using these kids, especially their headboy, in an attempt to garner sympathy.

The Intermediate supporters seem to have cultivated a lot of anger in these kids and that’s unacceptable. Tolley’s going to close the school and what are these kids going to do with that anger when that happens. Smash something up? Rob a house? Tag? Misbehave with their parents?

Anyway, the story goes on:

Maori Party candidate Tina Porou backed out of Friday night’s meeting in Whakatane over fears for her safety.

“Upon arriving at the church, our candidate was greeted by a group of approximately 200 Mana party and Labour party supporters, apparently targeting the meeting for a protest against the education minister in connection with the closure of Kawerau Intermediate,” party president Pem Bird said in a statement.

“We’d be the last ones to challenge the right to political expression – but there has to be some boundaries in place around public safety.

“My candidate felt there was such a level of tension and anger among the crowd … that it might escalate into a situation which was unsafe. I made the decision that given the volatility of the rally as she described it to me, it would not be wise for her to attend.

“According to her account, some of the young people were particularly riled up and she was not confident that the meeting could proceed without incident.”

Unacceptable. Just unacceptable. The Intermediate supporters really have ruined the candidates meeting. One of less than a handful. They’ve stuck it to East Coast voters sending the message that the Intermediates concerns are greater than those on the East Coast. Oh, the arrogance.

This saga really tops itself off with this:

Earlier this week Rotorua MP Todd McClay made thinly-veiled comments about Mr Aim, who lives in Papamoa.

He said the Kawerau community “would be interested to know” that someone making a lot of noise about the education reorganisation had also sent videos of Kawerau students fighting to television media.

So it was the Intermediate Principal, Daryl Aim, who sent those videos to Closeup and sparked what was the most negative media story I've ever seen on the town. He must be gutted, or possibly ashamed. His actions certainly didn't help his cause. In fact, the opposite happened and the videos galvanised the Minister and local figures to push a head with the reorganisation of education in Kawerau. The irony's killing me. I admire Mr Aim’s shrewdness, but if he is indulging in unfair play he has no right to go accuses the Minister of playing the game unfairly. Pretty disgraceful really. I guess this the killer credibility blow for the Intermediate supporters. I think it’s high time they accepted the inevitable.

Back Benches

2011-11-24T12:01:00.001+13:00

I forgot to say I was on Back Benches election campaign special last night. I was on the panel with David Farrar, Ana Gilling and Mark Unsworth. You can watch the show here.

Te Tai Tonga, Sharples and Brash, Tainui and asset sales

2011-11-23T11:52:00.001+13:00

I don’t have much time to blog this week so I’ll quickly comment on a few things I’ve missed over the last few days:

Te Tai Tonga

The latest Te Karere Digipoll puts Rahui Katene ahead of Labour’s Rino Tirikatene. Katene is on 46% to Tirikatene’s 35%. The last Te Karere poll put Tirikatene on 41% to Katene’s 34%. Hurricane Clinton Dearlove registers 9% support while the Green’s Dora Langsbury comes in with 10% support. I think the following has happened: 1) Katene has, realising it’s do or die, reenergised her campaign and reclaimed the momentum 2) Dearlove and Langsbury have siphoned more votes from Tirikatene than they have from Katene 3) Tirikatene is suffering from a swing against Labour. The seat is now 50/50. Whereas everyone was picking a win for Tirikatene, this isn’t so sure anymore.

A Tirikatene win is certainly still possible. As Digipoll points out, Tirikatene’s older support base is far more likely to vote and younger voters, who strongly support Katene, usually change sides at the last minute. Jobs and asset sales also rank as important issues. This is where Tirikatene will be strong. No one can forget Katene going against the wishes of iwi in Te Tai Tonga, notably Ngai Tahu, and voting for the MCA Act as well. Meanwhile Katene is calling for better resourcing for Maori electorates. The Maori electorates are huge and there is a need for access to more staffers and more expense funding. Apparently Katene could do with three staffers. I say try six. Maori electorate MPs are allowed three staffers and an EA so I don’t know why Katene is saying she could do with three when she’s allowed three.

Pita Sharples vs Brash

The Maori Party continue the line that they need to be at the Cabinet table to oppose Don Brash. Firstly, the Maori Party sit outside of Cabinet – so they’re not really at the Cabinet table. If Act enter a formal coalition with National, rather than a confidence and supply agreement, then Brash will sit at the table (in a figurative and literal sense) to the exclusion of the Maori Party (because what are the chances they will enter a formal coalition). This makes the whole at the table rhetoric a little hollow.

Tainui support the Maori Party on asset sales

In an about turn Tuku Morgan has come out in support of the Maori Party’s stance on asset sales. Previously Tuku actively supported the sale of assets and iwi acquisition of those assets. However, Tuku now opposes asset sales, but should assets come on the market Tuku will look to invest. Tuku reckons that the Maori Party is looking out for the needs of Maori. If this isn’t an endorsement, then I don’t know what is.

This is a blow for John Key. The Iwi Leadership Group were, at one point, one of the strongest advocates for asset sales. John Key is quickly losing his allies on this issue. Without Iwi support and the active opposition of Mana and the Maori Party the Nats won't be able to sell the idea to Maori. Not that they need Maori support.

Martin Cooper controversy

By all accounts Martin Cooper is a good guy and has done a lot for the community. Fair enough. He still abused his position and should suffer the consequences though. The Herald on Sunday followed up on their story from the week before this time revealing Cooper wanted to give some guy the bash or something.

Tamaki Makaurau debate

Four strong candidates. I like picking winners, unlike Joshua Hitchcock who has blogged a brilliant summary here, but I genuinely can’t pick one. Each candidate was strong in certain areas. No candidate did them or their parties a disservice let’s put it that way.

campaign racism

2011-11-21T11:57:00.001+13:00

Danyl expounds on Key’s latest dogwhistle:

Tonight on TV3 news, John Key ominously warned that ‘a Labour government will include Winston Peters, Hone Harawira and Metiria Turei’.

I guess the goal here is to have Hone Harawira respond and call Key a racist, and this will ‘close the circuit’ and give the story some legs. The bulk of the population dislikes Harawira so they’ll sympathise with Key; and Winston Peters will be associated in the minds of potential voters with Harawira and classified as a ‘big-spending, unstable and volatile’ Maori.

Meanwhile Key rules out any preferential treatment for Iwi:

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples says his party is opposed to the plan to partially sell the energy companies, but could support the policy if iwi would be able to have priority access to the shares.

During campaigning in Auckland on Sunday, Mr Key was asked if he would rule out a sales programme which gave iwi preferential access, and replied that New Zealanders have to be treated equally and fairly.

On Key’s dogwhistle, I don’t think anyone’s surprised. Most New Zealanders hold a base fear of Maori and politicians from the left and right understand this. The worst perception a politician can attract is the “pandering to Maori” line. This is why Key is ruling out “preferential treatment” for iwi re asset sales. Having said that, I don’t think anti-Maori sentiment is so salient anymore. This is thanks to, in a large part, Key and his relationship with the Maori Party.

I actually expect Key to renege on his position and extend an olive branch to iwi. I think Key will create a program where New Zealand investors, think iwi, Kiwisaver schemes and National’s rich mates, are allowed the first right of refusal. Iwi would make a powerful ally. Just imagine if Key secures iwi support then the Nat’s will absolutely and utterly dominate provincial New Zealand. Unions are weak in the provinces while farming and iwi are the two major players.

Te Karere Digipoll: Te Tai Tonga

2011-11-21T11:01:00.001+13:00

Te Karere will be releasing some surprising poll results on Te Tai Tonga today. Tune into TV One at 4pm. On a separate note I don't imagine I'll have much time to blog this week so things will probably be a little quiet.

Short break

2011-11-18T10:30:00.001+13:00

I'll be uncontactable from this afternoon through to Sunday. I'm off to Kawhia for the weekend so I'll be without internet and cellphone coverage too. I hope I survive being offline for a few days. If you want to reach me just flick me an email and I'll get back to you on Sunday.

The week in Maori politics

2011-11-18T09:15:00.001+13:00

A round of the week in Maori politics. Tea tapes aside, week 3 of the election campaign in Maori politics was a lot more exciting than the last.

Monday:

Surprisingly, the Herald on Sunday’s (HoS) story on Pita Sharples electorate manager, Martin Cooper, failed to carry over to Monday. The HoS revealed Cooper used his position to influence the Auckland Council. On Radio Live with Willie and JT Sharples blames the media for highlighting the story. It appears that Pita Sharples thinks that possible corruption in his office is a non-issue and the media should be beat up on for doing their job. Nice (sarcasm).

Te Karere released their latest poll, this time on Waiariki. The poll showed Te Ururoa Flavell enjoys a commanding lead. I, as well as Bomber and Tim Selwyn, doubted the poll’s validity. I don’t accept that Te Ururoa enjoys 56%. Annette and Louis both polled 22%.

On RNZ Social Development Minister Paula Bennett refused to commit to retaining Whanau Ora. Bennett claimed the policy is not National Party policy and these things will be fleshed out after the election. On the same program Labour’s Annette King said Labour has no qualms about continuing Whanau Ora. Bennett’s stance may prove detrimental to the Maori Party/National Party relationship. King’s comments may go some way to rebuilding trust between Labour and Tariana Turia.

On Monday night Native Affairs held their Te Tai Tokerau debate. As an aside, Native Affairs won best current affairs show at the Aotearoa Film and Television Awards. I picked Kelvin as the winner, but most in the media and the blogosphere picked the win for Hone – fair enough.

Tuesday:

Tariana Turia led with her call for family who care for disabled whanau to be paid as caregivers. I see no issue with this. It seems wrong that the government pays strangers to act as caregivers but not family. I’m not sure if this is Maori Party policy is whether Turia is acting in her capacity as Disabilities Issues Minister.

The Maori media, particularly Radio Waatea, started paying attention to Labour’s Maori policy. Labour quietly released their Maori policy statement after I criticised them for not doing so last Friday. For my discussion of the policy see this post over at Pundit. The statement was broad, but the first step to influencing Maori political discourse. I say broad, but I should also add that there are some very specific policies like increasing funding for Maori tourism, extending 20 hours free education to Kohanga reo and restabilising Maori trade training.

RNZ reported sparks were flying at a Te Tai Tonga debate hosted by Ngai Tauira at Victoria University. The two main contenders, Rino Tirikatene and Rahui Katene, were at each others throat for most of the debate. National’s Paul Quinn, apparently, got in on the action as well. The highlight of the debate was probably the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis candidate telling the others they need to calm down and smoke more weed.

Wednesday:

Wednesday was fairly quiet. Labour’s Maori policy statement still led on Waatea and TVNZ’s multiparty leaders debate was held that night. Consensus seems to be that Hone Harawira was a top performer and Tariana Turia performed well too. John Armstrong, who is certainly no friend of Hone, declared Hone the standout. Tracey Watkins praised Tariana Turia in the Dom and I took my hat off to both leaders, but Tariana in particular.

Thursday:

It was a busy day for the Mana Movement. In response to the Nat’s draconian plans to drug test beneficiaries Hone Harawira and Annette Sykes called for Cabinet to lead by example and submit themselves for drug tests. After all, as the Nat’s say when they propose draconian measures, the innocent have nothing to fear. Mana also slammed the pay increase MPs are set to receive next year and Sue Bradford continued her run of positive publicity with another profile in a major daily.

In the Herald Claire Trevett looked insightfully at the Maori Party relationship with the Nats. Rawiri Taonui gave his opinion on the Maori seats too. His points bear close, close resemblance to everything I have been saying for the past year. Except Taonui takes the safe road and picks Te Ururoa to retain Waiariki. A safe bet, but it's still 50/50.

Friday:

On RNZ Mana's Annette Sykes slams the Maori Party statement that Mana cannot represent Maori because Mana contains many Pakeha. Annette takes offence at this saying it goes against Maori values. Annette highlights that Maori values dictate that Maori embrace Pakeha and that saying this isn't true is a misunderstanding of kaupapa Maori. I would add that the Maori Party's contention disrespects the Pakeha whakapapa of many Maori too. Annette tops it off and says the Maori Party is, rather than Maori led, "National led".

I speculate in the Herald that the Green activist base may move to Mana in response to Russell Norman throwing Joylojn White overboard. Over at Pundit I also explore Labour’s Maori policy statement and the surprises it contains.

Pita Sharples reckons his opponent, Shane Jones of course, is a waste if he is not the leader of the Labour Party. Sharples thinks the party should have gifted him a safe seat like Manurewa. I agree. I don't know what Labour was thinking standing him in Tamaki Makaurau.

If there's anything I've missed please leave a comment and I'll update it as soon as I can. And also remember to keep tuned to Radio Live next week. Willie and JT have been interviewer prominent politicians in the lead up to the election including many Maori politicians.

On the two political debates

2011-11-17T14:10:00.001+13:00

Did anyone notice that three of the six leaders in TVNZ’s multi party debate were Maori? If Meteria Turei was put in the place of Russell Norman then four of the six would have been Maori – a clear majority. Maori must be doing something right huh. The two kaupapa Maori leaders, Hone and Tariana, came out of the debate looking good. Hone found an unlikely friend in Claire Robinson who commended Hone for his communication skills. Even John Armstrong declares Hone a “surprise standout”. The Dom’s Tracey Watkins praises Tariana as “the kuia of the nation” and I have nothing but praise for her performance too.

I’m only going to focus on Hone and Tariana and then I’ll review Native Affairs Hauraki Waikato debate.

Hone was probably the stronger of the two. He really is the master communicator and, along with the other Maori in the room Winston Peters, had the audience enthralled. Hone was strong on the financial transactions tax and never strayed far from focussing on the poor. A minor highlight of the debate was trying to decide who, out of Hone and Tariana, came up with their respective policies first. A common line was “I agree with Hone” or “I agree with Tari”. Tariana did particularly well during the race relations section. She really underlined her reputation as a strong advocate for Maori. She was all class. Tariana never strayed far from focussing on Whanau Ora too – the Maori Party’s trophy policy win in my opinion. It was a smart appeal to her base.

The question on coalitions was also interesting. Tariana certainly didn’t express a preference for any party pointing out that the Maori Party can and will work with anyone – except Act. This signalled, to me at least, that should the Maori Party hold the balance of power on November 27 they will support a Labour led government. In other words a government that does not include Act. However, if Act is a no show on November 27 and the Maori Party holds the balance of power, well, in that scenario I think they would support a National led government. As Winston said, you develop an amount of respect and admiration for the people you work with, but then again familiarity breeds contempt (or so they say).

On that note it was unfair of Hone to paint the Maori Party as if they are in a coalition with Act. Hone knows this isn’t true. The Maori Party has a relationship, more specifically a confidence and supply agreement, with the National Party – not Act. Act just happen to have one with the Nats too.

Native Affairs debate:

Nanaia Mahuta was the stand out. Hands down. Angeline Greensill was close second while Tau Bruce Mataki from the Maori Party rounded off the night.

Initially, the candidates were evenly matched. Angeline was aggressive off the mark, Mataki was strong on the Maori Party’s policy of asking all Maori organisation to hire two rangatahi while Nanaia was in blazing form on asset sales.

As the night wore on Nanaia proved to be the most consistent. Nanaia showed her experience in response to a question on co-management deals with the Crown and Iwi. Nanaia highlighted Labour’s work in that area, especially around the Waikato river. In response to a question on child abuse Nanaia, quite impressively in my opinion, highlighted specific legislation Labour enacted to reduce assaults on children.

Angeline was strong too. On the child abuse question Angeline linked the problem to poverty and then reeled off Mana’s policies to combat poverty and, as a result, reduce child abuse. On health Angeline skilfully linked her answers to the principles that Princess Te Puea stood for. Angeline also expressed the need for better support for rongoa and Pharmac.

Mataki started strong, but wore off as the night progressed. He managed to recover when discussing the Maori Party’s policy of turning Marae into economic hubs. He also did well to highlight Whanau Ora, as I said the Maori Party’s trophy policy, and link this in with other themes like child abuse.

All three candidates were strong on employment. Nanaia talked about shifting benefits to apprenticeships, Angeline talked about governments role in creating jobs and Mataki talked about the Marae as economic hubs idea.

The debate was probably most notable for Nanaia’s stinging attacks on the Maori Party. She accused the Maori Party of being the National Party’s proxies in the Maori seats and acting as a “Trojan horse” for the Nats. Ouch. Angeline probably garnered the biggest roar at the end of the night when she said if the Maori Party go with the Nats then then your, as in Maori, only option is to vote for the Greens, Labour or Mana.

So the night belongs to Nanaia. She was the most consistent. I guess her experience showed. If last night proved anything though, it’s that Labour will struggle to retain the seat when Nanaia retires (probably next term). The same is true of Ikaroa-Rawhiti. If Angeline runs again I think she’ll take Waikato and if Na Raihania runs in Ikaroa I think he’ll take that seat in the absence of Parekura.

More on Kawerau Intermediate

2011-11-15T15:12:00.001+13:00

Let’s be straight up; schooling in Kawerau needs to be reorganised. While I think Anne Tolley ignored a section of the community and that is undesirable, I think she came to the right decision. The current schooling arrangements in Kawerau are unsustainable. The numbers don’t exist to justify four separate primary schools (one of which is a full primary school i.e. years 1-8), one intermediate and one high school. Basically, supply outstrips demand. The costs of maintaining six schools with massively declining rolls are unacceptable.

Tolley has approved the establishment of a dual campus year 7-14 school on the Kawerau College site. The school will be split along the junior/senior high model, meaning there will be one years 7 to 10 school and another catering for years 11 to 13/14. Some specialist facilities will be shared, for example science labs.

Some members of the community are disappointed with the lack of consultation. I don’t accept this; the consultation was more than adequate. The community was given adequate time to submit to the Minister and convey their concerns to the Ministry of Education. Several hui were held for the entire community and each school held their own individual hui to determine what model they would support. Kawerau South, Kawerau North, Kawerau Central and Putauaki all supported the closure of the Intermediate. Even though the Mayor, Malcolm Campbell, even says it is time to move on and make education in Kawerau work.

Tolley’s reorganisation will facilitate a culture change in Kawerau schools. The useless management will be rid of and the deadwood on the College and Intermediate boards will be rid of too. Useless staff will not be rehired either. I understand some Kawerau people, as former students, have an emotional connection to the Intermediate. But they need to put that aside and face reality. The schools have to be reorganised and closing the Intermediate is the most sensible option. When the new school comes to life in 2013 the government will spend millions upgrading facilities and attracting high quality staff. This can only be a good thing.

As an aside, Steve Chadwick is taking a gamble. Should, on a slim chance, Labour form the next government Steve will have to make an about face. She has come down on the side of the Intermediate supporters, but if she came into government and saw the official advice I'm of the view that she would change her position and support the reorganisation. The advice from the Ministry is, I believe, emphatic. Schooling must be reorganised and the best model is to shut the Intermediate and partially merge it with the College.

Another post having another go at another rubbish poll

2011-11-15T09:42:00.001+13:00

Another day another poll. Yesterday Te Karere released their Waiariki poll. The poll put Te Ururoa Flavell on 56%, Annette Sykes on 22% and Louis Te Kani on 22%. If you ask me, it’s certainly true that Te Ururoa is leading, but I assure you he doesn’t enjoy the support of 56% of the electorate. That’s an inflated figure.

Polls polling the Maori electorates usually, if not always, miss the mark. Five days out from polling day in the Tai Tokerau byelection the Native Affairs Baseline Poll put the gap between Hone and Kelvin at one percentage point. Hone went on to win by over 9%. I~~n 2005 and 2008 the Marae Digi-polls were predicting a clean sweep for the Maori Party in the Maori seats. In reality the party won four seats in 2005 and five in 2008 – not all seven~~ (that is wrong and I take responsibility for making a poor call). There is significant variance between what some polls hold and what others do when it comes to the Maori electorates. For example, the Marae Digi-poll on Te Tai Tokerau held that Kelvin Davis was ahead of Hone Harawira. A week or so later the Te Karere poll indicated that Hone enjoyed a comfortable lead over Kelvin.

As you can imagine, I have a few criticisms to make. Firstly, the poll was conducted via landline. Poor people, read many Maori, prefer cellphones over landlines. With cellphones you pay for what you use whereas landlines come with a fixed cost no matter how much or how little you use it. Data from the 2006 Census indicates that only 76% of Maori households in Waiariki have access to a landline and 73% of Maori households have access to a cellphone. That figure would have risen significantly with the increased proliferation of cellphones over the past five years. Many Maori operate two or three cellphones on different networks. The problem with surveying landline only households is that the subset of the population without landlines differs from those with landlines (e.g. the very poor and the very rich tend to operate cellphones only – those in the middle tend to be landline and cellphone users).

Furthermore, 14.6% of workers in the primary sector do not have access to landlines. By my reckoning that figure will rise for Maori primary sector workers. In the Eastern Bay, where Annette is strongest, many Maori are employed in forestry, farming or the pulp and paper industry (primary industries). Also 19.6% of 18 to 24 year olds do not have access to a landline phone. As you can imagine, this group will include a disproportionate number of Maori voters. Annette’s support base is likely to consist of mainly young Maori too. For low income homes 12.5% do not own a landline and, again, that figure will rise when considering poor Maori households only. Again, Annette’s support base is primarily drawn from the poor.

With this in mind, a landline only poll is going to bypass a significant bloc of the Maori population. Maori, especially low-income Maori, are transient too. Often moving from rented home to rented home. As such, these Maori have never had access to a landline telephone and, if they do, they are extremely difficult to reach because they tend to avoid listing their numbers in the White Pages.

The time calls are made will also affect who is reached. I figure a disproportionate number of Maori in Waiariki are shift workers and these workers will be missed because, from my experience and the pollsters call my family every time, the poll is conducted late afternoon early evening when shift workers are beginning their shift/still sleeping. Again, a large bloc is missed. This brings me to another point; pollsters tend to ring the same Maori over and over again. Our household is contacted for every poll they run I think. You’re not going to get reliable results when you poll the same people over and over again.

The poll also worked from a low base, only 400 voters from the Maori role were surveyed, and the margin of error was quite high at 4.9%. Another significant flaw is that the poll was conducted between October 15 and November 8. Polls are a snapshot of a particular moment in time. The snapshot from this poll captures a time where Annette was still in first gear – slowly building her name recognition and momentum.

Polls polling the Maori electorates may also suffer from non-response bias. Some Maori may be unwilling to respond to pollsters so the poll may not be representative of all Maori. The characteristics of the Maori who do agree to be polled may be different those who refuse. For example, those who agree may be more conservative or liberal.

It would also be interesting to know the wording of the questions. For example, were the names of the candidates given (unlike in the Marae Digi-poll). Was Te Ururoa described as “the incumbent” or did the pollsters refer to his “majority” or “record” etc… that sort of wording will influence the direction in which respondents swing.

I’m not sure what, if any, weighting techniques the polling company uses. The deficiencies identified above are significant in my opinion and have skewed the result.

I’m not arguing that Te Ururoa is not ahead at the moment. He certainly is, but he certainly does not enjoy such a handsome lead. For example I was told that yesterday Annette smashed Te Ururoa at a debate at Te Wananga o Aotearoa in Rotorua. Many of the Wananga people who are Te Ururoa supporters (Te Ururoa used to work with the Wananga) were switching their vote to Annette. This is the story I’m hearing consistently. Having said that, I’m also hearing a lot of praise for what Te Ururoa has done for Waiariki (minus the East Coast of course – boy is Te Ururoa not liked up there).

Tim Selwyn and I are lonely voices calling it for Annette. But then again we were lonely voices when we were calling it for Hone too. Despite this, I’m standing by my feeling that Annette is going to win it. Call me a fool.

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Tai Tokerau review

2011-11-14T22:03:00.001+13:00

I don’t have too much to say about the Tai Tokerau debate on Native Affairs. The three candidates, Hone, Kelvin and Waihoroi Shortland, were pretty even. If forced to pick a winner I’d go with Kelvin. Yes, Kelvin not Hone. Hone was certainly the most authorative, but Kelvin was the most articulate. He focussed firmly on Labour policy without peppering his answers with useless rhetoric. Yes, Hone and Waihoroi were guilty of providing meaningless, read useless, answers. However, I think the criticism that Kelvin is too “wooden” is well placed. This may have something to do with Kelvin remembering his lines too well and he comes across as scripted. I tend to think, or I know from personal experience, that that’s just how Kelvin is. To me it makes no difference.

Having said the above, on a strict points decision the night probably belongs to Hone. Hone speaks well off the cuff and he knows better than anyone how to connect with Maori on a personal level. One thing Hone does well is use colloquialism without taking away from the authority of his message. Maori, well New Zealanders actually, like their politicians to speak like them. That’s part of the appeal of John Key. Where Americans appreciate soaring rhetoric New Zealanders enjoy understated and familiar language. Hone understands this. Many New Zealand politicians are guilty of trying to be like Obama.

Waihoroi was strong in parts and weak in others. He did well to highlight the Maori Party’s role in securing funding for treating rheumatic fever in the north. Waihoroi is much better in te reo than English. He suffers from the problem many fluent Maori speakers suffer from – they speak English like they speak te reo. English is not meant to be spoken in the same manner as te reo. I’m nitpicking here, but one of the problems fluent Maori speakers have is that they can be too verbose. English is about simplicity whereas Maori is often about heavy metaphors, animation and so on. When someone speaks English like they speak te reo the message can be bogged down and lost. This isn’t an attack on Waihoroi, he did well, this is just a general observation.

In fairness, the night was probably too close to call. But I’ll give it Kelvin for focussing on policy. Kelvin provided a template for how political discourse in this country should be run.

Corruption in Tamaki Makaurau

2011-11-14T17:39:00.001+13:00

Martin Cooper, a parliamentary staffer for Pita Sharples, has landed himself in the shit. Details are sketchy, but this is what is known so far.

Last year Cooper, a former Black Power member, was hired by a property developer to assist in obtaining council permits and selling a property. The property in question was the former Black Power Pad which Police seized in a drug bust. The Police sold the property to the developer. The developer then looked to sell the property back to the Black Power. The Black Power referred the developer to Cooper. The two men came to an agreement that Cooper would receive $5000 for arranging the sale and Cooper would also assist in obtaining development permits from the Council. On March 12 2010 Cooper and Pita Sharples wrote to the Council on Maori Party letterhead, not parliamentary letterhead it should be noted, in support of the developer. One month later Cooper outlined to the developer his plans to write to Local Government Minister Rodney Hide, former Mayor John Banks and a departmental manager at the former Auckland City Council in support of the developer and his problems with the Council. Cooper said “Political pressure will hopefully place the council into submission where they will be ordered to shut it down”. After some refusal, the developer eventually paid Cooper the $5000. Early this year the developer wrote to John Key asking for help and outlined what had occurred. It appears the sale fell through. The Prime Minister’s Office forwarded the developers concerns to the Justice Minister’s Office. The Herald tried to contact the Minister’s Office but did not receive a reply by deadline.

This is unacceptable behaviour from an employee of Parliamentary Services. I don’t have the Parliamentary Services Code of Conduct at hand, but surely this sort of behaviour will breach the code. Worryingly, Pita Sharples may be implicated too. Is it appropriate for a Minister to support the developer in this matter? Naturally, we will need to see the contents of the letter Sharples sent to the Council to know whether Sharples is guilty of anything untoward. But it looks shady.

In a dumb move, Sharples is standing behind Cooper. Sharples was approached with the emails but refused to even read them saying he is behind Cooper “100%”. That was a stupid thing to say. Cooper is, prima facie, guilty of abusing his position. Cooper used his position as a Parliamentary Staffer to a well known Minister to make money. Essentially, Cooper acted in his capacity as a Parliamentary Staffer in furtherance of his own financial ends – this is unacceptable.

Hopefully, the media shines more light on this.

UPDATE: I/S at No Right Turn points out that Cooper is probably liable for corruption under the Crimes Act 1961. I/S thinks Sharples should pay the political price for supporting Cooper. Agreed.

Kawerau Intermediate will close

2011-11-14T16:50:00.001+13:00

Education Minister Anne Tolley has finally confirmed Kawerau Intermediate will be closed and merged with Kawerau College. From RNZ:

Labour Party List MP Steve Chadwick says Education Minister Anne Tolley has steamrolled the Kawerau community and ignored its pleas not to close the only intermediate school there.

Mrs Tolley has announced a new Year 7 to Year 14 school which will replace Kawerau Intermediate and Kawerau College.

National says it would invest $6 million in the new school. But Ms Chadwick says Mrs Tolley deliberately ignored the community wishes not to merge the schools.

Tolley certainly ignored the community, but, in my opinion, the Minister reached the correct decision. The current model, meaning three tiers of schooling (primary, intermediate and high school), is unsustainable. Reform is, without doubt, necessary and welcome.

In 2013 the College will reopen as a junior/senior high school. On the same campus I believe, but with separate facilities. I think the junior/senior high model is largely untested in New Zealand and an American import. This isn’t to say the model won’t be successful. With the right governance and management the school should, in theory of course, be successful. Good governance and management is what Kawerau College has lacked over the past decade. However, I do worry that the Minister is using Kawerau as a test town for the junior/senior high model. I don’t know what is behind Tolley’s enthusiasm for the model; I guess there must be some sort of cost efficiencies in running high school education in that way.

I’m giving my cautious support to the redevelopment.

Lastly, I wish the Kawerau Intermediate die hards would give it a rest and get on with ensuring the best outcomes for children. You lost. You can't do anything more. Accept it and move on.

Native Affairs, Q&A and Marae Investigates

2011-11-14T09:23:00.001+13:00

A few quick thoughts:

----------

Big ups to Native Affairs winning best current affairs show at the Aotearoa Film and Television Awards. Native is the most intelligent, in depth and watchable current affairs show in NZ. No bells and whistles, just straight current affairs. Native is also one of the few Maori TV shows that cross the cultural divide. Be sure to watch the Tai Tokerau debate on Native tonight at 9.30.

----------

Shane Jones and Pita Sharples went head to head on Q&A yesterday. Sharples stressed his party's achievements including getting 200 people working on community gardens, no joke. Shane ripped Sharples point apart saying change for Maori must occur at a macro level. Sharples recovered to point out that to make a long term difference resources must be invested in education and this is where the Maori Party has done well, apparently. Paul Holmes cornered Shane with a question on the retirement age. Mana and the Maori Party have outflanked Labour and promised to reduce the Maori retirement age to 60. Shane initially attempted to deflect the question, but eventually highlighted the transitional payments system which he implied could be extended to Maori. Shane concluded, quite skilfully in my opinion, and shifted the focus to increasing Maori life expectancy. The interview ended with Shane rightfully identifying his “dim prospects” of leading the Labour Party. The panel said the debate was too even to call and I largely agree. If it went to any side I think it weighed only slightly on Shane’s.

----------

Marae Investigates covered the Maori electorates with Rawiri Taonui, Maria Bargh and Willie Jackson. All three called Tamaki Makaurau for Pita. Willie Jackson pointed out that Pita is campaigning well at the moment. Rawiri thought Labour’s lack of Maori policy is hurting Shane – a point I made last week.

The panel thought Nanaia was safe. I agree. Angeline Greensill came painfully close at the last election. However, this year it’s a three horse race. Angeline will have to share the non-Labour vote with Bruce Mataki of the Maori Party. The door is wide open for Nanaia to increase her hold on the seat.

Ikaroa-Rawhiti was, correctly in my opinion, called for Parekura Horomia and Te Tai Hauauru for Tariana Turia. These two seats are going to be wide open when Parekura and Tariana retire next term.

Waiariki was next. Rawiri Taonui pretty much endorsed Annette saying of all the Maori standing in this election he wants to see Annette make it to Parliament. Willie reckons she would do well in Parliament. However, both men did not think she would win. A fair call, but inconsistent with what I have called. Willie pointed out that the “tikanga” is tough on wahine in the electorate. Most readers will know what he is referring to.

On to Te Tai Tonga and Maria said “Hurricane” (Clinton Dearlove) will storm Labour’s vote. Willie was on the right track when he disagreed and said Dearlove will steal Maori Party votes and hand the seat to Rino as a result. This is a point I made after the Te Tai Tonga debate.

----------

Finally, there is a Te Karere Digi-poll coming out today on the Waiariki race. I think the poll will be make or break for Annette. The poll needs to show Annette within a reasonable distance of Te Ururoa or her supporters will, more likely than not, see it as a lost cause and stay home. Annette’s campaign depends on a lot of variables. Most of all I have decided it depends on how many young Maori enrol and mobilise on the day. I sense the old people here in Waiariki are still backing Te Ururoa and are still attracted to the image and the thought of the “Maori”, stress on “Maori”, Party. The young are overwhelmingly, no almost exclusively, backing Annette.

The week in Maori politics (updated)

2011-11-11T08:39:00.001+13:00

It was slow going in Maori politics this week. Below I’ve summarised and commented on the main events.

Monday:

News on Monday was dominated by the Mana Movement’s campaign launch at a Marae in South Auckland. In a quite deliberate and symbolic move the launch was held on Guy Fawkes day. There wasn’t really anything radical or new to come out of the day.

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11 Waiariki debate was held on Monday night. Te Ururoa Flavell (Maori Party), Annette Sykes (Mana) and Louis Te Kani (Labour) went head to head on issues like family violence and a motorway that will cut through the Puarenga Stream. Interestingly, Louis Te Kani put his head out and said, should he win, he will resign if the motorway goes ahead. In contrast, Labour’s Steve Chadwick (who was at the debate) supports the motorway (she didn’t point that out at the debate though of course). I called the debate for Annette and sparked heated debate with many commenters calling it for Te Ururoa and some even expressing support for Louis Te Kani.

A Te Karere Digi-poll surveying the Tamaki Makaurau electorate was released on Monday and showed Pita Sharples enjoys a comfortable lead over Labour’s Shane Jones and Mana’s Kereama Pene. This wasn’t in itself a surprise, but the extent of Pita’s support was. The poll indicated Pita enjoys a clear majority (58% support).

Tuesday:

Tuesday was an empty day. The highlight was probably Kereama Pene saying Mana will not sit down with Kupapa. This we already know, but it was fascinating to see Pene invoke that sort of language. In fact, it was fascinating to see him speak to media at all. I would have thought that Matt McCarten would have tied a tight leash to him.

Wednesday:

Another slow day. The only highlight was the Ikaroa-Rawhiti debate between Parekura Horomia (Labour), Na Raihania (Maori Party) and Tawhai McClutchie (Mana). I called the debate for Parekura, but I think had Na not endorsed National Standards the debate could have easily gone his way. Parekura has done his campaign no disservice and will probably cruise to victory.

Thursday:

A very busy day as far as the Maori Party was concerned. The party released their education policy which called for universal access to Te Reo Maori in schools. A great policy. If Maori, or non-Maori too, want to learn te reo then it should be available as a subject at all schools – or at the very least at all state schools. Te Reo Maori is an official language, an integral part of New Zealand society and giving effect to te reo is recognising the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty to actively protect Maori taonga.

Tariana Turia also called for a review of Te Puni Kokiri. I’m not sure if this is needed, but it sounds reasonable. What bad can come of it? None in my mind.

Friday:

In the Herald I stick it to Labour for failing to enter or influence Maori political discourse. Labour is leaving Mana and the Maori Party to direct Maori political discourse and, as a result, allowing the two parties an opportunity to eat in to one of Labour's traditional support bases i.e. Maori voters. I need to eat some of my words though because what does Goff go and do – he makes a headline at Waatea News. Let’s hope to see some follow up from Labour.

Hone Harawira participates in a live chat on Stuff.co.nz. Hone confirms he will never work with National and provides a few insightful one-liners like "Charities exist where governments fail".
The Maori Party policy on making te reo universally available in schools still has legs.

Uncertain future for the Maori Party

2011-11-11T06:00:00.000+13:00

Duncan Garner speculates on what could have been:

With Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples retiring at the 2014 election, the leadership of the Maori Party could have easily gone to Harawira, if he sat tight, stayed in the tent, managed his activism and been a bit more patient. That he hasn't is tragic.

I don’t know about this. I always thought Te Ururoa was the natural pick post Turia and Sharples. Te Ururoa didn’t, or hasn’t, exactly achieved more or less than Hone in Parliament – the thing is he was always the more palatable face. A man of compromise and, by all accounts, respected across the entire political spectrum. Hone was, while is actually, hated outside of the left. I think many Parliamentarians hold a grudging respect for him, but would rather not turn off their voters and work publicly with Hone. So, it was always in the Maori Party’s best interests to elevate Te Ururoa over Hone. Both men had their camps – i.e. Hone had the activist faction while Te Ururoa would have won the conservative element in the Maori Party – but ultimately the conservatives (which would include many of the kaumatua of the party) would have had their way.

Ideally it should be a vehicle that holds all the Maori seats and is the balance of power at each election. The Maori Party, in their ideal political world, should be in the position where it chooses who governs every three years. It has clearly failed to get to that point.

So, so true. Makes me yearn for what could have been. Hone shouldn’t field all of the blame though. Hone took the principled road – he listened to Maori and he rebelled against the insufficient MCA Act. He didn’t put up with policies that discriminated against the poor. In my opinion he did the right thing. The Maori Party lost their way. The ends certainly did not justify what the Maori Party swallowed. The ETS dumped costs on already struggling Maori households, the ACC changes disadvantaged many Maori, the 90 fire at will law decreased Maori job security, the MCA Act went against Maori aspirations and the tax swindle put pressure on Maori budgets… and for what… a flag over the harbour bridge, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, a constitutional review, rearranged and renamed funding. About the only thing I can think of that will benefit Maori in a real way is Whanau Ora (which has been massively underfunded). That is not to say the Maori Party’s achievements are for nought. Maori are, in my opinion, better off for what the Maori Party has done and I think we’ll look back and say, ae, they did achieve something. But on balance, the Maori Party has probably applied more pressure on Maori than they have eased.

There appears to be no succession plan to replace Turia and Sharples. If there is, it's not yet evident. But it could and should have been Hone, if he was willing to pull on his big boy pants and be a true leader - rather than a sniper on the sidelines.

Yeah, not sure if there is either. The obvious successors are Flavell and Katene, but that’s assuming they survive. Other than them maybe Waihoroi Shortland and Kaapua Smith? One of the fundamental differences between Mana and the Maori Party is that Mana have a succession plan (or are formulating one). At the moment, Mana looks to be the more sustainable movement for Maori.

Maori need a strong independent voice, not a bunch of weakened one or two man bands that hold little or no sway.

The Maori Party and Mana will be back. But for what? With whom? And just what can they achieve?

The logical position for Mana and the Maori Party is to form a bloc. A bloc where the Mana Movement focuses on the Party vote and the Maori Party focuses on the electorate vote. Hone originally wanted this but the Maori Party, in their most dumb and self interested move yet, threw it back in his face. Dumb. Just dumb.

Beyond Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples I see no future for the Maori Party. It would take some dramatic wins and some dramatic fuck ups from Hone for the Maori Party to regain relevance. The tide is going out on the Maori Party and rising on the Mana Movement. A shame really. It comes down to this: there is no one Maori voice, we speak in different voices, different languages even. Whakapapa will bind us, but we are not of one mind.

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Ikaroa Rawhiti review

2011-11-10T06:00:00.000+13:00

There isn’t an awful lot to say about the Native Affairs Ikaroa Rawhiti debate. There were no surprises, no real stand outs or no real disappointments. Business as usual up the coast really. If forced to call it, I’d give it to Parekura (yes, I used to work for Parekura, and yes I want him to win, and yes I think he will win).

It’s a fact though, isn’t it? Parekura’s just bloody good. It doesn’t even matter if he doesn’t address the question – he still sounds bloody good. The man was well versed in Labour talking points and he tied them in well with local themes and concerns. Where I thought he was particularly strong was on Maori trade training. He affirmed Labour’s commitment to reintroducing Maori trade training and he also mentioned the need to modernise the scheme because, quite obviously, the old school model isn’t going to fit so well with Maori in 2011. Parekura was also strong on health focussing on preventing problems rather than responding to them. This linked in with Labour’s children first policy. Policy wise, the highlight for me was Parekura’s speaking on putting money into post settlement governance entities. Post settlement Iwi structures are a real problem in Maori society, think of the problems engulfing Tainui, and Labour appears to be the only party taking note (please correct me if I’m wrong here).

Parekura wasn’t the only man in the room though. Na Raihania was good as well. When Parekura calls it a day I’d put money on Na taking the seat. He’s polite, moves well between te reo and English and knows Maori Party policy/the issues affecting his people. Na spoke well on health touching on Whanau Ora which he termed as “devolving” services to Maori organisations. I always associate “devolving services” with privatisation. Na failed to maintain his trajectory though. In the second half of the show Na came out in support of National Standards. He went as far as to say the Maori Party supports National Standards. Have he and the Maori Party not seen the international evidence against standards? Have he and the Maori Party not heard the warnings from NZ experts against the standards? Have he and the Maori Party not smelt the discontent coming from the education profession? Na said “in the absence of anything better we need to get something on the ground”. Anything better? National Standards are the worst option imaginable. The status quo works better. Anywho, other than that shocking hiccup Na performed very well and came across as a polite, respectful and knowledgeable candidate.

I don’t have much to say about Tawhai Mcclutchie. He was good - but no Hurricane Dearlove that’s for sure. I think he needed to provide more depth and try to keep away from saying Mana so much. He was good though (I won’t be disparaging of people who have taken a leap for something they believe in) and should be commended for doing so well on what is his first campaign and, probably, first time in front on the cameras and a live audience. I was a little shocked though when in response to a question on Maori wards in Gisborne Tawhai said there should be a 60/40 ratio of Maori to Pakeha – talk about radical huh.

On balance, the night belongs to Parekura. Na certainly didn’t harm his chances though and I think he may just be positioning himself for a successful run in 2014.

(The next debate screen Monday from Te Tai Tokerau)

Pita ahead in Tamaki

2011-11-09T16:39:00.000+13:00

Further to Tamaki Makaurau, I forgot to mention this poll earlier in the week. From the Herald:

According to a Te Karere DigiPoll released today, Dr Sharples appears to have victory in the Auckland Maori electorate sewn up.

The poll, which surveyed 400 Maori roll voters, gave Dr Sharples a massive majority of 58 per cent for the electorate vote, with Labour's Shane Jones coming in second with less than half the votes, on 23 per cent.

Trailing further behind were Mana's Kereama Pene and Green Party candidate Mikaere Curtis, on 14 and 3 per cent respectively.

I don’t expect Pita to poll that high on the day, but, as I expanded on over at Pundit, I expect Pita to win. Kereama Pene’s influence on the result will be negligible. He will not siphon enough votes from Pita to hand the seat to Shane. This is a two horse race.

Taking a Punt on Tamaki Makaurau

2011-11-09T15:37:00.000+13:00

If anyone's interested I have a post up at Pundit on the Tamaki Makaurau seat. I'm calling it for Pita Sharples, but Shane Jones isn't one to be counted out.

Waiariki debate continued...

2011-11-09T14:07:00.000+13:00

My last post (and it was hardly a post – more like a few sentences) generated a passionate response from camp Annette and camp Te Ururoa. The comments fell into three broad categories: 1. Annette smashed Te Ururoa and he is “the one percent iwi elite scumbag”, as one fiery commenter put it 2. Annette is, in the words of the first commenter, a “BMW” (Bitter Maori Woman) with nothing more than a big mouth while Te Ururoa is quietly doing the job. 3. We, as in Maori, need to stop turning on each other.

I’m glad this blog is stimulating debate, but please, please can we keep it civil. Calling someone a “scumbag” or a “BMW” probably doesn’t help anyone.

Anyway, a few words on the debate itself. Annette won, hands down. She controlled the debate. Te Ururoa found himself having to respond to her attacks, or allegations is probably the nicer word here, therefore, he was unable to control the agenda. Annette backed him into a corner and portrayed him in an unfavourable light. It was masterful politics. However, Te Ururoa responded almost as well. He didn’t come out of the corner fighting, instead he steadily moved himself out with careful justifications and a focus on the Maori Party’s achievements. Te Ururoa’s responses detracted from the potency of Annette’s attacks (or allegations) and helped build the picture that he is a respectful person (which I’m sure he is).

Annette is prone to well crafted and well delivered rhetoric, so naturally this is where she stole the show. Te Ururoa built the best image, but Annette spoke the best. Each answer she provided explored Mana policy, at times she digged at her opponents and, most importantly, she linked every answer to themes that will resonate with Maori. For example tino rangatiratanga, anti-capitalism and the effects of colonisation. It was masterful politics.

Te Ururoa also provided in depth and considered answers. But often he found himself having to defend himself or his party rather than going on the front foot like Annette. However, he still managed to paint a good picture of himself as respectful and considered. Louis Te Kani, unfortunately, wasn’t a feature. He found himself relying too heavily on non-specific soundbites. A little depth from him would have gone a long way.

On a similar note the Ikaroa-Rawhiti debate is on tonight at 9pm. I’ll probably write on it tomorrow.

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Waiariki

2011-11-07T21:36:00.002+13:00

Well, there's no doubt about it, Annette Sykes toppled Te Ururoa Flavell and Louis Te Kani in tonight's debate. I'm not going to write anything substantive on the debate here, instead look out for my review in Wednesday's Rotorua Daily Post. I might reproduce the piece and add to it on Thursday depending on how much time I have.

Waiariki: Electorate analysis

2011-11-07T06:00:00.000+13:00

There are three marginal Maori seats – Te Tai Tonga, Tamaki Makaurau and Waiariki. Of the three, Waiariki is the hardest to call. Te Ururoa Flavell is facing a strong challenge from Mana’s Annette Sykes while Labour’s Louis Te Kani could gallop up the middle if Annette falls short.

Today’s post is the second in a series analysing the Maori electorates. I’ll look at the electorate profile, the candidates and then I’ll offer my thoughts on how and to whom the electorate will fall.

Profile:

(Here is the link to the electorate profile from the Parliamentary Library)

Waiariki wraps around the Bay of Plenty coast from Cape Runaway in the east to Waihi Beach. The boundary then extends inwards to Turangi. The main centres in Waiariki are Tauranga, Rotorua, Taupo and Whakatane. Smaller centres include Kawerau, Opotiki and Te Puke. The tangata whenua in Waiariki whakapapa to either the Mataatua Waka or the Te Arawa Waka. However, some hapu derive from peoples who predate the arrival of both Waka.

The most populous Iwi in Waiariki is Tuhoe (Mataatua) followed by Nga Puhi (Mataatua), Ngati Tuwharetoa (Te Arawa), Te Arawa (Te Arawa), Ngati Porou (Nukutaimemeha and others) and Ngati Awa (Mataatua).

There are over 82,000 Maori in Waiariki. 41.7% are under 30 while only 12% are over 65. Waiariki has the highest rate of Maori language speakers with 26.9% speaking fluent Te Reo. Little over 5% of Maori in Waiariki hold a bachelors degree or higher. In terms of educational achievement Waiariki ranks in the bottom half of Maori electorates. Waiariki isn’t an overly religious electorate, again, ranking in the bottom half of Maori electorates when examining religious affiliation. The median household income in Waiariki is $45,200 while the New Zealand median is $59,000. 36.8% of households in Waiariki earn $50,000 or over. Again, this ranks in the bottom half of Maori electorates. Almost 25% of households do not have access to a landline while over 50% do not have access to the internet (this presents significant difficulty when it comes to polling the electorate). 26.7% of Maori in Waiariki are on some sort of government benefit.

At the 2005 election Te Ururoa polled at almost 55%. Labour’s Mita Ririnui managed to pull in 39% of the vote. The late Hawea Vercoe sponged 6% of the vote. Labour did well in the party vote coming in at 53%. The Maori Party followed with 31% and New Zealand First with 7%.

Te Ururoa Flavell increased his majority in 2008 and utterly smashed Mita Ririnui securing almost 70% of the vote. However, the Labour Party captured a plurality in the party vote stakes with 45.5%. The Maori Party secured 35.5%. New Zealand First polled well gaining almost 8% of the vote while National and the Greens did very poorly with only 5% and 2% respectively.

Candidates:

Three candidates will contest Waiariki. The Maori Party’s Te Ururoa Flavell (incumbent), Labour’s Louis Te Kani and Mana Movement’s Annette Sykes.

Te Ururoa Flavell:

Te Ururoa affiliates to Ngati Rangiwewehi (Te Arawa) and Nga Puhi (Mataatua) and was born in Tokoroa (Te Tai Hauauru), but was raised in Waiariki attending Sunset Primary School in Rotorua. Te Ururoa trained as a teacher and has worked in education most of his life. Entering Parliament in 2005 Te Ururoa became an active Select Committee member and in 2010 his Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill was drawn from the ballot and will probably have its first reading next term.

Annette Sykes:

Annette has extensive affiliations across Te Arawa including Ngati Pikiao and Ngati Makino. Annette also affiliates to Taiwhakaea (Ngati Awa) and Hamua (Tuhoe). Annette was schooled in Kawerau attending Kawerau North School, Kawerau Intermediate and then Kawerau College. Annette studied law and politics at Victoria and Auckland Universities and also studied in Singapore. Over the past thirty years Annette has been one the most prominent tino rangatiratanga activists and a tireless supporter of human rights. Prior to full time full time campaigner Annette was a partner at Aurere Law in Rotorua.

Louis Te Kani:

Unfortunately, I can’t find any reference to Louis tribal affiliations, but I assume that he connects to Te Arawa and the tribes of Tauranga Moana. Te Kani was born and bred in Tauranga and works in Rotorua (Louis is a very prominent lawyer in the city). Louis comes from a Labour background (he’s also Ratana) and was shoulder tapped to stand in the seat.

Analysis:

Waiariki is one the harder electorates to call. The Maori electorates aren’t homogenous – there are separate and often disparate communities of interest, there are different issues at play for different iwi, there is sometimes an urban/rural dichotomy and inter-tribal dynamics can favour/discriminate against some candidates.

I tend to think Annette will win, but this isn’t guaranteed.

One cannot underestimate the importance of a strong campaign. At this point in the game Annette is running the stronger campaign due, in part, to superior campaign infrastructure and a reflex swing against the Maori Party. Annette is also driving the narrative.

Annette can tap a deeper well of campaign support than Te Ururoa and Louis. Mana can rely on numerous branches across the electorate whereas Te Ururoa can’t (the Maori Party branches are weak to non-existent in Waiariki) and Louis can not tap the same numbers that Mana can. Annette even has a big campaign bus like John Key and National’s bus in the 2008 election. In terms of hoardings, however, I would (anecdotally speaking) say Louis Te Kani has the most.

A well defined message can go a long way. Annette has, I think, the perfect throwaway line: a vote for Te Ururoa is a vote for National. The Nat’s poll horrendously among Maori in Waiariki (see above) and much of the reflex swing against the Maori Party is due to their support for the Nat’s on, for example, tax and the MCA Act. Annette needs to cement the narrative that the Maori Party, and by extension Te Ururoa, have sold out Maori interests.

Te Ururoa enjoys only soft support outside of Rotorua. Tauranga is anyones game, Whakatane and Taupo are marginal and Kawerau, Te Teko, Ruatoki (and the Tuhoe rohe generally), Opotiki, Turangi and Te Kaha (as well as the rest of the East Coast) will probably fall Annette’s way.

Booth by booth the party vote is fairly consistent across the electorate. In case you wondered I’m examining the party vote because the candidate vote is misleading given that only two candidates stood and the losing candidate was weak (to the point of not even trying).

The distance between Labour and the Maori Party is fairly even across all the polling places. In the Eastern Bay the tino rangatiratanga vote (TR) - i.e. Maori Party vote - was strongest in Te Kaha (as well as Cape Runaway and Torere), Te Teko, Waimana (as well as Kutarere), Ruatoki and, surprisingly, Ohope. In Rotorua the tino rangatiratanga vote was strong in Mamaku, Koutu and Glenholme/Springfield (the polling place was on Devon St which is part of Springfield and Glenholme). In Tauranga the TR vote was strong in Bethlehem and Waitangi only. The TR vote was strong in the southern end of the Taupo region, in particular Turangi, Tokaanu and Wairakei.

Annette’s, for want of a better term, tino rangatiratanga credentials are far stronger than Te Ururoas. She can stand on her record as an advocate for Maori. Maori know who Annette Sykes is and Maori know what she stands for. Annette can easily eat into Te Ururoa’s vote in the above areas because of this. However, to win the electorate she needs to siphon sufficient votes in Opotiki, Rotorua, Tauranga, or Taupo. Or she needs to win one of those areas in large numbers. Opotiki is Whakatohea territory. Whakatohea is a rural Iwi and, in my experience, staunch tino rangatiratanga. Annette's rhetoric and record will appeal. Rotorua is a hard sell for Annette. I have mentioned one of the disputed attitudes of Te Arawa that may count against her. However, I think Annette will do well in Ngati Pikiao and in Rotoiti. I think she will not do too well in Ngati Whakaue though. I tend to think Tauranga will fall Louis Te Kani’s way – at least in Tauranga proper. On the outskirts I think Te Ururoa will hold his vote. I think Tauranga Maori are quite unionised (e.g. port workers). Annette could do well in Taupo, but it depends on how well she campaigns. Mana infrastructure in Taupo is fairly strong. The Party is standing a general seat candidate so Annette could tap the general seat candidate’s networks.

Te Ururoa will almost certainly lose the East Coast from Opotiki to Cape Runaway. He’s played the invisible man over the past three years. Initially, the Maori Party, morespecially Te Ururoa, did not back Te Whanau a Apanui in their opposition to oil prospecting. The job was left to Hone Harawira (who of course isn’t even the local MP), Greenpeace and, but to a lesser extent, the Greens. Te Ururoa will also lose Tuhoe and Kawerau as well. In the aftermath of the Terror raids Te Ururoa did a brilliant job attacking the then Labour Government and he also provided outstanding support to his constituents. However, Annette has played a major role as well representing many of the Tuhoe accused/former accused. She has been their since the beginning and stuck at it. Annette also whakapapas to Tuhoe and her politics appeals to them too (think Te Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe – Tuhoe independence). Te Ururoa will probably lose Kawerau too. Annette is a local girl who knows the town and the issues. Te Ururoa hasn’t been very active in Kawerau so the town does not really have much of a connection with him.

Te Ururoa will probably lose significant support along the coastline from Whakatane to Waihi Beach. Iwi along the coast were, or are, unhappy with the MCA Act. However, it is a moot point whether this alone will be enough to swing the vote in the Coast. If it is that vote will fall to Annette. Maori still have not forgiven Labour for the foreshore and seabed debacle in 2004.

(Here is the link to the booth by booth summary)

Conclusion:

I doubt Louis will gallop up the middle. I think Annette can steal enough of Te Ururoa’s vote outside of Rotorua to steal the seat from him. Louis will do well in Tauranga, but to win you need to win more than one of the main centres. Annette’s victory is not guaranteed. If Te Ururoa can execute a strong campaign he will retain the seat. But this is unlikely. There are few functional Maori Party branches, few resources and few functioning networks. The momentum is in Annette’s favour.

In next week's edition

2011-11-04T17:31:00.000+13:00

Next week I'll be covering all of the important happenings in Maori politics as well as:

An in depth analysis of the Waiariki electorate on Monday (in time for the Waiariki debate that night)
A review of the Waiariki debate (Tuesday) and the Ikaroa Rawhiti debate (Thursday)
An in depth analysis of the Tamaki Makaurau electorate (hopefully I'll have it done on Wednesday)
A round up of the week in Maori politics on Friday

That's the important stuff, but I'll still cover all the things that happen in between.

(There will be no blogging over the weekend).

The week in Maori Politics (updated)

2011-11-04T09:04:00.001+13:00

This post will be the first in a series summarising the week in Maori politics. Maori politics is taking a backseat – even more than usual – which is, to be fair, expected.

Monday:

The week kicked off with the Mana Party lending support to lowering the Maori retirement age to 60. The Maori Party did great work to initially highlight the fact that life expectancy for Maori is lower than that for non-Maori. Many Maori men will pay tax their entire working life but never reach the retirement age. Fundamentally, it’s about equity and equality. Maori should have the opportunity to collect the pension at the same rate as non-Maori.

The Maori Party also announced their idea to insert a “Treaty clause” into the Overseas Investment Act. The clause would give Iwi, I believe, a right of pre-emption on land the Government is intending to sell to overseas interests. I like this idea, but would like to see it extended to non-Maori New Zealanders/organisations too.

TVNZ (Te Karere) Te Tai Tokerau poll results were also released on Monday. The poll put Hone ahead of his rivals. Poll results from Maori electorates must be analysed with care (the sample is small, usually no adjustments for income, age and sex sampling error and non-landline voters are missed), having said that the results from this poll seem consistent with what I have perceived on the ground.

Tuesday:

A quiet day in Maori politics, the highlight was the Mana Movement and the Maori Party releasing their lists. Surprising, but encouraging, to see two young (I won’t say rangatahi) women highly placed. Misty Harrison is ranked at number 5 on the Mana list. If Mana get a very good result Misty will be in. Kaapua Smith is ranked number 2 on the Maori Party list. It’s very unlikely she will make it in. The only scenario I can see is if the Maori Party win only one seat and get a better than expected share of the party vote.

Wednesday:

On Wednesday the Nat’s released their welfare proposals and the Maori Party stated that it would not be a deal breaker. The Te Tai Hauauru debate was held in Whanganui and Tariana confirmed her position as the favourite while Jack McDonald, the 18 year old Green candidate, confirmed his position as a rising leader. It’s bloody encouraging to see so many young Maori succeeding. Think Jack, Ngaa Raauira Pumanawawhiti and Natalie Coates.

Thursday:

Mana led with their proposal to give a $1000 Christmas bonus to workers earning $30,000 or under. This is consistent with the party’s idea to pull NZ troops out of Afghanistan and use the money to provide breakfast and lunch in decile 1-5 schools. Top notch idea if you ask me. At my decile one Primary School I knew of several kids that would turn up to school having not had breakfast or having packed no lunch. Often I’d have to share my lunch with my mates because they were too poor to afford food. Often when they did have food it was because their parents had given them a few dollars to buy rubbish like pies and chips. The same thing happened at my decile 7 high school. And that was a decile 7.

The Maori Party also announced they would support asset sales under certain conditions, namely that if the assets go to Iwi under some mechanism then the party would support the sales.

Friday:

The leading news this morning is that the Maori Party may revisit the Marine and Coastal Area Act if Iwi are unhappy. Of course the announcement was given to Rahui Katene (most TV appearances, announcements etc have been given to Rahui to increase her profile – she is in the most marginal seat after all). The Maori Party know Iwi are unhappy with the Act. Wasn’t it something like all the Maori submissions but one were against the Act? It is a smart position for the Maori Party to take. I think many of the soft Maori Party supporters who can’t bring themselves to vote Maori Party again will revaluate their voting intentions after this, quite significant, announcement.

The Maori Party also told Radio New Zealand that:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says National's poorlydesigned employment policies, including the 90-day work trial, are affectingthe vulnerable.

She is particularly concernedthat, in the three months to September, unemployment for Maori rose from 13.7%to 15.1% and went up to 13.8% for Pacific Islanders.

The Maori Party is trying to put a bit of distance between them and the Nat's. The leadership knows that their deal with National is unpopular and that many Maori do not approve of the Government's policy direction. Again, smart politics from the Maori Party, but I doubt it will make this much difference so late in the game.

Radio New Zealand also reported on a Te Tai Tonga debate in Dunedin while Kelvin Davis informed Waatea News that Hone's supporters are setting a bad example up North.

Labour has, and continues to be, pretty quiet. Mana and Maori are left to direct Maori political discourse. C'mon Labour, step up.

If there is anything I missed feel free to leave a comment.

Columns

2011-11-04T06:00:00.000+13:00

My first column for the Herald appears in today's edition. Here's the link. Watch out for my two columns in the Rotorua Daily Post next Wednesday and Saturday too.

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Te Tai Hauauru Review

2011-11-03T14:22:00.000+13:00

Disappointing. That’s about the only way to describe lastnight’s Te Tai Hauauru debate. If it wasn’t for Jack McDonald and Tariana Turia I would have switched off. If last night should be noted for anything it’s that Jack McDonald is, without a shred of a doubt, a rising star. He knew Green policy well, he made reference to Maori values and he spoke with a certain amount of depth and good knowledge of Green talking points. He represented the Greens brilliantly and did himself and his whanau proud.

Tariana Turia was, naturally, very strong. Her responses were, across the board, the strongest. She will retain her seat with ease after last night. Although I disagree with what Tariana has done over the past term, I have mad respect for what she has done for Maori, most notably her role in the foreshore and seabed battle where Tariana played an integral part in ushering in a new era of Maori political consciousness. I also respect her lead role in forcing the government to introduce Whanau Ora. Tariana has, despite some low points over the past three years, been a champion for her people.

Soraya Peke-Mason had her high points, but she wasn’t up to the same standard as Tariana. This is, to be fair, expected. Soraya is a first timer and was under some pressure to perform. The lights, the cameras and crowd will often get to people who are not extroverted and experienced. I don’t think she will threaten Tariana. I should also point out that she knew, at the beginning anyway, her talking points well.

Fredrick Timutimu, well, he was no Hurricane Dearlove, but he did okay in the circumstances I guess. He needs more polish. I don’t think he is political material – or not yet anyway. Very Solomon Tipene like.

I enjoyed the question on how each party would act on job creation. Tariana was the strongest, I expected much better from Soraya (she should have prepared an answer to this question in advance – it was so obvious!), Jack McDonald spoke well on the Green’s job creation policy mentioning insulating homes, cleaning up the environment and steering a new direction in the economy.

The question on Iwi allegiances was also good. Jack McDonald pointed out he was moving around the entire electorate, Tariana pointed out her job in Parliament comes with an obligation to all Maori (and she’s right and I don’t doubt she acts under anything but an obligation to all Maori), Timutimu said Mana was for the people by the people and that whakapapa binds all Maori, Soraya highlighted her links across the entire electorate including in the Waikato.

On points, it’s Tariana all day, but the real star last night was Jack McDonald. Kudos must go to Julian Wilcox as well – one of the best interviewers in New Zealand.

Stand Up - a lesson in political expression

2011-11-03T11:30:00.000+13:00

Mana has released a brilliant piece of electioneering. Stand Up is a fusion of reggae, rap and hip hop from Genocide and Rah. The song is an outstanding example of political expression. The message is immediately apparent – stand up and join the political process – and the subtext is easily understood too – join/vote Mana for change. Given the genre (reggae/hip hop) the song is clearly aimed at a younger demographic. One of Mana’s focuses is the youth vote. So far the movement has relied on the fact young people are naturally drawn to Hone’s “rebel” persona and anti-establishment rhetoric and policy, but until now the movement hadn’t really taken many active steps to encourage young people to participate in politics (I should clarify that when I refer to young I don’t mean all young people - mainly Maori and Pasifika and, but to a lesser extent, poor Pakeha). The lyrics are reminiscent of the protest songs of the 80’s. The song speaks of the 1% “taking our land” (aimed at Maori voters), the “streets” (aimed at urban youth), but I particularly enjoyed the line “the left and right paradigm obey the corporations”. The song creates a clear dichotomy – it’s us against them. The 99% vs the 1%. Now I don’t think this song is going to take off, I do think it will play a part in encouraging more young people to vote Mana though, but it’s not going to generate a mass movement.

(Sorry I'm having trouble embedding the video so you can follow this link instead).

UPDATE: Josh points out in the comments section that there is no authorisation statement - this could spell trouble.

New Maori Blog

2011-11-03T06:00:00.000+13:00

There’s a new Maori blog in the mix. Kaapua Smith which is, you guessed it, Kaapua Smith’s blog. Kaapua is number two on the Maori Party list. Of particular interest are her discussions of the “rourou economy” and the political divide at the Te Tai Tonga debate.

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Te Tai Hauauru

2011-11-02T15:08:00.001+13:00

Native Affairs is on the road again, this time in Whanganui at St Mary's Church. The debate will feature Tariana Turia (incumbent - Maori Party), Soraya Peke-Mason (Labour), Jack McDonald (Greens) and Fredrick Timutimu (Mana). The debate will take a "town hall" format and screen at 9.00pm on Maori TV.

Native Affairs will travel to all seven Maori electorates. The debates, in my opinion, have the ability to change the trajectory of the Maori elections. Case in point the Te Tai Tonga debate. After Monday no one will say that Mana's Clinton Dearlove (aka Hurricane) isn't going to do well.

Tonight, I think Tariana will fend off her opponents. Having said that, Soraya Peke-Mason is a strong candidate and genuine good person. Jack McDonald is, without doubt, a future leader and will be part of the Greens caucus when he's ready to make the step up. Fredrick Timutimu is, like Dearlove, a little bit of an unknown quantity and he could, like Dearlove, come out of left field and steal the show.

Should be an interesting watch, but I think the smart money's on Tariana to clean up. Unlike the others she is no stranger to debates - even televised debates. I think her Mana alone will scare the other candidates - it would scare me.

(I probably won't blog on the debate until the show comes online)

Mana and Maori on Asset Sales

2011-11-02T14:48:00.000+13:00

The differences between the Mana Movement and the Maori Party probably aren’t immediately obvious, but when it comes to asset sales, the differences between the two parties become clear.

Asset sales are a no no for Mana. Bottom line. Hone Harawira adopts Labour’s line that “we already own” state assets. On the other hand the Maori Party is open to the idea as long as Iwi have some sort of right of pre-emption. This, in my opinion, is not unreasonable, but I still disagree, in principle, with assets sales.

Both parties positions are fairly consistent with their values. Mana is a party for all New Zealanders – especially the poor. Asset sales will primarily affect the poor. For example, SOE’s, as arms of government, have a social obligation to keep prices in check and if prices are not kept reasonable political consequences will follow. However, private companies are largely immune from political pressure and have little to no social obligations. The private sector has a profit obligation and little else. (for a demolition job on the rationale for asset sales see this from Gordon Campbell)

The Maori Party supports asset sales, albeit asset sales with qualifications, because the policy may benefit Iwi. The Maori Party has spent the last three years labouring under the impression that the growth of Iwi corporates will benefit Maori – i.e. the money Iwi are making will “trickle down”. In reality, many Iwi take a top down approach to distributing wealth. Iwi give generously to Uni students, kuia and kaumatua (which is fair enough), researchers and Iwi consultants/employees, but never mind the pohara. Therefore, when Iwi profit is, for the most part, does not translate to anything tangible for those on the bottom.

This brings me to a point I’ve made before. If the growth of Iwi is not benefiting Maori at the bottom, but instead benefiting the educated, those who occupy a higher place on the social hierarchy (elders) and the already successful (consultants etc) then this will lead to a stratified Maori society. Inequality is, as we know, poisonous. Maori don’t need a class system to emerge and contaminate our society.

Stratification will be, I think, an unintended consequence of the Maori Party’s approach to governing. As I said the Maori Party believes what will benefit Iwi will benefit Maori generally (despite evidence to the contrary). The Maori Party’s infatuation with Iwi is a consequence of the Maori Party’s attempts at injecting Maori into the governing and business class. This may be a wise approach, but I disagree with it. Attempting to push your own into the, for want of a better term, governing and business classes is a tacit endorsement of the status quo – the same status quo that disadvantages Maori, women and other minorities. Rather than elevate some Maori, the Maori Party should be focussing on bridging the gap between Maori and non-Maori and building a system that better reflects us as Maori. This what I had to say back in June and I think, for the most part, it still holds true:

This brings me to an interesting point. It is clear that the Maori Party wishes to inject our own into the political class and the capitalist class. The Maori Party believes this is the best way forward – working within the system essentially. The Maori Party prescription is to take on the ruling class on their terms. While on the other hand the Mana Party remedy is to deconstruct the neoliberal framework that has given rise to the political elites and the capitalist class. The Mana Party and the Maori Party both believe in integrating our indigenous systems and values into a western framework. The difference is the two parties believe in a different western framework. The Maori Party is comfortable with neoliberalism while the Mana Party would institute a move towards a more socialist regime. Maori must choose very carefully.

Personally, I applaud the Maori Party on having a model to get Maori ahead. However, I do not like that model because often it comes at the expense of others. For example asset sales. Asset sales will undoubtedly benefit iwi, however that will come at the expense of other New Zealanders. Mainly the have nots. Our aspirations should not come at the expense of others – no matter how much we deserve to get ahead.

There is a worrying divide forming among Maori. It is a divide between the haves and the have nots. This divide is embodied by the Maori Party and the Mana Party. It is a divide between iwi that have their settlements, their land trusts and their middle class and between iwi and urban Maori that do not. It is easier for those who do have to say Maori need to get out of, and I hate these terms, grievance mode and into development mode. I will use the example of my iwi, Ngati Awa, and urban Maori. We, as in Ngati Awa, have a growing middle class, a cultural and spiritual base that we retain, we have a number of successful hapu trusts and we have a Crown apology and a financial settlement. We can move because we have our closure, sort of, and we have capital to utilise to get ahead. Our connections to the whenua remain unbroken and our Ngati Awa tikanga and kawa remains. The same cannot be said about urban Maori. They have no settlement to invest in their futures, they have no connection to their traditional lands, their reo and tikanga is almost forgotten, their incomes are falling and the government is not correcting the wrong. How can these Maori be expected to get into development mode when they have nothing and the wounds of the past are still a substantial cause of anger and marginalisation. Urban Maori have no means of getting ahead as a people. The system and society still operates against them. They have no access to capital and their culture is lost. Now where I am going with this is that the Maori Party is siding with the haves while the Mana Party is siding with the have nots.

I think asset sales will be a big issue for Maori - or at least the parties will make it a big issue. Fundamentally, there is little to separate Mana and Maori. However, on asset sales the Maori Party occupies a unique position to both Mana and Labour. It's a policy plank where the Maori Party can push for some much needed differentiation. Saying "we are the only real Maori party" doesn't have much bite.