Our double reality: on being Maori and being political

Well, they haven’t done anything wrong. In holding a lucrative fundraiser at the exclusive Northern Club, the Maori Party neither broke the law nor transgressed some moral jurisdiction. But the grievous hypocrisy is unmistakable. Consider this:

mana Dotcom is actually Dotcom mana. it's all about the money, money. Unbelievable using Maori seat to draw in members from other party
— Te Ururoa Flavell (@TeUruroaFlavell) April 12, 2014

Dotcom’s dollars are off limits, but money from privileged Auckland isn’t?

Donations arrive attached with expectations of reciprocity. The Prime Minister will expect a return in loyalty. The donors will expect their interests to be represented in Cabinet. To think otherwise is deliberate ignorance. Donations are made on the basis of self-interest and shared identity. But does the Maori Party want to be the party of privileged Auckland?

The Maori Party doesn’t just suffer at the hands of racists, but at the hands of Maori leftists and separatists too. At times it seems like the party is fielding unjust criticism from all sides. But this isn’t one of those times. The party has played into the central criticisms others make: that it's drifted away from the people.

Sure, a fundraising dinner at the exclusive and prestigious Northern Club is far removed from the lived experience of most Maori. But the real story is how political fundraising compromises political independence and political values. Politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. How you practice it- and, importantly, who you practice it with - is loaded with meaning.

Maori Party President Naida Glavish on Native Affairs

I’m not accusing the Maori Party of selling out. That’s too easy and it tells us nothing about the complexity of their situation. What I’m accusing the party of is saying one thing while doing another. There’s the hypocrisy levelled at Hone Harawira, but there’s also a deeper contradiction.

The Maori Party argues it's neither left nor right - it’s Maori. Pita Sharples is no social democrat and Tariana Turia isn’t a classical liberal, sure, but that doesn’t mean they can retreat from the political spectrum. They are part of politics as usual. Not as a matter of ideology, but circumstance and practice.

You can’t claim to be separated from mainstream politics when you sit in Parliament with a ministerial warrant. You can’t claim to be above mainstream politics when – as Patrick Gower put it – you’ve adopted the National Party fundraising model.

This speaks to the unsteady, unsure ground Maori politics exist on. Maori experience a sort of double reality. We experience politics as both New Zealanders and Maori. This dual reality causes angst and havoc in Maori politics. Where does the border begin and end? How do political parties naviagte two competing worlds? Is it even appropriate to distinguish instead of integrate?

The trick is to acknowledge that and be very clear – for the sake of your own integrity – when and why you’re moving between the Maori political world and the world of rightwing wealth. Especially when the world you’re emigrating to is so far removed from the reality for most Maori.

The Maori Party is based on an appeal to our collective purpose. Yet it works so hard to undermine it. They can enjoy nice food and cavort with whoever they like. After all, the Maori Party is about establishing kaupapa Maori politics. It can help establish new social norms if it likes too. But it should recognise the consequences.

A democracy is a country of competing interests and competing powers. Maori are no longer content to be the weakest. The Maori Party is testament to that. But their approach to progress has been ineffective and - as of yesterday - quite stupid. They didn't do anything wrong, but they're not doing much right either. 

The three mystic apes

The three mystic apes are a pictorial maxim. Together they embody the maxim “see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil”. In the government’s case the three apes represent “see no Maori rights, hear no Maori rights and speak no Maori rights”. There is sometimes said to be a fourth ape that embodies the principle “do no evil”. In the government’s case the fourth ape represents “do nothing about Maori rights”.

Yesterday, in what was suspicious timing, the Prime Minister announced that:

The Government will not implement the Waitangi Tribunal’s ‘shares plus’ concept, or engage in further negotiations in relation to that concept, before the sale of shares in our energy companies.

The Government will proceed to remove Mighty River Power (MRP) from the State Owned Enterprises Act. We will prepare an Order in Council for Cabinet and Executive Council to consider and approve on Tuesday 23 October.

And there’s the niggle. The Waitangi Tribunal found that Maori “had rights and interests in their water bodies for which the closest English equivalent in 1840 was ownership rights” AND that the partial privatisation of MRP will affect the recognition of those rights and interests and breach the principles of the Treaty. With that in mind the government cannot partially privatise MRP without breaching their own legislation. Section 45(Q)(1) holds that:

Nothing in this Part shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

Assuming the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision is right in law; the government will have to 1) recognise and compensate for the use and breach of Maori water rights and interests or 2) legislate. On the first point, there is room for the government to find a solution other than shares-plus. On the second point, the Prime Minister has backed away from legislating. However, if court action threatens the government’s timetable – and there is every indication that it will – then legislation will be needed to ensure certainty for investors and (most importantly) that the other SOEs can go to market before the 2014 election.

Tomorrow the NZMC will meet with iwi, Kingi Tuheitia and others to plan their way forward. Maanu Paul claimed on Te Kaea (not online yet) that the NZMC will go to Court, whether he had leave to say this I don’t know, but Sir Eddie Durie told RNZ that Court action is his preference.

I’ll continue to follow this issue closely. Assuming something comes of the NZMC meeting tomorrow, I’ll post something tomorrow or later in the week. I really should be getting ready for exams, but this is too important to miss.

Policy for sale

The Prime Minister is on the back foot – again.

The Prime Minister says there will be fewer pokies in New Zealand, despite the Government's deal with Sky City Casino to build a national convention centre in return for more gambling machines, because of a policy to reduce numbers.

John Key this morning defended casinos as a safer gambling environment despite five children being locked in a van outside Sky City Casino last month.

"In a casino they are in a better environment say than attached to a pub deliberating targeting low income people in South Auckland."

"In a casino they are in a better environment say than attached to a pub deliberating targeting low income people in South Auckland."

Casinos had more stringent conditions and so were more able to reduce the harm caused by gambling, he said. I don’t agree with this. Casinos are always, with a few exceptions, targeted at low income people. There are smatterings of high end gamblers, but the overwhelming majority of gamblers are low income people.

I struggle to see how John Key can claim a Casino is safer than the pub. Alcohol facilities are always attached to Casinos. The Casino managers aren’t stupid and they know that 74% of all gamblers drink while playing.

Sure, Casinos have a dress code. But unless you’re come fresh from the homeless shelter, you’re going to get in. Casinos don’t have a limit on what you can spend or how long you can spend in the Casino. The controls are limited. You can spend all night on the pokies pissing away your week’s wage.

An increase in gambling machines will increase accessibility and, in turn, increase problem gambling. This, like night follows day, will increase crime, poverty and family violence. For example, a woman whose partner is a problem gambler is 10.5 times more likely to be a victim of violence.

This is policy for sale. The Prime Minister looks disingenuous trying to spin it otherwise. This would almost be acceptable if he wasn’t selling harmful policy.

Hangi ban? Nonsense

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.

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

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.

Further comments on the Maori Party's threat

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.

Maori Party contemplates split (updated)

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.

Ratana fawning begins

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.

On a Maori Party deal with National

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.

Maori Council, John Key and Maori Business

Mita Ririnui has something interesting to say about the Maori Council:

Labour list MP Mita Ririnui says it's likely the New Zealand Maori Council will merge with the Iwi Leaders Forum.

The Maori Affairs Select Committee looked at how the Maori Council operates, during its last year into the Maori Development Act.

It found that the council has played a crucial role in representing the interests of Maori, but there are concerns it's become redundant with other Maori groups taking over that work.

Mr Ririnui, who's on the committee, says it may be productive for the council to join the Iwi Leaders Forum.

The Maori Council is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The Iwi Leaders Forum (ILF) is now the vehicle of choice for the National Government. If Mita’s comments are indicative of feeling within Labour, or at least the Maori Caucus, then I think the ILF will be cemented as the Maori organisation of choice for consultation, research opportunities, ppp’s and so on. If this happens then there will be no room for the Maori Council. It is convenient for the government to have a one-stop shop for external advice on Maori issues. It also suits the government when that organisation is ideologically sympathetic and, in the case of the Nat’s and asset sales, supportive of a key policy plank. For an in depth discussion re the nature of the ILF see this post on the “Iwi Elite” from earlier in the year.

----------

I don’t care really care that the Prime Minister did not use te reo in his opening speech at the RWC opening ceremony. His staff obviously overlooked it and Key himself probably doesn’t give the content of such a pedestrian speech much thought. I’ve always imagined that Key just parrots the lines he receives. Having said that, it is personally embarrassing for Key to ignore the use of te reo, which is such an integral part of New Zealand identity, when the head of the IRB, a Frechman no less, uses te reo with some skill and grace. On the whole, Maori can stand proud given the important role we played in the opening ceremony. The highlight for me was the waka fleet – it was a majestic scene.

----------

From RNZ:

The newly appointed Head of Maori Business for the Bank of New Zealand, Pierre Tohe, says there is plenty of economic activity to chase beyond the corporate arms of iwi.

Maori business continues to grow steadily. In most cases Iwi are involved in some way or another, but independent Maori businesses are beginning to grow. Off of the top of my head I can think of several small and successful independent Maori businesses, but I don’t think Maori have anything on the medium scale yet. The corporate arms of Iwi could, by my definition, be termed medium sized corporates. I think Maori business will come of age when we move away from profiting off of government contracts and instead move towards playing a greater role in the private sector.

Key insults Te Whanau a Apanui

The Prime Minister has meet with representatives from Te Whanau a Apanui and Ngati Porou. From Waatea News:

Ngati Porou and Te Whanau a Apanui representatives met Prime Minister John Key today in what Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples is hailing as an example of what can be done by being in government.

Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell arranged the meeting so the iwi could express their concerns over oil prospecting off the East Coast by Brazilian company Petrobras.

Well, this sounds promising, but consider this from Stuff.co.nz:

A meeting with concerned East Coast iwi this afternoon will not change the Government's stance on coastal oil exploration in the area, Prime Minister John Key says.

So the Prime Minister will not budge. If so, what is the point of the meeting? The Prime Minister’s position renders the meeting pointless. The meeting is not even symbolic when the main actor comes out and utterly disregards the possibility of progress.

Pita Sharples has hailed the meeting as an example of what can be achieved in government. However, nothing has been achieved. The Prime Minister has brushed iwi aside before they even walked in the door. The meeting is, at best, empty symbolism. A real achievement would be to influence the government’s position on the issue. Ultimately, the Maori Party appear determined to justify the criticism that they are merely making symbolic gains as opposed to substantive gains.

The Maori Party is in government to manipulate policy and pressure the government on Maori issues. The Maori Party is not in government to organise token gestures.   

To be fair, the Maori Party cannot influence what John Key says and kudos must go to Te Ururoa for organising the meeting (even though it is a farce). In reality no amount of discussion will deter the National Party; oil drilling is a Tory’s wet dream. Only a leftwing government will stop oil exploration and prevent oil drilling.     

What Brash means for the Maori Party

Rodney Hide has announced his resignation as leader of the Act Party and cleared the way for Don Brash to assume the leadership. Hide will remain as a minister.

I can’t help but feel a little bit sorry for Hide. He has been embarrassed, degraded, assaulted and ultimately destroyed in a very, very public spectacle. But we are dealing with Don Brash here – the most morally bankrupt man in New Zealand politics so it’s hardly surprising is it? Perhaps what is most interesting, for me at least, is who is behind all of this. The Hollow Men showed that Brash was a mere puppet who was easily manipulated and led by a few puppet masters. But who is the puppet master(s) now?

But anyway, that is a side issue. In this post I want to discuss what a Brash led Act Party means for the Maori Party.

Most commentators seem to agree that Brash will increase the Act Party’s declining political stocks. Some also believe Brash will deliver much needed stability. So what does a resurgent and stable Act Party mean for the Maori Party?... It means the Maori Party will become irrelevant.

At the moment the Maori Party is expendable – the party can be disregarded without affecting the ability of the National government to command the confidence of the House. However, the Maori Party is viewed as the National Party’s best shot at a long term coalition partner. The Maori Party has a secure grip on two seats (Te Tai Hauauru and Waiariki), a somewhat firm grip on one seat (Tamaki Makaurau), a marginal grip on one seat (Te Tai Tonga) and the ability to run hard in the other two Maori seats.  This means the party is almost guaranteed to return, at the very least, two MP’s. The party was, prior to the Hone Harawira saga, stable as well.

On the other hand Act was seen as incredibly unstable. The party was rocked by a number of personal controversies and policy blunders, for example the Supercity legislation. Act did not enjoy a secure grip on an electorate seat either and most commentators believed the party would not breach the 5% threshold. Combine this and the prospects of Act remaining in Parliament were slim.

It was prudent of the National Party to regard the Maori Party as the best medium to long term coalition partner. As far as coalition partners go, the National Party do not have many to choose from. The Prime Minister ruled out working with Winston Peters, United Future will probably not grow and Peter Dunne will not be around in two terms time and Act is, or at least was, knocking on deaths door. The chances of a new right party forming also looked incredibly slim. In practical terms this left only the Maori Party. Ideologically speaking the Maori Party had the ability to gel with the National Party and the Maori party’s leaders, Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples, are a conservative and pragmatist respectively. This fitted well with National’s inherent conservatism and John Key’s brand of pragmatism. The Maori Party is neither left nor right and can be used, depending on circumstance, to pass right wing or left wing legislation as well. It’s a perfect fit for a government trying to play the game both ways i.e. left and right.

However, the Act Party appears to have changed trajectory. Most analysts accept the party will rise again. Remember Brash was responsible for the National Party’s huge rise post 2002. His rhetoric surrounding social issues appealed to a huge number of New Zealanders and it is difficult to see why the same formula will not work today in the wake of the MCA act controversy. So with Act on the comeback trail the Maori Party suddenly becomes redundant.

Act is the National Party’s natural ally. In cohort with Act the Nats can continue to occupy the centre. The centre is where major parties aim to be and under a Maori Party/National Party arrangement the Nats would be busy attempting to occupy the right given the Maori Party’s more natural tendency to reside on the left. Ultimately, the Nat’s would be busy trying to cover vast ideological ground in the absence of a coalition partner firmly classed on the right. However, with Act the Nats do not have to worry so much about nursing to the right and the party can focus on retaining the centre. Act would also be more willing to pass some of the more populist legislation that could be defined as anti-Maori, for example welfare attacks.

So with Brash at the helm of Act we can reasonably assume the party will see an increase in support. This makes the Maori Party expendable in the long term.

Another effect that a Brash led Act party will have is that it will probably kill the National/Act/Maori arrangement. Brash is a notorious racist and probably the most hated man in the Maori world. It is also impossible to reconcile Brash’s public stance in regards to Maori with Maori Party policy and values. I would expect Maori Party supporters to firmly oppose Brash and his prescription for Maori. Brash is a libertarian. Individualism and the supremacy of the individual underpin libertarian philosophy. Whereas the Maori Party stands for, or at least claims to stand for, tino rangatiratanga. Tino rangatiratanga is built upon the notion of the collective. Collective responsibility, collective rights and so on. The two are wildly incompatible.

Essentially, Brash does not believe in the concept of race. It logically follows that he cannot work with a party predicated on the notion of race and rights by virtue of race. Also, in a personal capacity, how can Maori Party MP’s work with a man who has done more damage to the reputation and standing of their people than any other politician in the last two decades. Brash is an open and shameless racist.

Brash will push for positions that are anathema to Maori. It is just impossible that the Maori Party could sit by in coalition with a man delivering racist rubbish. Maori will not stand for another repeat of Orewa.

To sum up (I’ve kinda forgot where I was going with this) a resurgent and stable Act party means the Maori Party will become expendable in the long term. If Act is looking like a future prospect then there is no need for the Maori Party in the National Party’s calculations. Furthermore, the Maori Party will not work with Brash – a dishonourable and tarnished racist. The Party is just too dissimilar. For this country’s sake, I hope Brash does not come within one hundred kilometres of government. For once I agree with Winston Peters:

"A John Key-Don Brash coalition would asset strip the country, keep wages low and attack superannuation."

Kia ora.

Weekend thoughts

A few comments:

Parekura Horomia should stand as a list candidate only. If Labour wants to retain Ikaroa-Rawhiti a succession plan needs to be put in place. As an aside, the Maori Party should be doing the same in the interests of longevity. If they do not they will be a one hit wonder and Labour will step in once Turia, Sharples and Flavell have gone. But back to Parekura. I think an anointed Labour Party candidate would do well. So long as Parekura campaigns alongside him or her. In the last two elections the Maori Party came reasonably close to snatching the seat. The sudden lose of Parekura would translate to a Maori Party victory in my opinion. However, if Parekura can transfer his personal following over to the next Labour candidate the Maori Party will remain outside of striking distance. 

On the subject of Parekura, he is on the right side of his constituents in saying maintaining traditional lifestyles outweigh any perceived economic gains. On other hand, the Prime Minister is on the wrong side of tangata whenua in saying they must consider the economic benefits. The risk posed is unacceptable. The local people should have a greater say in whether oil prospecting and extraction occurs. The locals will shoulder the risk, yet receive little in return.

Were a disaster to occur it will be the local people who are directly, and almost immediately, affected. I will not be affected here in Wellington nor will the Prime Minister. I will lose nothing, but I probably would have benefited through the increase in economic activity, while the local people will lose their recreational ground, their food basket and ultimately the lifestyle that has sustained them for almost one thousand years. The value of their property will plummet, their quality of life will plummet and an exodus would occur. The whenua and the moana would become a sparsely populated wasteland.

Most readers will have heard about Jamie Lee-Ross and his call for the abolition of the Maori seats. Veronica Tawhai, a politics lecturer at Massey University, rebuts Lee-Ross. I encourage you to read it. There is also an excellent discussion over at Big News. 

The Maori Statutory Board (MSB) funding drama is now resolved. Both parties appear to have compromised and an agreement has been reached. The MSB played the situation very well. The board was always in the stronger position. The Council could not afford to have the issue dragged out in the public domain. That would have been, politically, very damaging. Hopefully the MSB can get on with the job now. 

Will Whanau Ora be Cut?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the government is currently reviewing the Whanau Ora budget. Having said that Key has signalled, albeit in an ambiguous manner, that there are no plans to cut back the scheme’s budget. From Waatea News:

Prime Minister John Key has warned his support parties that the money is not there to fund their pet projects.

He says while there are no plans to cut back the whanau ora scheme for delivering social services through Maori providers, an expected boost in spending isn't going to happen either.

“There are no proposals to trim back whanau ora. The question is just how much more money goes into the programme. I think as a starting off programme it is doing well. There is a great concept behind it and Tariana is working very hard on it,” Mr Key says.

So Whanau Ora will face neither an increase in funding nor a decrease. Fair enough. However, I cannot help but feel this is an empty assurance. Fiscal pressures are mounting and the government is responding with cuts, cuts and more cuts. One would have thought, given the nature of Whanau Ora, that it would be one of the first projects in line for cuts.

Whanau Ora is, as far as I am aware, untested – beyond one or two local pilots that is. The scheme does not enjoy wide spread political support. The public is generally suspicious, yet largely accepting of the fact that a new approach is necessary, and there is no external pressure for change. Lastly, but most importantly, Whanau Ora is the pet project of a dispensable coalition partner.

Given the above, it is fair to assume that the Nat’s will, or at least can, cut the Whanau Ora budget without consequence. So what is stopping them? The prospect of a second term.

At the moment the Maori Party is expendable. However, after the election the Maori Party will probably hold the casting vote (assuming Rodney falls). The Prime Minister realises that he needs to keep the Maori Party on side if he is to have any chance of forming a government post-election and savaging the Whanau Ora budget would decrease his chances of doing so. Interfering with your long term coalition partner’s showpiece policy is beyond dumb. The Nat’s are a lot of things, but not, politically speaking, dumb.  

What sparked this post is the apparent “rumour” that the Whanau Ora budget is up for the chop. From Waatea News:

rumours that funding for the new service delivery model could be cut by as much as $70 million are causing alarm.

Read this with caution. It has come from Malcolm Mulholland, an advisor to Hone Harawira. Keep in mind that it suits Hone to have such a destabilising rumour in the public domain. But also keep in mind that it is entirely plausible given the reasons I outlined in my third paragraph. 

I, personally, am in favour of Whanau Ora. The scheme is practical and necessary. It is universally accepted that New Zealand needs a new model, the question is whether or not Whanau Ora is the right model. It would be a tragedy if the government decided to cut funding – the scheme was under funded in the first place. Ultimately, everything is up for review. But is Whanau Ora really, for want of a better term, superfluous? I don’t think it is.  

Goff needs to step up

An interesting piece from Waatea News:

Labour's Maori affairs spokesman Parekura Horomia has indicated Phil Goff's blanket refusal to contemplate Hone Harawira as part of a future coalition government isn't supported by all his colleagues.

Mr Goff says while he made the decision himself, it was unanimously backed by the Labour caucus.

Goff should be worried that Horomia, a senior figure within the party, has decided to essentially break ranks.  This signals that there is a significant amount of dissatisfaction among caucus, especially the Maori caucus, in terms of the decisions Goff is making. A capable leader can in most instances contain dissatisfaction, however Goff is struggling to keep caucus onside. Ultimately, it is a failure of political management on Goff’s part. On current calculations Goff will need the Greens, New Zealand First and Hone Harawira to have any hope of forming the next government. However Goff cannot expect to manage a coalition of competing and disparate interests when he cannot even control his own caucus. MMP requires deft political management skills – Goff is yet to display such skills.

Goff has had a hard time over the past two and a bit years. I know I would hate to be him right know. Having said that the flak he has received is in many cases justified. He is always making the wrong call, stepping in the wrong direction and slaving away behind public opinion. Goff is applying the smile and wave principle. The problem is smiling and waving is the province of John Key. New Zealanders don’t want two John Keys. They want a genuine choice - an old fashioned contest of ideas if you will. Sadly, Goff is far to timid to offer that. Goff is opting to play it safe. Recycle the standard PR lines, apply the standard theories, play by the book essentially. The standard approach to propaganda is insufficient. One would think that Goff and his idiot advisors would have realised this by now. In any case I hope they wake up before the election. Don’t just gift the election to John Key.    

It was your fault

It’s a bit rich for John Key to go round saying that it is up to Len Brown to sort out the Maori Statutory Board mess. After all, the board was imposed upon Len and the Auckland Council by central government i.e. John Key and his crony Rodney Hide. In my opinion responsibility to act is not incumbent upon Len Brown. It is negligent on John Key's part, but more so Rodney Hide's, to impose a fractured framework upon the people of Auckland and then absolve any obligation to remedy the situation. But I guess that’s what we’ve come to expect from this lazy government.

Reread

The herald reports;

Two big iwi leaders met with Prime Minister John Key to discuss state assets sales today.

I can't be bothered restating my already well documented views, therefore I think it we should revisit the following posts:

• The Iwi Elite
• Assets Sales, Iwi and Maori
• “It will benefit Maori”
• Annette Sykes, Maori Elite and Neoliberalism 

This should give new readers a fair idea of where I am coming from on this issue.

Happy-go-lucky JK

John Key is doing a shitload of smiling and waving at Te Matatini. No news story is complete without mention of Keys presence at the festival and a cute audio or visual accompaniment. But the question is why bother? This isn’t the A&P festival, it is Te Matatini, meaning National supporters are scarce. But that is the key, National supporters are scarce. Key approaches politics as if it is some sort of glorified marketing exercise. This is all about increasing brand awareness and reaching into a new political marketplace.

Over the past two years Key has attempted to break into the Maori market. Soften the Maori vote so when the political climate generates the right circumstances National can have a serious stab at the Maori vote. To do so Key needs to develop a strong relationship between Maori voters and his brand. This is a huge challenge because brand loyalty must be sufficiently strong as to offset policy sensitivities. Of course John Key will realise this but I tend to think he has underestimated the challenge. How does one build brand loyalty that is so strong that it offsets policy concerns? Well this is how I think John Key is doing it.  

First of all Key went for symbolism. He firmly attached his brand to The Maori Party, especially Pita Sharples (in a personal capacity). He also elevated Hekia Parata and advanced Maori policy such as Whanau Ora. This created the perception that Key is not hostile towards Maori aspirations, in fact quite the opposite and he shares the same goals and aspirations as Maori.   

The next step, and the most difficult, was personalising Brand Key. The symbolism is there but how will Key reach out to ordinary Maori voters? The answer: by immersing himself in Maori culture (i.e. Te Matatini). The best way to connect with Maori is on a cultural level. Forget class it’s all about cultural identity. This is where Brand Key will earn the trust and respect of Maori. Key creates the image that he shares the same values as Maori.

Of course there is a risk in attaching Brand Key to Maori. His image may become diluted, confused or outright spoilt. However, this is unlikely, It just reinforces the idea that Key is an everyman with the common touch.

In all honesty I am probably overanalysing this. Maybe Key just wanted to laugh at Pita Sharples or have another day off. Either way Labour should take a few lessons from Key on how to reach out to Maori.

Sort it out, Labour

David Farrar makes an interesting point;

What is interesting is that Labour may have relatively few Maori MPs after the next election, unless they do some recruitment into high list placings. It is rumoured that Horomia may retire also, and Mahuta is staying on but concentrating mainly on family for the next few years.

On top of Mahuta, you’ve got Shane Jones, Kelvin Davis and Moana Mackey. Only four Maori MPs would be historically quite low for Labour. Labour may give high list rankings to some of their Maori seat candidates – but then of course that may help the Maori Party keep those seats.

I do not like this. In my opinion Labour has always taken the Maori vote for granted. The party establishment treats Maori support as a given, almost a right. If Labour continues to treat Maori support with casual disregard then the electoral consequences will be severe.

Traditionally, Maori voted Labour because Labour was the best of a bad bunch. However, in 2010, Maori have genuine political alternatives. National has shown that, under the right circumstances, they can accept some aspects of tino rangatiratanga and advance Maori aspirations. The Greens worldview is in most respects comparable with Te Ao Maori and NZ First offers a creed of nationalism that appeals to many Maori. And of course there is The Maori Party. Unlike in the past Maori can easily shift their vote to other Parliamentary parties.  

In such a crowded political market place Labour needs to do more. Labour appears to be operating under a mindset stuck in 1984 where the Maori vote only determined the outcome in four safe Maori seats. As such Labour could easily disregard the Maori vote without suffering electoral consequences. However, this is 2010, the political landscape is wildly different. Maori are a growing demographic and consequently a growing electoral power. One would think, in the interests of longevity, that Labour would be making a concerted effort to solidify the Maori vote. In 2008 women and to a lesser extent the working class ditched Labour. If Labour continues to disrespect Maori support then Maori may follow suit.    

Labour needs to rebuild trust among Maori. Following the foreshore and seabed controversy and more recently Phil Goff’s Nationhood speech Maori trust in Labour has dwindled. Having only four Maori MP’s feeds the perception that Labour just does not care about the Maori vote. National has really stolen the initiative in terms of the Maori vote. By entering into an agreement with the Maori Party the Nats have created the perception that they are willing to enter into a good faith relationship with, at first glance, ideological foes for the good of the country. Over the past two years the Nats have continuously offered the Maori Party small concessions thus reinforcing the perception that the party is no longer hostile towards Maori aspirations.

Labour needs to get it together. The party is incompetent in every respect. Without the Maori vote Labour cannot hope to ever occupy the Treasury benches. Women love John Key, urban liberals are few and far between and the working class by and large no longer identify with Labour. If Labour does not change tact add they can surely add Maori to the list of disaffected supporters.                

Quick reponse to the Hone Harawira suspension and the idiocy of Pita Sharples

(This post was prepared very quickly – apologies in advance).

Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples have just issued a joint statement suspending Hone Harawira from the party caucus indefinitely. This is not entirely unexpected in view of Hone’s ill-considered behaviour over Waitangi weekend.

I do feel Hone made a deliberate effort to mildly embarrass the leadership, especially Pita, with his own state of the Maori nation speech. Although Hone was justified in delivering such a speech in doing so he should have taken into account the overall context in which his actions were taking place. I think it comes down to, in part, retaliation. Hone was neither aware nor invited to Pita’s speech which clearly signals a degree of animosity between the two.

Suspension is always the first step towards expulsion. It is curious that the leadership still appear fixed on expulsion despite the strong show of support for Hone over the weekend. The people of Te Tai Tokerau made it painfully clear that they support Hone first and foremost, any allegiance to the Maori Party is secondary.

But then again the pressure to expel Hone is coming on all fronts. The leadership need him gone, he is an impediment to their agenda, National want him gone because he is an impediment to future coalition arrangements with the Maori Party and lastly iwi leaders want him gone because he threatens their access and influence over government. In the coming days I expect to see iwi leaders swing behind the Maori Party leadership. Iwi leaders need the Maori Party to survive this controversy if they wish to preserve their access to the current government.

John Key has also reiterated his support for the leadership and Pita has responded in kind by praising the relationship between the two parties. I have said this before but I think it needs to be restated. Pita Sharples and John Key share a close working and personal relationship, Tariana Turia hates, and I use hate in its strongest sense, the Labour Party. For Pita and Tariana National is the only option. It is all about personal feeling for them.  

The result of the coming disciplinary committee hui must now be a foregone conclusion. Pita has sent a strong signal, Hone should “cut himself loose”, this is a direct threat and the most public hint yet that the party hierarchy want him gone. I can only speculate as to the consequences of expelling Hone. I do expect a public display of anger from Te Tai Tokerau, I expect some key figures within the party such as Moana Jackson and Annette Sykes, as well as many flaxroot supporters, to leave. I think Te Ururoa and Rahui Katene will also struggle to retain their seats in light of the current controversy. The Maori Party are cultivating a significant amount of distrust among their supporters and it could be near fatal. Certainly this whole affair is turning off many non-aligned but sympathetic supporters.  

What interests me at the moment is Hone’s next move should he be expelled. Bunji at The Standard has pointed out Hone is getting very cosy with the Greens. This means nothing. Hone has always held a certain amount of affection for the Greens, especially his former activist mate Sue Bradford, but it really amounts to nothing more than admiration of their values. Realistically, the Greens will never take him (unless they want to drop below the 5% threshold) and Hone would rather fly the tino rangatiratanga flag solo. As I said in a previous post I think the most pragmatic thing for Hone to do is run as an independent.   

In this post I also want to address comments made by Pita Sharples. Firstly, this one;

"It's a very difficult thing to get across to many of our people who see an intimate relationship with the Government as a selling-out of their people, when in actual fact, in the field of Parliament and government, it is the only relationship which can yield power and opportunity for Maori by Maori,"

This is woefully inaccurate - Pita has completely misread Maori feeling. If we cast our minds back to the end of 2008, in the wake of the election, there was significant support among Maori for a Maori Party/National Party governing arrangement. An intimate relationship with government was not viewed as “selling out” rather it was viewed as the best way to advance Maori interests and aspirations. What Maori view as selling out is saying one thing while voting for another (Tax changes), dumping huge costs on already struggling Maori families (ETS and ACC changes), weakening work rights (90 right to sack) and supporting the pathetic MCA bill. If Pita can’t understand this his party is doomed.

Pita also insinuates that this is the last chance for a kaupapa Maori party to succeed. Again, Pita seems to be on another planet. The Maori Party is not the beginning and end of Maori political empowerment. Merely the first step towards tangible political gain for Maori. The Maori political movement, if you can call it that, is far bigger than Pita and his National Party mates. If the Maori Party were to implode it is not inconceivable that circumstances in the future would not give rise to another kaupapa Maori party. Pita’s suggestion shows utter disregard for my generation and politically active Maori everywhere.

Pita has also said he is confident the party will retain Te Tai Tokerau without Hone. Uhhhm what? Pita must be mentally unstable if he thinks The Maori Party can run someone against Hone and win. Te Tai Tokerau is Hone’s fortress, an absolutely unassailable fortress. Pita was always prone to saying silly things but lately he seems to be doing so with increasing frequency.

Having said all of this I do agree with one thing Pita said with regard to the 200 or so protestors calling for a Maori revolution. Pita said for many Maori protest is a way of the past. I agree. Progress does not lie in a “revolution” or large scale protest. Progress will involve engaging and manipulating government on their terms and consequently rebalancing the system. Rebalancing the system so we no longer need specialist organisations to advance our aspirations. Rebalancing the system so political institutions and structures work in our favour. Rebalancing the system so Maori and Pakeha meet on equal footing. This is the promise of the Treaty. Pity no government has seen fit to deliver that promise. Government will ultimately deliver the promise of the treaty, therefore Maori need to be in government.