Motorway madness

I blogged on Monday about the desecration of wāhi tapu that will occur if the planned motorway bypass in Kāpiti goes ahead, as looks likely.

Later that same day, the ruling of the High Court on the appeals of Save Kāpiti and the Alliance for a Sustainable Kāpiti were made public. They rejected the appeals on all grounds. This is a win for the Government, and the conservative Kāpiti Coast District Council that has been working in an alliance with NZTA.

David Farrar has blogged at Kiwiblog saying:

It was due to local input, that the Government ended up doing the Western Link Road. Originally what was proposed was basically four-laning the current State Highway 1, but many locals were opposed to that, and hence the long sought after Western Link Road was then changed in design from two to four lanes to become the new SH1, and the existing section will become a local road.

At best, this is Farrar being disingenuous. The initial proposal, which was so bad no one could it support it, was deliberately put up by the Government who knew it wasn't going to be accepted.

They then did a round of so-called consultation  that divided the community by proposing three different alternatives, all of which would have done significant damage to natural heritage, property values and the local economy in different areas of the Coast. It pitted local communities against each other, as you would expect.

In reality, the majority of Kāpiti residents are opposed to a four-lane motorway dividing their community. But we are represented by a conservative council that hasn't stood up for the interests of the local community. Mayor Jenny Rowan is now complicit in the damage that this project will cause. It is infuriating to see her laud the High Court's ruling. She should be representing the interests of the community and fighting for the tangata whenua.

David Farrar and other motorists in Wellington will apparently see 12 minutes cut off their travel times to Auckland if the entire Levin-Wellington corridor is built, but this is not justification enough for the project. Congestion in Kāpiti is minimal anyway. The real bottleneck areas are in Paremata and before Pukerua Bay.

Also, the numbers don't stack up at all, it has a cost benefit ratio of only 0.2! That is incredibly low. It will also significantly damage the local economy which has been built around the current SH1, and our attractiveness as an area of retirement and raising a young family. Who would want to retire next to a trucking bypass?

Councillor and mayoral candidate K (Guru) Gurunathan has said that Save Kāpiti has 'waged a heroic struggle' but that now we should stop protesting and let the Government get on with it. I know his wish won't be granted and the anti-expressway movement will continue to fight. An appeal to the Supreme Court is a possibility.

The Dom Post reports:

Te Atiawa ki Whakarongotai Marae chairman George Jenkins said he believed there would be protests by individual iwi members and members of the public when construction started.

Like George Jenkins I also expect protests, and probably land occupations. When our wāhi tapu are under threat, we won't sit meekly by and enable it's desecration.  In my view civil disobedience is now inevitable.

One thing I know for sure is that the bulldozers will have to get past me.


Post by Jack Tautokai McDonald

No, your law is not superior

DPF blogs on the Takamore case:

There may be a clash of laws. I have no problem at all with saying a law which respect the wishes of the individual deceased and then the person that individual chose to marry should trump a customary law which robs the deceased and their chosen family of their rights to decide place of burial. Of course in a cross-cultural situation, individuals should try and compromise to agree on something palatable to all – but if agreement is not achieved, then the law should be followed and there should be penalties for body stealing.

There is a clash of laws. In New Zealand, and elsewhere, the common law position is that the executrix of the will (Miss Clarke) will prevail. Under Maori law, a majority opinion in the whanau will prevail. The wishes of the deceased and the deceased’ partner are, in most cases, subordinate to the wishes of the wider whanau.

The question then is, what law should prevail? In this particular case, I am comfortable with the common law position (or the western position) prevailing. Why? Well, because the deceased made it clear he wanted to lay in Otautahi (Christchurch) as did his children. However, in a situation where there is no explicit wish and the deceased is Maori, I think Maori law must prevail. These situations are rare and should be decided on a case by case basis.

The Takamore case is an unfortunate one. It has been characterised by bad faith on the part of Mr Takamore's extended whanau and staggering cultural ignorance from his immediate whanau.

Going back to what law should prevail, it is arrogant to suggest that a law you approve of should trump a, quote, “customary law”. As if a customary law is some sort of lesser law. Why should the western position prevail where the deceased is Maori? I doubt most New Zealanders appreciate the depth of feeling Maori attach to burial. Approaching this situation from a Maori perspective, the Takamore case was not a body snatching case. It was an example of legitimate Maori practise and, I should add, a mana-enhancing practise. People without an understanding of Maori culture see this as a body snatching case. If they cannot widen their perspective beyond the scope of what their own cultural practises and values are then that is their problem. But it’s wrong to say 'my' values and notions of what are right and wrong should prevail. That is cultural imperialism, and that’s a practise this country has seen enough of. For once, maybe just for once, New Zealanders should give appropriate respect to Maori law. 


In the end it is too late to exhume Mr Takamore. Doing so is just retributive. Restorative justice should occur and that should be the end of the matter. Ultimately, as Tuhoe and as a Maori, Mr Takamore should rest with his tupuna in his ancestral homeland.   

Funding cuts for Maori TV....

Maori TV’s awesome, one of the crowning achievements of the last Labour government, but DPF makes the point that nobody’s watching:

Maori TV has in many ways been a success story. They have managed to avoid the culture of excess that their predecessor Aotearoa TV had. They have managed to capture ANZAC Day in a way no other broadcaster has. They had some of the best debates in the election campaign, and I understand their election night coverage was very good. Native Affairs is a must watch show for those interested in politics, and they had great Rugby World Cup coverage.

But there is one big elephant in the room. The elephant is that almost nobody is watching them. And when we invest $50 million a year into them, it is an elephant that should not be ignored.

Farrar goes on to explain that on Wednesday last week there were, according to Neilsen ratings, less than 4000 people tuned in at the lowest point and around 20,000 at the highest point. For a $50m investment from the government, DPF doesn’t think this is good enough. That’s fair enough, one of Maori TV’s central aims should be to increase viewership, but they have obligations beyond gaining mass appeal.

Maori TV’s central aims should be 1) the preservation of Maori culture, especially Maori language 2) increasing accessibility to and understanding of Maori culture and 3) creating a platform for Maori to project their perspective. Ratings tie into these aims, especially 1 and 2, but ratings aren’t the be all and end all. S8(1) of the Maori Television Service Act 2003 states that the principal function of Maori TV is to is to “promote” te reo Maori and tikanga Maori and enrich “New Zealand’s society, culture and heritage”. There is not a ratings imperative in the Act.

With the above in mind, Maori TV should not be measured against ratings alone. Maori TV has, arguably, done more than any other initiative to protect, preserve and promote Maori culture.

Maori TV offers unique programming. Native Affairs, indisputably New Zealand’s leading current affairs show, is given prime time billing. On that note, Willie Jackson’s Newsbites (a political show) is also given a prime time slot. Local and international documentaries are given 8.30pm time slots, as are many art house films and local films like the Topp Twins. Politics, documentaries and art house films aren’t, in my opinion, ratings winners. However, they do serve to enrich New Zealand society, culture and – most importantly – they educate New Zealanders (or at least those New Zealanders who are watching). This is consistent with Maori TV’s statutory obligations.

As an aside, some believe ratings are misleading. It's certianly true that significant criticisms exist. Without wanting to sound conspiratorial, I cannot accept that there were so little people watching Maori TV last Wednesday. Every Maori and Maori whanau I know watches Maori TV as their main channel. I don’t watch much TV, but most of what I watch is on Maori TV. I also watch a lot of Maori TV programs on their website. Needless to say, ratings to do not measure viewers who watch a program through the internet. This is a significant flaw, television watchers are increasingly turning to the internet – especially young people - and the ratings companies aren't measuring this.

Recently I suggested that Maori TV may be in line for a funding cut or freeze. This would be consistent with the government’s attitude towards Maori funding and the government’s broadcasting ideology. The cynic in me would say that DPF is softening the ground for cuts, but that is probably a stretch too far. It’s not as if his audience need to be encouraged to support cuts at Maori TV. Having said that, in 2009 BERL found that 84% of New Zealanders thought Maori TV should be a permanent part of the broadcasting landscape.

It would be a shame to see funding at Maori TV frozen or cut. They operate on a shoe string budget as it is. The government only provides 16.6m in direct funding to cover operational costs and this amount has not changed since 2004. In Maori TV's words "the cumulative impact of inflation on our cost structure makes it increasingly difficult to sustain the current levels of delivery, continue to enhance the service and keep pace with the new technological developments in the television industry". Programming costs are covered by Te Mangai Paho and, but to a lesser degree, New Zealand on Air.  

 I’d hate to see shows like Wairua, Kai Time on the Road and Code dropped. I’d be gutted to see Native Affairs dropped or Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day coverage scaled back and New Zealand would be worse off if Maori TV couldn't do events like Rise Up Christchurch again. Maori TV provides New Zealand with a valuable service - there's no need for cuts. 

Back Benches

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.

David fucking Farrar (updated)

David Farrar on the Taniwha Horotiu (I'm not linking to it):

Poor Horotiu. I imagine that the only thing which could make him feel better is a huge amount of koha. Maybe once the tunnel is built, they could do a side tunnel for him, so he can play safely away from the trains.

This does remind me of the last time a Taniwha held up a project. Someone wrote a letter to the editor saying they had solved the problem, as they shot the Taniwha at the weekend!

I do not know what Farrar is trying to achieve here. My take is that he is patronising Maori culture. The tone is denigrating and smug. I guess it is typical of the sort of cultural arrogance that permeates the National Party, but I must admit to thinking Farrar was better than this.

“A huge amount of koha”. Is that implying Maori can be pacified with hand-outs? Or that Maori are greedy and prone to accepting donations? “Once the tunnel is built, they could do a side tunnel for him, so he can play safely away from the trains”. Is that implying that the concept of a Taniwha is childish?

New Zealanders love to take the piss out of other cultures, as if their culture is the be all and end all. It is perfectly acceptable if David and his mates do not accept the concept of Taniwha, that’s there call and a fair one, but it is rude, disrespectful and borderline racist to go around disparaging other cultural beliefs. It is the worst sort of arrogance.

The implication I get from David’s post is that Maori are ignorant and childish. Whatever you do do not have a look at the comments section, unless you want to go on an anti-pakeha rage – possibly even a violence spree. The comments are repugnant, repulsive, hideous, obscene, racist, sick, malicious, hateful. The English language is inadequate, I cannot find the appropriate word.

All I have to say to the commenters at Kiwiblog is get fucked. Go and die. As for David – you’re just a disappointment. Fomenting happy mischief? Get real. Fomenting hate. That sounds more accurate.   

UPDATE: I have had a flurry of comments scolding me for believing in Taniwha (I have not published any due to racist content). Let me be clear, this post is not about whether or not Taniwha exist. This post is about the disrespectful stance David and his friends at Kiwiblog take against Maori culture. And for the record - I do not believe in Taniwha as a tangible and measurable phenomenon - take what you will from that. 

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.