Native Affairs Review: Ikaroa-Rawhiti debate

In some ways it was a debate for the party hacks. The candidates stuck to their scripts. Marama strongly emphasised Green policies and principles - think sustainability and innovation – and didn’t shift further. Meka riffed off of her experience in iwi and the public service. Labour policy was light. Na stressed at the table narratives and Te Hamua relied on his street credibility. There was very little for the undecideds.

I'm not going to pick a winner, but here are some thoughts. 

Marama

She didn’t let herself get pushed over. There was a tussle (with Mihi) over whether or not sustainable jobs are realistic, but Marama held her ground. I wasn’t entirely convinced, but Marama didn’t concede an inch.

On other issues, though, Marama scored clear wins. On the marijuana question Marama demonstrated the most depth. Marijuana is and should be a health issues, not a criminal issue, and Marama argued the point well. 

The Ikaroa-Rawhiti race is a platform for Marama and the Greens. Partly an attempt to announce the Greens arrival in Maori politics and (hopefully) a springboard for Marama to enter Parliament off of the Green Party list. Marama, Metiria Turei and our mate Jack Tautokai McDonald have been active in Maori politics. After the byelection the Greens can credibly claim that they are committed to kaupapa Maori politics and a credible alternative in 2014. 

 

Te Hamua

He’s funny, right?

Humour aside, Te Hamua ran the most consistent message: I’m you, you are me – I’m real. He owned that narrative too. Each candidate emphasised their relative strengths, e.g. Marama highlighted the strong position the Greens will be in in the next left-leaning government, however Te Hamua argued his strengths the most convincingly. He was the “B.R.O”.

I imagine the brothers in Kaiti were most impressed with Te Hamua. That’s a strength. Maori political engagement is woeful. Politics doesn’t serve them and isn’t seen to serve them. Politicians (with some exceptions, think of Parekura) can be detached from the experiences of the poor and marginalised. Te Hamua isn’t.

But politics is more than that. I felt that Te Hamua was the weakest candidate on policy. He ran hot and cold. Substantive and focussed questions were his weak point.

Meka

She needs a big push. Any residual momentum is lost.

Meka found herself on the back foot. She is the leading candidate, but despite entering as the favourite she didn’t use that position to her advantage. The leading candidate should have been controlling the agenda, instead Meka was responding to it.

Having said that, possibly unfairly and the comments section is open to those who want to discuss it, Meka revealed a little fire. She smacked down Te Hamua after his ‘I still shop at the Warehouse’ speech arguing that Parliament requires an MP with the smarts. Meka was right, Parliament is a labyrinth unless you know how to navigate it, but talking down to Te Hamua won’t wash with the 18-24 demographic. The key demographic (if they turn out, which is unlikely).

It wasn’t until the last segment that Meka found her footing. She closed well (she had the most convincing political closing). The other highlight was the foreshore and seabed and the Urewera raids. Meka owned up to it. She admitted it was a mistake. She was responding to a question on honesty and, in owning up to the mistake, demonstrated more honesty than many Labour MPs before her. 

Na

For the most part, Na did great. Arguably a technical win on points. He doesn’t excite me though. As much as he attempted to divorce the Maori Party from National I didn’t accept it. The Maori Party is in a confidence and supply agreement with National, two Maori Party MPs hold ministerial warrants and a select committee (with a National majority) just gutted one of the party’s best members’ bills. That gutting was met with meek acceptance.

Na also fell into a trap. He accepted Mihi’s framing of the Maori Party as the party of the right in Maori politics. In accepting that framing, Na legitimised the argument that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National. He slammed that suggestion in the first segment of the debate, only to implicitly accept it later. A tactical low point in an otherwise strong performance.

Oh, with the exception of the casual xenophobia. Na argued that migrant worker jobs should be transferred to Maori. No. Just no.

That aside, Na was strong on Parekura’s legacy: bringing people together. He also answered well on most questions. He seems like a great guy and has deep knowledge of local issues.

Maori TV

Mihi and Jodi were great. But what's most interesting is how Maori TV has changed Maori politics. Maori politicians are more accountable and the Maori electorate is more informed. The Maori electorates are no longer marginal games in far off parts of the country. Instead, the Maori electorates are becoming an increasingly important part of New Zealand politics and political discourse.

"Is New Zealand a racist country?"

That’s the moot for this week’s episode of the Vote. John Tamihere and Damon Salesa will argue the affirmative and Mai Chen and Phil Goff will argue the negative.

Is X, Y or Z racist? That’s often a subjective question. A white male from the Wellington business community isn’t going to experience racism in the same manner or to the same degree as, say, a brown woman from the LGBT community. Racism is an experience.

It’s difficult to argue objectively. Is Maori overrepresentation in crime, health and a suite of other measures a result of contemporary racism, the collateral effect of historic racism or something else entirely? Do the Maori seats ameliorate historic political underrepresentation or did they and do they entrench political advantage? Do English language requirements favour (largely) white immigrants from the Anglosphere or are language requirements a necessary control?

It’s a matter of perspective. Is the essence of racism found in impact or intention? Impact infers that racism is structural; intention infers that racism is more ordinary. The international community accepts that guarantees of legal equality don’t mean “identity of treatment”.* On that basis, none of the examples above are racist. At New Zealand law “not all distinctions (i.e. different treatment based on race, gender and so on)… will be discriminatory”.** So, the essence of discrimination lays in negative impact. On that basis, language requirements that negatively affect, say, Indonesian immigrants might be racist regardless of intention. Joking about curry munchers, Asian drivers and niggas wouldn’t be caught under the definition of discrimination at law (neither internationally nor domestically). Problematic.

I remain a little sceptical about the moot. Racism is low hanging fruit. However, last month’s episode was great and the panel (mainly Salesa and Chen) is tops. I hope the show urges New Zealanders to think more deeply about racism and what it means. For me, racism falls into two categories: personal and political. Personal racism is experience: being called this or that, having assumptions made about you and so on. Political racism is structural: politicians, community leaders and so on arguing that race isn’t a proxy for disadvantage, MPs enacting laws that unfairly disadvantage an already disadvantaged group and so on.

Thomas Jefferson was right to argue that “there is nothing more unequal, than the equal treatment of unequal people” and Babasaheb (one of the architects of the Indian Constitution and an underrated thinker imo) was right to make the distinction between “equality in law” and “equality in fact”. Will New Zealanders accept that? Or does it even matter?***

*See Quilter v Attorney-General (1998) 1 NZLR 623 CA at page 561 per Keith J 
**See page 532 per Thomas J
***The Supreme Court of the United States in Bowers v Hardwick (1986) held that minority rights are not subject to the principle of majority rules. The Supreme Court considered it illiberal and contrary to the basic democratic assumption that majorities aren't always right. I like to keep that in mind when people argue that this or that thing Maori should be abolished because the majority said so. Indigenous and minority rights are inherent (see the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People) and Maori rights are strengthened by Treaty guarentees. Something to think about.