Power: the Shane Jones edition

Labour leadership candidate Shane Jones

If you’re interested in Maori history, one of the most accessible books is Struggle Without End. But if you’re interested in the tool shed account...

Reducing it to its bones, our post-Treaty political history can be divided into four stages: the mid to late 19th century and the imitation of British political institutions, the late 19th century to the early 20th century and the flock to religion and its leaders, the mid to late 20th century characterised by urbanisation and unionism and the Treaty settlement phase with the adoption of a Maori model of Anglo-American capitalism.

The Treaty settlement phase hasn’t ended. But Shane Jones and his bid for the Labour leadership signals that that phase might be closing. The Treaty settlement era is characterised by the adoption of the neotribal model. Accumulating economic power was and is seen as the most effective way to achieve tino rangatiratanga. That might well be right, but Shane’s run for the leadership signals a new approach.

“Power is a lot like real estate. It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source, the higher your property value”.

That sums up Shane’s approach to achieving tino rangatiratanga: you have to get to the source of power. In this case, the Prime Ministership or a position close to it. The Cabinet controls the executive and (in our Westminster system) the Parliament.

The Maori Party has adopted the approach as well (in watered down form). Two of their MPs might hold ministerial warrants, but they’re not members of Cabinet. They’re on the periphery of power and their value is low as a result. In the government, the heavy lifting and influence is held in the top, say, five members of Cabinet. In the current government power seems concentrated in the Key/English/Joyce tripartite. Shane is aiming to form or be a part of an equivalent power group.

Shane’s run can’t be understood without the help of history. A supporter of Shane’s bid made an outstanding point this morning - Shane is the successor to Sir Apirana Ngata’s legacy:

E tipu e rea, mo nga ra o te ao,
Grow up o tender child in the days of your world,  

Ko to ringa ki nga rākau a te Pākehā,
In your hands the tools of the Pākehā,  

Hei oranga mo to tinana.
As means to support and sustain you.  

Ko to ngakau ki nga taonga a o tipuna,
In your heart the treasures of your ancestors,  

Hei tikitiki mo to mahunga.
As a plume for your head.  

Ko to wairua ki te Atua,
Your spirit given to God,  

Nana nei nga mea katoa.
The source of all things. 

Shane lives that. For that reason alone – casting aside the strategic significance of the bid – Shane might be worth supporting.

Post script: although I tautoko Shane’s run, I’ve already declared for Cunliffe. I’ve set out my reasons at The Daily Blog and I don’t retract them. This post is an attempt to put Shane's run in its proper context. Shane is polarising. My politics aren’t closely aligned with his (except on Maori issues) and I'm unsure how he will change the left. "Geldings", too. Enough said.  

A budget primer

I won’t be doing the usual budget run down this year. I haven’t got the time. Instead, here’s a budget primer:

• The government’s economic credibility is staked on their claim to a forecast surplus in the 2014/2015 financial year – view everything in that context. With droughts declared across most of the North Island, government revenue will (probably) be below forecast and expenditure will (probably) be above. The pressure to cut, cut, cut is increased. 

• Maori funding is an easy target. However, the Maori Party should insulate Vote Maori Affairs and Maori allocations in health, education, welfare and so on against an overall decrease. There will be cuts here and redirects there (as you’d expect), but the proper measure is whether or not there is an overall increase or decrease in funding. 

• In previous years the Maori Party has secured modest increases. That’s a win. Well, a win considering that they’re operating in an environment of cuts. In the context of $90b worth of government expenditure, a (say) $50m increase is not much of a win. A matter of perspective, I guess. 

• Tariana Turia has announced $34.5m in new funding this year. Again, a win considering the government is under pressure to meet their surplus target. On the other hand, not so much of a win considering that $34.5 represents a toe nail worth of government expenditure. 

• Much of the increase will go towards combating rheumatic fever. Good. The rest will go towards papakainga development (good) and Marae/community hubs (good). It is easy to quibble with the figure, but the funding destinations are very good.

Job losses in the Eastern Bay of Plenty

Noske Skog (NS), the main tenant at the Tasman Mill, will halve production resulting in the loss of over 100 jobs. Small job losses have occurred across the Mill for several years. The last significant lay-off occurred in the 1990s.

What the media, and politicians for that matter, have failed to grasp is the flow-on effect the cuts will have. Support industries in Kawerau and the Eastern Bay of Plenty will have to downsize significantly. There are several engineering and construction firms in the region who rely on the health of NS and the other tenants at the Tasman Mill. With this in mind, the job losses will be well in excess of the 120 set to go at NS.

Carter Holt Harvey (CHH), who also operate at the Tasman Mill, supply NS with pulp for the manufacture of newsprint. With the downsizing at NS, demand for pulp from CHH will fall 20%, at the moment NS constitutes 40% of CHH’s demand. As a result, CHH will be forced to downsize as well. This will push job losses higher still.

The Tasman Mill is the second largest industrial power user in New Zealand. The Mill is supplied by an on-site geothermal power station. With a decline in production at NS and CHH there will be reduced demand for power. This may result in job losses at the power station (which is owned and operated by Mighty River Power by the way). Again, this would push job losses higher still.

These job losses will cut a gash in the Eastern Bay of Plenty economy. The Mill is the largest single employer in the region and the source of many of the regions middle-income jobs.

Those affected by the downsizing, and the region as a whole, are crying out for government support. However, as of today, the government has failed to respond with anything substantive other than “everything will sort itself out” and "Biofuels! Biofuels!", despite his government cancelling biofuel requirements. This response fits well with the government’s non-existent strategy for the manufacturing sector and their apathy towards provincial economies. Oh, and I’m sure their response has nothing to do with the Mill workforce been entirely unionised and nothing to do with their 50 year history of union activism.

David Cunliffe spoke to Morning Report on the issue and, in contrast with the government, discussed solutions including easing volatility in the exchange rate, thus making conditions more favourable for export. The contrast between Cunliffe and the government (and Cunliffe and his colleagues) could not be more stark.    At least the people of Kawerau and the Eastern Bay of Plenty know where to place their vote in 2014.  

The rise of the Iwi Leaders Group

With discussion centring around the Iwi Leaders Group versus the Maori Council, many commentators have lost sight of FOMA, the Fedaration of Maori Authorities. Although comparisons between the ILG and the MC are valid, any comparison must include FOMA.

The ILG perform a commercial and policy functions. The Group’s policy functions overlap with the MC, but the Group’s commercial functions overlap with FOMA. After all, the MC is a policy and lobbying group. Similar in function to, for example, the Climate Change Iwi Leaders Group – a kind of subsidiary of the ILG proper.

To make things clearer, let me try and explain the ILG through analogy. The ILG is similar in form to the Cabinet. There is the Cabinet proper, or the ILG proper, this is where the decisions take place. The Cabinet is then divided into Cabinet Committees that provide detailed consideration and discussion of issues. The Climate Change Iwi Leaders Group is similar to a Cabinet Committee. This is where the ILG do their heavy lifting. The ILG also undertake lobbying and government relations work through, as one example, the Land and Water Forum and through, most significantly, the Maori Party. Mark Solomon revealed in an interview with RNZ last year that he was given access to lobby the Prime Minister over asset sales.

The work described above sounds a lot like what the MC does, or did. Well, that's because it is. In the Maori Community Development Act 1962, the act that establishes the MC, one of the functions is to:

Consider and discuss such matters as appear relevant to the social and economic advancement of the Maori race

So, in other words, one of their functions has been usurped by the ILG.

FOMA, I believe, find themselves in a similar situation to the MC. The ILG is usurping their functions. FOMA represent the commercial interests of Maori authorities (among other things it should be added). However, the ILG is increasingly coming to represent Maori commercial interests. They are the lobby and consultation group of choice for the government. If there is a commercial issue that affects Maori or the government wants to involve Maori in, the ILG will be approached. FOMA are not given a look in. The government prefers, naturally of course, to deal with an ideologically sympathetic group. 

The ILG are often accused of representing the commercial interests of iwi and Maori and they’re often labelled the brown face of neoliberalism. That label is a little overblown, although the ILG have voiced support for asset sales and PPPs in the past.

The most important question for Maori is: does the rise of the ILG benefit us? I have my doubts. The ILG is not representative of Maori. It cannot be said that most Maori share the ILGs economic ideology. Nor is the ILG elected. Can we really call them ‘representatives’ of Maori? And who represents urban Maori?

On the other hand, the ILG provide an opportunity for Maori to leverage the government in a way we haven’t had the ability to in the past. The ILG have economic and political leverage. FOMA represents Maori economic interests, but they don’t control those economic interests in the way the ILG do.

When discussing the rise of the ILG, we cannot lose sight of the Maori Party’s role too. One of the Maori Party’s goals has been to empower a political establishment that can engage and persuade the government of the day. With the ILG, they’ve achieved that. The ILG have are also positioning themselves to aquire strategic assets. Shares in electricity generators, an inland port at Ruakura, Tainui wants to muscle in on Auckland Airport, negotiating for rights to airspace – the list goes on. Keep in mind that Maori already control huge tracts of forestry land, some important national resources such as geothermal steam, lake beds and some of NZ’s most profitable tourism ventures. This sort of power, coupled with the personal networks the ILG have fostered, give the ILG institutionalised access.

Having control, or a degree of control, over strategic assets plays into the ILG’s end game – they want power for Maori and they want to exercise that power. Whether or not these powerplays are a good thing is a moot point. I’m comfortable with the ILG for now. After all, they brought the AFFCO lock out to an end and they do, at the end of the day, have Maori interests at heart. The question, I guess, is will it last?

Kelvin Davis on improving education

When the government says that national standards, charter schools, league tables, performance pay, quality vs quantity of teachers will all raise achievement, they might be right.

That's because there are very few strategies that teachers (or governments) can implement that actually make students dumber. Teachers can rightly put their hands on their hearts and swear that what they do in class lifts achievement. Just about everything has some positive effect, but some have a large positive effect while others barely register. It would make sense to develop policy based on those strategies that have the greatest positive effect.

The much quoted Professor John Hattie's research lists, from most effective to least ffective, 138 different 'things' that may be implemented in education, and all but five have a positive effect on learning. The five strategies with a negative effect are: Summer vacation (-0.09), Welfare Policies (-0.12) Retention (Holding kids back a year, -0.16), Television (-0.18) and Mobility (-0.34). So unless we prescribe longer Christmas holidays, keep kids back a year or two, or force students to watch an extra 8 hours of TV a day, almost everything else will have SOME positive effect on learning.

The same goes for government policy - practically any educational policy will have some positive effect for some students.

In order to get the best achievement outcomes from any policy, the policy itself needs to be supported by research.

What does Hattie's research say?

Any 'strategy' with an effect size of 0.40 or less is practically pointless. Which makes sense.

In Hattie's list the strategy with an effect size of 0.40 (Reducing Anxiety) is exactly halfway through the list of possible strategies. Hattie is saying if any particular strategy is to be used it should at least be in the top 50% of strategies.

What does the research say about Charter Schools?

Charter Schools have an effect size of 0.20, or the 107th out of the 133 strategies that have some positive effect. Charter Schools are therefore an extremely pointless and expensive strategy.

There are still 40 strategies that are deemed pointless, but, are still more effective than Charter Schools.

What does the research say about League Tables and Performance Pay?

Nothing. They don't rate or feature in any way in Hattie's research.

What then is the basis for League Tables and Performance Pay if there is no research evidence to show these two 'things' will make a difference? How does the government know these two 'strategies' won't have to be included alongside the five already proven to make students dumber?

There are 106 'things' more effective than Charter Schools at improving learning, of which 66 are deemed to be very effective. 

It would make sense for the government to stick to what is proven by their guru's research to make a difference and really create the conditions where quality teachers can weave their magic.Only when the proven strategies are all implemented, should they pull out their ideological ideas. However, I suspect by then there would be no need.

By Kelvin Davis

Should the government guarantee settlements?

It’s a sad day for Ngati Tama, with the news going public that the tribe has lost almost everything:

One of Taranaki's largest private investment projects has gone horribly wrong, losing close to $20 million in a series of high-risk financial ventures.

The loss means Taranaki's most northern iwi, Ngati Tama, has shed all of a $14.5m Treaty of Waitangi payout it received in 2003.

Shocked iwi members learned of the financial disaster at a hui at Pukearuhe Marae this weekend.

Where, one should ask in the wake of this stuff-up, does the government’s obligations end. Treaty settlements are full and final. However, I don’t think - and I’m open to correction on this point - that the Waitangi Tribunal, Crown Law or Cabinet have ever interpreted full and final to mean that the government’s obligations end once settlement legislation is passed. Indeed, if the government knew a tribe’s settlement was close to collapsing, and did nothing, then the government would be liable for a contemporary breach of the Treaty under the partnership and active protection principles. So, despite the full and final aspect of settlements, the government retains on-going obligations under the principles of the Treaty. The full and final notion relates to, I believe, the redress component. It does not nullify other obligations the government has towards Maori.

With this in mind, does the government owe Ngati Tama compensation? Personally, I don’t think so, but I know other Maori think compensation is appropriate. From what information is in the public domain, the government had no idea of the situation and no hand in it. Ngati Tama’s loss came as a result of poor management. However, if the government can guarantee risky finance companies and, when they go bust, pay out sums well in excess of all treaty settlements combined, why can’t the government guarantee treaty settlements? A valid question and one I can’t find a compelling answer against.

It is negligent, on the government’s part, to absolve itself of responsibilities once treaty settlements are passed. After all, the government is in a sense making an investment. Therefore, the government should ensure appropriate mechanisms are in place to manage the settlement. Before a settlement can be transferred, a tribal organisation must be in place, but it is not a requirement that an adequate corporate arm is in place. This is inadequate.

Once settlement legislation is passed, it is on iwi to make what they will of the settlement. However, many of the smaller iwi, have no experience, expertise or knowledge in and of commercial matters. The larger iwi tend to do okay, for example Ngai Tahu and Ngati Awa, but the smaller iwi often do not have expert tribe members to draw on. This isn’t universally true, I should add, Tainui came close to bankruptcy a few years ago.

I agree with Richard Jones who says that “an extra layer of due diligence is necessary when planned investments are outside the traditional areas such as the primary sector and property”. Maori tend to do very well in primary industries and property, yet no so well in the sort of investments Ngati Tama made. In fact, I think it is almost unprecedented for an iwi to invest heavily in an overseas company, and a software company too.

Ultimately, Ngati Tama had too much exposure to what were a handful of very, very risky investments. I can understand the desire to make something of a miserly settlement, but I don’t think Ngati Tama’s leaders kept in mind that management of treaty settlements should be conservative. The settlements are meant to be sustainable and intergenerational; it’s not for current generations to milk it for all it’s worth with risky investments. Having said that, I shouldn’t speculate on what was motivating Ngati Tama leaders and what, I suppose, really happened.

I think the CEO of Ngati Tama, Greg White, and the Board owe the people of Ngati Tama an apology.