The Meaning of the Internet Mana Party

Hone Harawira

When you think of the Māori electorates, what comes to mind? For some the Māori electorates are a hangover - part of a legacy of failed hand outs to a feckless and troublesome people. For others the Māori electorates are a necessary evil – a hand up to a people never quite capable of pulling themselves up, a sop to a people stuck in their self-defeating ways.

I’m not writing to announce that I know The Meaning of the Māori electorates. There can be no such thing as The Meaning, rather there are many meanings. It’s true that the Māori electorates represent the “last vestige of a lost autonomy”. The electorates exist to protect mana motuhake. Yet it’s equally true that the electorates represent a counterrevolutionary force. It might be said that they exist to contain mana motuhake. On the one hand, the Māori electorates mean that we have a small role in the distribution of public power and that protects our autonomy, but on the other hand it means that we must submit ourselves to Pākehā norms and institutions and that’s a limit on our autonomy.

But what do the electorates mean to Hone Harawira and his Mana Party? There’s a saying that goes “he kai kei aku ringa” - there is food at the end of my hands. This isn’t a statement, but an instruction to seize an opportunity. For Hone Harawira and the Mana Party, the Māori electorates represent an opportunity. On their view it doesn’t matter whether the electorates are benevolent or malevolent. They are a means to an end. That end is “getting rid of National”.

Thus it’s odd to see a handful of Labour MPs deriding the Internet Mana Party as a “dirty deal”. That argument didn't apply to Labour's concession to Jim Anderton in Wigram. It’s even weirder to see some commentators arguing that the deal corrupts the Māori electorates. They seem to have substituted analysis for catharsis. It’s easy to fall back on partisan hackery or didactic moralising, but neither does anything to capture the complexity of the situation.

Kim Dotcom

Governments change, but poverty is a constant in the Māori electorates. Hone represents the people in his electorate – the permanent poor - but he’s also charged with another duty: to improve their lives. If the opportunity exists, why would anyone expect him to conform to other people’s standards and reject an electoral alliance? Why would Hone remain content with actual poverty and a poverty of electoral opportunity? As Tim Selwyn notes, coat tailing is an imperfect rule, but MMP is about “making as many votes count toward representation as possible”.

Sure, the deal is an act of desperation. But that isn’t a bad thing. You would be desperate too if you were on the wrong end of 174 years of inequality. The Mana Party is taking its desperation and, as a matter of fact, committing an act of deep conformism. The coat tails rule is well exploited. Mana isn’t going against the grain but seeking the safety of convention. Yet the spectacle of an independent Māori party – with socialist leanings and, oddly, moneyed support – seems to invoke the latent paternalism of parts of the left. Right wing resistance is a given, but the cries of dirty deal and sell out from the parts of the left resemble many of the attacks against the Māori Party when they made a pragmatic decision to support the National government. The same desperation was at play in the Māori Party at the time. They could remain on the margins and sit content with actual poverty and a poverty of electoral opportunity or they could have a crack at reversing 174 years of inequality. They used the opportunity their Māori electorates had provided and accepted a deal with National.

They did as many Māori advocates always have - submitted to institutional norms for practical change. Mana could hold true to its radical principles – as Sue Bradford did and all power to her – but that would underestimate the desperation in Māori communities. The Māori Party knew it (although they have been punished for the lack of change) and Mana knows it.

Which brings us back to the meanings of the Māori electorates. Mana – like the Māori Party and even the Young Māori Party before it – wants to become a fact in the distribution of public power. The corollary – as the experience of the Māori Party and even the Young Māori Party before it – is that Mana must cosy up with establishment powers and sacrifice some autonomy. But didn’t someone say politics is the art of compromise? Desperate people sometimes do desperate things. Or, in this case, desperate people can do conventional things too.

I wrote this post about a week ago, but didn't publish it because I've been here and there over where I stand. I'm still not entirely sure where I stand. Sometime next week I'm aiming to post an essay on where Māori politics stands and why.  For similar (better) perspectives it’s worth checking out Labour MP Louisa Wall’s post at the Daily Blog - the hypocrisy of attacking Maori seats for being tactical – and Scott Hamilton’s post at Reading the Maps - From Olaf Nelson to Kim Dotcom. 

Trouble in the Maori Party: Act I

I don’t even know where to start with this (from 3 News):

A fight for the Maori Party’s leadership has begun at Ratana today, with MP Te Ururoa Flavell officially challenging incumbent co-leader Pita Sharples.

Former Te Tai Tonga MP Rahui Katene has also thrown her hat in the ring to replace Tariana Turia as both co-leader and Te Tai Hauāuru MP.

The challenges are the latest in an ongoing spat about who will lead the party into the next election, and what direction the party should take.

Ms Turia announced she will stand down before the next election to let new blood take over the party – and urged Dr Sharples to do the same.

But last week, Dr Sharples unveiled he had no plans to stand down, saying he’d continue to co-lead the party after next year’s election.

Today, as the Ratana Church celebrates its birthday, Mr Flavell confirmed he would launch a challenge against Dr Sharples and Ms Katene confirmed she wanted Ms Turia’s job.

Maori Party president Pem Bird says Mr Flavell’s challenge will be discussed this afternoon and the party’s constitution will be reviewed to see what now happens.

I said last week that the party’s troubles are symptomatic of deep dysfunction within the parliamentary and party wings. I was too optimistic; the troubles are symptomatic of an anaemic caucus and a debilitated membership.

After shedding two seats and halving the party vote, it became obvious that the formula wasn’t right. The issue for the party appeared to be a matter of ingredients. Was there a leadership problem, a policy problem, a procedural problem or some combination of those factors and others?

As per last week, I think Te Ururoa represents a generational change and a break from the political period that Turia and Sharples embody. However, the party’s problems run deeper than leadership and political symbolism. The party itself, including the party leadership, haven’t figured out where they fit in a fragmented political landscape. A permanent Mana Party, a resurgent Labour Party and a rising Green Party have changed the way Maori politics is played. The Maori Party can either reclaim ground lost on the left, drift in the centre, or acknowledge their role on the right. They cannot maintain the idea that a pan-Maori party is possible. The party must choose a political identity – one that caters to a realistic market. In a post-Marine and Coastal Areas Act world, the party must find its mojo again.

With that in mind, dumping Pita could be problematic. He and Tariana anchor the Maori Party’s support. It would be interpreted as a swipe against Pita’s supporters if he was forced out of the job on Te Ururoa’s terms. Adding Rahui Katene to the recipe isn’t a magic play either. Katene was rejected in 2011 and it's arguable whether or not she appreciates the real issues that the Maori Party faces. The issues are not cosmetic and cannot and will not be resolved with a change in leadership.

As for Hone, well, this is an opportunity squeeze blood from the corpse. The Mana Party is stable, comfortable in its own ideology and untainted by government. The Maori Party is unstable, unsure of its own ideology and tainted by the decisions of government and factional fighting. The choice, if Hone were to draw the dichotomy, is an easy one.


UPDATE: last night the party released a statement saying that Pita will remain at the helm - for now. That's a good move. It's probably not the best look to wash your dirty laundry at Ratana (in front of nearly every political journalist in the country). As we know, though, it's delaying the inevitable hand-over.
.

Post-script: Pita is increasingly isolated from Tariana, Te Ururoa and some in the wider party. It would be cleaner for him to step down, but after his long service to Maori and the party his supporters argue that that is undignified (and he still retains support in the wider party) . The driving faction is made up of Te Ururoa, Pem Bird (the party president) and their supporters in the Waiariki electorate. Rahui Katene, as far as factional politics goes, is an uncertainty. However, in Parliament she was often associated with Tariana. 

Quick comments on a Mana Maori Party

The Northern Advocate reports:

Some Tai Tokerau supporters of the Maori Party worried about leadership wrangles would like Hone Harawira back.

And Mr Harawira - who split from the Maori Party in 2011 to form the Mana Party which he leads - would be interested in a Mana-Maori coalition with him at the helm.

The Maori Party is now working its way through a leadership succession process with co-leader Tariana Turia not standing in the general election next year.

She expected co-leader Pita Sharples to also retire, clearing the way for Te Ururoa Flavell to take control.

But a spokesperson for Dr Sharples said the Maori Affairs Minister's electorate wanted him to contest the election and seek party leadership as it was considered a staged succession would help party stability.

Any union between Mana and the Maori Party wouldn’t work. The Maori Party is innately conservative. The party’s term in government is characterised by incremental change. Some of that change is structural, think Whanau Ora and the constitutional review, but it is change within the confines of capitalist democracy. The party’s overarching goal, captured in their “at the table” metaphor, is to insert Maori and Maori values into NZ power structures. The consequence of this is the normalisation of kaupapa Maori politics.

On the other hand, Mana is inherently socialist. The financial transactions tax, 20,000 new state homes and “abandon(ing) the market-based provision of essential services” sit uneasily with the Maori Party’s approach in government. Mana advocates a systematic overhaul – they want to remake the table. Mana aims to empower the working class rather than insert Maori (mainly from the political and economic establishment) into NZ power structures.

Esoteric things aside, musing on a merger is a convenient way for Hone and Pita to goad Te Ururoa. In his quest for the leadership he and Pem Bird have driven Hone out of the party and, according to Patrick Gower, are attempting to mount another leadership challenge against Pita. The change needs to happen, but on Pita’s terms. Te Ururoa’s reckless ambition already led to the creation of the Mana Party, he must be careful not to let it lead to a death warrant for the Maori Party.

In praise of Hone Harawira

In a democratic society, the right to protest is a fundamental freedom. When we restrict or demonise civil resistance, we’re doing our democracy a disservice. 

Photo courtesy of Lisa Gibson

News broke last night that Glen Innes Police moved to arrest Hone Harawira, MP and leader of the Mana Party. A number of other protestors were arrested as well. According to John Minto, the Mana Party spokesperson, Hone parked his car behind a removal truck and refused to move. The Police wanted to tow the car, but they had to remove Hone first. The Police smashed “at least one window” and arrested Hone for “failure to remove a vehicle”. 

Judging from the reaction from some on the right, you’d have thought Hone rammed a cop. Well, he didn’t. He was exercising his right to protest. A right that we as a society should not demonise or take for granted. The Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides the “freedom of peaceful assembly” and a “freedom of expression”. The right to protests is, in my opinion, a manifestation of the right to peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of expression.

Having said that, there is no right to break the law and break the law is what Hone did, apparently. Well, that’s not for you, I or the Police to decide. In any event, Hone clearly lacked criminal intent. And isn't minor and technical law breaking an accepted aspect of civil resistance? From the civil rights movement in the US to Bastion Point in NZ.

Hone is known for pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in a democratic society. After all, he comes from a proud activist tradition. I think there is something noble and uniquely New Zealand in an elected MP opting to risk arrest for the rights of the powerless. In his own words, Hone says:

I didn't go there to get arrested. I went there to show solidarity and support… I went with my wife. To show her the commitment of the families of GI.

These are families who have been there since just after the Second World War, and they are being pushed out of their house.

Good on ya, Hone.

Best and Worst Maori MPs for August

As usual, here are the best and worst performing Maori politicans for August.

The Best


Louisa Wall

12 months ago few people could name the MP for Manurewa. Today, it’s hard not to know the MP for Manurewa. Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill has guaranteed her a Cabinet position in the next Labour government – I’ll put money on that call.

Louisa has demonstrated how you should sell a bill. It helps that she is on the right side of history, but that aside she crafted the superior argument and narrative. Google News returns over 2000 results for Louisa Wall which, to me and I know it’s unscientific, demonstrates that she has actively sold the bill. It’s easy to allow an issue like this to take on a life of its own, but Louisa has kept control of the issue.

The true test, assuming the marriage equality bill passes, will be maintaining momentum. I’ve no doubt Louisa has the ability to front issues, but the sport and recreation and community and voluntary sector portfolios are not conducive to media coverage or ground breaking policy. A portfolio reshuffle is due and Labour could do worse than award Louisa with a weighty portfolio.



Nanaia Mahuta

Nanaia is often written off, but I can assure you she’s no lightweight. It’s difficult to court media attention, even with the most controversial issues. Take, as one example, the class sizes debacle. Nanaia took an active role in sticking it to the government, but with issues that lead the news the party leader will take, well, the lead. Therefore, David Shearer fronted the big media while Nanaia was assigned the back seat. Scanning Scoop and Voxy reveals Nanaia produces more press releases than her Maori caucus colleagues; surely she deserves credit for productivity even if that does not translate to exposure. Anyway, since when was media coverage the only gauge of performance.

 
Tariana Turia

Like Nanaia, Tariana produces more press releases than her colleagues. She is also the most capable. Over the past month Tariana has sold the plain packaging idea well. After Whanau Ora, reducing the harm smoking causes will be Tariana’s legacy.

 
Hone Harawira

Last term Hone was the most consistent performer. However, this year he is hot and cold. He had a terrible month when he refused to budge on marriage equality, on the other hand he had a blazing month when the government planned to scrap s9 in the MOM Act. In August, however, Hone has found his form. He voted Aye for the marriage equality bill and has taken it to the government over child poverty, asset sales, Maori water rights, Afghanistan, drug testing beneficiaries and the proposed bill to ban gang patches. No other opposition MP covers more issues. For a one man band supported by a comparatively small office Hone does exceedingly well. Compare, for example, Hone’s coverage with David Shearer, a man supported by a research unit, several press secretaries and communications staff and MPs who he can delegate to.

 
Moana Mackey

A quiet achiever this year. Last term Moana did, to be honest, nothing of note. However, this year has been marked by good work, albeit work that has gone relatively unnoticed. Moana’s work on the Exclusive Economic Zone bill has been excellent. She has carried Labour on this issue and made a number of excellent speeches in the House. Moana has also ensured climate change remains a live issue in the party and in the House and, as local example, she has fought for the reopening/repair of the Gisborne rail link.


The Worst

 
Brendan Horan

I couple of months ago Brendan participated in a political debate on Native Affairs. He was horrendous. I thought he should be cut a bit of slack, he’s a new MP after all, but over the last two months he has not improved – not one iota. He can give a soundbite now, and a good one at that, but in longform he is very bad. Strays off point and usually has little grasp of the topic.


Hekia Parata

Hekia Parata is no fool, nor is she stupid. But she speaks in empty platitudes and everyone sees through them. The class sizes debacle revealed her tendency to speak in slogans, this tendency was widely criticised, but she has still made no effort to speak in substance. Hekia does, however, receive marks for keeping controversy to a minimum, even with charter schools and national standards coming under attack from teacher unions and the opposition. 


The Green’s Maori Caucus

Unusually quiet this month, nearly non-existent.


Parekura Horomia

I like Parekura and having worked for him I can assure you he is an outstanding electorate MP. Hence he has the largest majority of any Maori electorate MP. However, his activity level in the Maori Affairs portfolio leaves much to be desired.

Why Maori own the water

Next time someone says no one owns the water, tell them they could be wrong. That may be the position at the common law, but it is not the position under Maori customary law. It is abundantly clear that under Tikanga Maori hapu exercised ownership - or rangatiratanga - over streams, rivers and lakes. Arguably, isolated hapu in isolated areas still maintai rangatiratanga – or mana - over streams, rivers and lakes. For example, lake Waikaremoana.

The idea that no one owns water is a common law principle, but this does not mean the New Zealand courts will or have to affirm that principle. The position under New Zealand common law may well be that Maori do own water or, at the very least, have rights to water. The court could hold that under customary title Maori retain ownership and that ownership was not affected by the Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty. Alternatively, the courts could chose to fuse the common law with Maori customary law holding that under Tikanga Maori hapu exercised and retain ownership, therefore that is the position under New Zealand common law too. Such a notion is not, I believe, repugnant to the common law. Having said that, the courts have been reluctant to take this approach with the New Zealand common law. You could also argue that the court would extend customary title to usage rights only rather than full ownership title. But why do that when it is clear under Tikanga Maori hapu exercised full ownership rights.

After all, Maori did not sign away their property rights under the Treaty. In fact, the Treaty is an agreement that affirms Maori property rights. Maori property rights are only extinguished if hapu chose to relinquish their rights, for example through sale, or if the Crown explicitly extinguishes those rights, for example the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Water is, I should add, a taonga. Therefore, rights to water are protected under the Treaty.

We must keep in mind that this is what Maori want. Recognition of ownership. Maori are not, contrary to what many on the right are saying, looking for money. That is the interpretation the Right put on the Maori Council’s actions because, quite frankly, money is the only concept they attach to ownership. Ownership for Maori, however, includes concepts like mana. Money is an afterthought. Why, you should ask, would the Maori Council want to monetise water? It’s such a stupid suggestion.

It makes me sick seeing the right stoke the embers of racial tension. It makes me sick to see the PM get in on the game too. Commenting that the Maori Council is only bringing a claim because they want money is not only wrong, but it’s irresponsible. Commenting on the Waitangi Tribunal was a small blow of the dog-whistle, but slagging the claimants was like putting the whistle to a megaphone.

With behaviour like that Hone Harawira could be right when he says the water claim could be bigger than the foreshore and seabed. If the anatagonism continues on both sides, then hikoi and marches could occur on both sides and, like always happens with Maori political issues, the public debate will become toxic. There is so much at stake with the water claim, the success of the government’s key economic plank and the extent of Maori rights just to name a few, that the debate cannot afford to descend into an us vs them battle. We should expect better.

Best and worst performing Maori MPs for June

I've updated the best and worst performing Maori MPs list. Te Ururoa Flavell remains in the best performing list while Catherine Delahunty -yes, a Pakeha - also wins a spot. Wellington City Councillor, and the most effective councillor according to the Wellingtonian, Paul Eagle is also included.

Rounding out the bottom half is Hone Harawira for his stubborn position on marriage equality. Tau Henare also finds himself on the worst performing list thanks to his poor form on Wikipedia.

Again, this these are my own subjective opinions are they're open to criticism.

Refusing to budge on marriage equality

Hone Harawira is refusing to moderate his stance on marriage equality, or at least that’s how he came across on Radio Rhema (the Christian radio station). In a revealing interview Hone claimed to have never voted for something he didn’t believe in. When questioned on what’ll happen when his personal view clashes with Mana’s view, Hone was unclear.

Well, Hone can’t afford to be unclear. He’s on record as saying that the movement is bigger than he is. This seems to suggest that he’ll follow any decision the party makes. However, saying that you’re unsure what will happen in the event of a clash seems to suggest that Hone’s backing away from his indication to vote according to the party position. Like I said last week, the Maori Party provides an excellent case study what happens when you ignore your members.

I think Hone will have to cave. After all, there isn’t a split within the Mana Party. There is a split between Hone Harawira and the Mana Party. On marriage equality Hone’s view is divorced from the Mana Party’s view. Some Mana members, or Hone apologists, are attempting to write off the issue as unimportant. Others are claiming marriage is not a Maori concept and, therefore, unimportant. This ignores the fact that marriage, although a western concept, is one that the huge majority of Maori adopt. Therefore, Maori are invested in the issue. Furthermore, the Mana Party is more than just a Maori party. It’s a radical party too, in other words an anti-discrimination party, and cannot claim radical status while upholding marriage discrimination.

Most interestingly Hone claimed never to have voted for something he didn’t believe in. This is admirable, but not a practical stance for a leader of a parliamentary party. After all, Hone isn’t in Parliament representing himself – he represents Te Tai Tokerau and the Mana Party. Hone is obligated to follow the party line even if he doesn't agree. Any actions otherwise legitimise the Maori Party's claim that Mana is really the Hone Party.

I support Hone Harawira and I support what the Mana Party stands for, but on marriage equality Hone is being regressive and I don’t support his position or his justifications. Lastly, Hone’s opposition to marriage equality makes this gesture to the gay community look hollow. A cynic would say Hone’s position reaffirms this gesture to Destiny Church.

Marriage equality, privatisation and the Maori Party and the GC

The marriage equality debate isn’t about to die anytime soon with Te Kaea and the Herald picking up on Hone Harawira’s opposition, or failure to take a position. The Maori Party and the Greens are in support while Labour’s Louisa Wall has a bill in the ballot that would legalise same-sex marriage. Despite strong support from these quarters, our male MPs seem to be stubbornly against or, like in Hone’s case, refusing to take a position. It’s a pity because opposition to equality goes against Maori values. It’s also poor form for some Maori MPs to demand equality for Maori, yet refuse to demand equality for other marginalised groups. Step up male MPs. 

 
----------

Although the Maori Party voted against the privatisation bill, they also voted against Labour’s amendments to the bill. Again, this was poor form. Apparently a blanket decision was made to vote against amendments that did not concern Maori or the Treaty. This wasn’t good politics. Voting for the amendments would have indicated the Maori Party’s supposedly strong opposition. Instead, the Maori Party voted with the government thus making their opposition to the substantive bill look very, very hollow.

----------

The GC wrapped up last night and I’m going to change my opinion - again. The show was nothing like Jersey Shore and nothing like a documentary. It was an excellent piece of storytelling in a format that was just right for the demographic. The show was full of fluff, there’s no doubt about that, but it also confronted some interesting questions, for example what does it mean to be Maori in Australia. Arguably we didn’t get a wholesome answer, but we got enough to draw our own conclusions. The show’s worth a second go.

----------

It’s Matariki… Happy Maori New Year.

Hone Harawira and marriage equality (updated)

Hone Harawira is known for a lot of things, but not many people realise he is a social and moral conservative. He is against, for example, drug liberalisation and gay marriage and in an interview with Bryce Edwards Hone claimed to be against a society of “choice”. This, I think, reveals an authoritarian attitude not uncommon in Maori males of Hone’s generation.

Taking this into account it appears Hone shares more in common with his former colleagues – meaning the Maori Party – than he cares to admit. I read Maori as being a conservative people, if not always politically. This is true of Maori raised in the radical tradition too, the most prominent example being Hone Harawira.

Many Maori are raised to hold steadfast to our culture and our ancestor’s traditions. This is not a bad thing, in fact it’s a great thing on balance, but it encourages cultural rigidity and a fair amount of conservatism. For example, many Maori (almost exclusively men) outright refuse to develop our customs to accommodate shifting attitudes around the place of women in society – think women speaking on the paepae. These situations reflect the social conservatism of many Maori.

Anywho, as I said Hone Harawira is opposed to gay marriage, or marriage equality as it’s positively framed. This position has been opposed universally within the Mana Party. Leading members have asked Hone to justify his position, but he is yet to face the membership with a justification. This is unacceptable from the party leader and he will be rightly savaged for it.

Hone takes the position that marriage is not a human right but a way of doing things. This, I think, is a fair assessment. However, it’s no reason to oppose the institution of marriage being available to same-sex couples. If it’s a way of doing things, why not ensure that that way of doing things is equal and does not discriminate. Such a position would be consistent with Mana Party values.

I don’t think Hone will be able to maintain his position. Party pressure will be considerable. On the small chance Hone remains steadfast though, his former party provides a salient illustration of what happens when you ignore your members.

UPDATE: According to Maiki Sherman on Twitter Hone Harawira would not be drawn on the issue of gay marriage saying that the party is still developing a position. This conflicts with the view Hone expressed in this interview with Bryce Edwards. For a list of MPs and their positions on marriage equality see this.

The best and worst Maori MPs for May

Well, it doesn’t take long for the tables to turn. Last month I named Hekia Parata one of the best performing Maori MPs - this month she is one of the worst. Tariana Turia and Te Ururoa Flavell didn’t even rate a mention, but this month they occupy the top positions. Rino Tirikatene wasn’t on the radar, but his push for Maori seats on the Nelson City Council and across New Zealand pushes him to the top list. True to form Hone Harawira rated as one of the best performing MPs last month, yet a dismal performance – by his own high standards – sees him fall off the radar this month. 

For the full list and explanation click here or on the tab at the top of the page.

The Urewera sentence and the reaction from Maori

The end was swift and vicious. In a face saving move, the establishment has extracted its pound of flesh.

Last Thursday Justice Rodney Hansen sentenced Tame Iti and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara to two and a half years in prison. Iti and Kemara were found guilty of six firearms charges and not guilty of four. The jury could not decide on whether or not the pair were guilty on the criminal group charge.

The response from Maori was rapid and universal – it was a bullshit sentence. In a break from the orthodox, Maori MPs slammed the decision. Hone Harawira pointed out that:

The judge simply picked the worst bits out of 67,000 pages of evidence to justify the most extreme interpretation of events.

It's a waste of time having a jury trial if the judge can retry the case at sentencing ... by vindicating the actions of the police the state has made political prisoners out of them both.

Te Ururoa Flavell expressed a similar sentiment:

This was never just about the charges or the offences.

This was about Tuhoe and the mess caused in the lead-up to this sentencing.

Mr Flavell says the harsh sentence was intended to cover up the botched case.

And David Clendon from the Greens had this to say:

The sentences handed down to Mr Iti and Mr Kemara are at the steep end of the scale.

New Zealand already has an expanded prison population and I fail to see what will be achieved by incarcerating Mr Iti and Mr Kemara.

By convention, politicians don’t criticise judicial decision. So, with that in mind, it’s significant that Justice Hansen’s decision has met universal public criticism from Maori MPs. To me, the political response is indicative of the anger many Maori feel against the decision.

Annette Sykes thinks it’s a case of history repeating itself and, I think, that’s hard to argue against:

The decision today is a case of history repeating itself. In 1916 Tuhoe Prophet Rua Kenana was found not guilty for treason by a jury. Despite the verdict, the judge concerned found him guilty of resisting arrest and sentenced him to one year hard labour, followed by 18 months imprisonment. The jury were so incensed over the harshness of the sentence, they submitted a petition and had the sentence reduced.

Tame and Te Rangikaiwhiria, much like their tipuna Rua Kenana, have been wrongfully imprisoned and their sentence will be subject to a number of appeals.

Leonie Pihama calls Iti and Kemara “political prisoners”. Support is also coming from iwi, including Ngati Awa.

Personally, I’m gutted with the sentence. Justice Hansen didn’t, in my opinion, give enough regard to the mitigating factors and he appears, implicitly at the very least, to have endorsed the Crown’s construction of events even though the jury did not on four firearms charges and the criminal group charge. Justice Hansen also imputed an intention from a few selective pieces of evidence. Evidence that he did not give regard to considering the whole circumstances. Also, in another erroneous move, Justice Hansen lists the political views of a person not charged as an aggravating factor.

The learned Judge also takes it upon himself to declare that the defendants were establishing a private militia. Something the jury could not decide on. If they had, then the jury would have convicted the four on the criminal group charge. It is unjust, if you ask me, that the Judge can do this. The jury expressed no opinion on the charge so the Judge should not proceed as if the jury found that the defendants were participating in a criminal group.

The sentences will no doubt be appealed. Whether the sentence is reduced is a moot point. What is not in contention is that this is another slap in the face against Maori, tino rangatiratanga and Tuhoe. A result any less than that which was given would reduce the Crown and undermine the power of the system. A result any less than that which was given would elevate the legitimacy of Maori nationalism and that, for the Crown, is not acceptable.

For further discussion see this from Marty Mars and this very good discussion from Maia at The Hand Mirror and here are some of my thoughts from a few weeks back.  

On my disappointment with Closeup

So last night I was on Closeup in one of those primitive “race debates” with John Ansell and Hone Harawira. I agreed to go on the show under the impression we were going to talk politics – how naïve is that.

With John Ansell in the room, I should’ve realised the discussion was never going to be informative and reasoned, of course that was never the intention. The intention appeared to be to get John Ansell and Hone Harawira together, play them off against each other and then have me pipe up occasionally as the token “moderate” or “young person”. Of the panels I’ve done, last night’s was the most venal. It achieved nothing other than to provide John Ansell with a platform to parrot his flawed and offensive views on Maori and New Zealand society.

I was, more than anything, stunned and confused with what was said last night and, I think understandably, angry with Mark Sainsbury’s unwillingness to shift the conversation towards reason, as opposed hyperbole, misrepresentations and lies which is where Sainsbury directed the discussion.

I guess it teaches me a lesson – a lesson not to be so naïve and to also prepare accordingly when in the same room as John Ansell or any other like minds. 

For an excellent discussion on Ansell and last night see this from Scott Hamilton at Reading the Maps.

Closeup tonight

I'm on Closeup tonight at 7pm on TV1. I'll be on with Willie Jackson and John Ansell. It's, at this stage, a follow up discussion on the Popata brothers story that ran last night.

Harawira slams "corporate takeover"

Hone Harawira has come out swinging against the “corporate takeover” of New Zealand. Newswire reports:

Mr Harawira condemned government plans to partially privatise four state-owned energy companies, and dismissed the government’s claims that asset sales will open the doors to “mum and dad” investors.

“Rather than being managed for the benefit of all of us, these companies will operate purely for profit, and it’ll be irreversible.

“The profits aren’t going to go to mum and dad, the profits will come from mum and dad paying higher power bills,” he said.

“It’s not just about fighting this or that piece of legislation, we have to stand together and fight back against the corporate takeover of this country.

“We need to stop the juggernaut in its tracks, and that will take action on a whole bunch of levels. It’s time we brought the war home. We’re in a war for our children’s future.”

This wasn’t delivered in a press release, nor was it delivered in a highly structured speech, this came out of a public meeting. No politician, with the exception of Winston Peters, is this quotable off the cuff. David Shearer’s advisors can spend hours formulating key lines, but they never achieve the sort of cut through Hone can create. The “corporate takeover” narrative, or line as it is at the moment, cuts to the heart of the government’s approach to governing and, I imagine, would score well if focussed grouped.

Labour, and to a lesser extent the Greens, don’t have an equivalent narrative. In opposition National had, among others lines, the “nanny state” narrative. Maybe David Shearer is going to reveal Labour’s cut through issue(s) and narrative on Wednesday. You’d hope so because Winston Peters, Russell Norman/Metiria Turei and Hone Harawira own the opposition benches. This is contributing to the ideas that 1) Shearer is a political lightweight 2) Shearer stands for nothing and 3) Shearer knows nothing.

I suspect someone’s going to say “no, you’re wrong because Labour’s rising in the polls”. I’d tell you to wake up. Labour isn’t rising as a result of action on their part; Labour’s rising as a result of the government’s efforts to push unpopular policy. It’s a default rise, not a positive rise.

On a slightly different note, Hone Harawira is still struggling to control his emotions. Hone subjected Gordon Campbell to some profanities when Campbell, by the looks of it, took up the role of devil’s advocate at the meeting. It’s unacceptable to abuse anyone, least of all a respected journalist that shares your position.

Maori Party complicit in attack on Maori rights

So the government has announced that s9 will be retained, or replicated according to Bill English, in the mixed ownership act (or whatever it’s going to be called). The new section will read: "Nothing in this Part shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. For the avoidance of doubt, ss1 does not apply to persons other than the Crown."

The first thing to notice is the wording “nothing in this part”. Read, the section will not apply to the entire act. Instead, the new section will apply to the parts of the Public Finance Act (PFA) that relate to the mixed ownership companies (the purpose of the PFA is here). This isn’t good enough. The government will retain a controlling stake in the new companies; therefore a treaty clause should operate on the companies themselves – not just the Crown in respect of the PFA. Read, a treaty clause should be inserted in the new act not just the PFA. After all, for all intents and purposes the new companies will be Crown entities.

The second thing to notice is that subsection 1 will not apply to persons other than the Crown. The government reasons that it is impossible to bind non-Crown groups to Treaty clauses. If this is the case, why bother to include a section that states this? Carwyn Jones takes the government to task on this matter.

The government also reasons that s9 as it stands applies only to the Crown and not the SOEs themselves. This is a strange claim. SOEs are Crown entities. A part of the executive. Hence the Treaty clause, hence the ability to OIA an SOE and so on.

This cannot be seen as a win for Maori. Joshua Hitchcock makes the point that s9 is weak as it is and that the entire debacle over retaining the section is an opportunity lost. Rather than having a debate about strengthening treaty rights, we’re having a debate about retaining the weak protections we already have.

Tony Ryall understands that the Maori Party is satisfied with the wording. Well, if that’s the case the Maori Party cannot continue to claim to any credibility as a representative of Maori. This is a weak outcome and not the one Maori signalled they wanted. The government comes out of this looking clean, but the reality is far from it. Contrary to media reports, the status quo has not been maintained, it has been eroded.

The Maori Party will, given their complicity in this, suffer the political consequences. Selling out on ACC changes, the ETS, the 90 day law and the Marine and Coastal Areas Act built the perception that the Maori Party’s principles are flexible, or in other words it built the perception that the party are a bunch of sell outs. Hone Harawira and, but to a lesser extent, Labour have exploited this narrative well. A refusal to walk over s9 will solidify that perception, or that reality as you could credibly argue. This opens the door for a resurgent Labour and a dominant Hone Harawira.

Maori are, without a doubt, better off because of the Maori Party. The party does a poor job selling this proposition, but most Maori know it intuitively. However, this is becoming irrelevant as more and more Maori begin to view the Maori Party as a waste rather than a use. The gains the party has secured this term are minimal and, so far, the losses are substantial. Attacks on s9, TPK, the Maori Policy Unit in MFAT and so on outweigh any good achieved thus far.

I’m confident in picking that this will be the Maori Party’s last term. Turia and Sharples are retiring and Flavell will be on the wrong end of an epic thrashing in Waiariki.

Shearer reaches out to Mana

In a break from the politics of Phil Goff, David Shearer is opening the door for Hone Harawira:

Labour Party leader David Shearer has opened the door to discussions with Mana Party leader Hone Harawira.

Mr Shearer's predecessor, Phil Goff, explicitly ruled out any kind of relationship with Mr Harawira.

The new leader says he will respect ideas wherever they come from, including from the Mana Party.

He says he does not have any baggage with the Mana Party.

"I'll take them as I find them and if they turn out to be somebody I can't work with, I'll make that determination then."

This approach fits well with Shearer’s image as a man with no political baggage. Taking situations as they come and people as they appear. However, it doesn’t fit well with Shearer’s predicted play for the centre vote, read middle New Zealand. Harawira is, generally speaking, poison to most New Zealanders and any association, perceived or otherwise, Shearer builds with Harawira will be lower him (Shearer) in the eyes of his target market.

However, it’s in Shearer’s longer term interests to build a broad coalition of the left. Chances are Labour will not gain enough votes to govern without the Greens plus one or, if the party is unlucky, plus two.

The Harawira issue certainly isn’t going to become relevant until the polls indicate Labour is in a position to form a government. Voters will then ask whether or not they’re comfortable with the idea of a government propped up by Hone Harawira. At the moment, I imagine most New Zealanders would answer in the negative. However, voters have three years to get used to the idea and, quiet importantly, Hone has three years to soften people.

I’m glad Shearer has the foresight to engage with Hone Harawira. After all, there is more that unites Mana and Labour than there is that divides.

Wedge politics and Maori

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

New Maori Affairs Select Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

Te Puni Kokiri to face cuts (updated)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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