Should a Māori MP stand for the leadership of the Labour Party?

Haare Williams, the Māori Vice President of the Labour Party, appeared on Marae Investigates this morning and made it very clear that it was time for a Māori leader of the party:

He was also clear that the party needs to embrace the Treaty partnership. In his own words:

"E rua ngā wāhanga kei roto i Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko te taha ki te Pākehā, ko te taha ki a tāua ki te iwi Māori. Whaia te maramatanga e puta ai te houhoutanga o te whakawhanaungatanga; tēnā iwi, tēnā iwi, te iwi Pākehā me te iwi Māori, ā me ngā iwi e noho horopani ana ki Aotearoa. Mā Te Tiriti, e kukume mai te iwi kia whakakotahi i a tātou."

At present Māori issues aren't being considered in this leadership contest. But the beauty of the new rules adopted by the Labour Party is that a democratic selection process is being used, a primary election.

The process is similar to the rules used by UK Labour Party. In the leadership election that followed the resignation of Gordon Brown in 2010, a healthy and robust selection process was used. Diane Abbott, a long serving Labour backbencher, stood in the election and was consistently dismissed by the mainstream media and political pundits. But she brought issues to the fore that needed to be heard in the Labour Party itself. As a black woman and a staunchly Left MP, she represented a huge part of the population that is consistently marginalised in British politics. She didn't win but when Ed Miliband won the election he appointed Abbott as a front bench Shadow Health Minister.

 

A run in the primary election by one of the Māori MPs could produce similar outcomes, and may end up with that candidate being elected Deputy Leader. I’m not of the view that Shane Jones could do this effectively as he is despised by other minorities in the party and probably most of the female members. It’s unlikely if even the Māori caucus would unite around Shane Jones. Nanaia Mahuta appeared on Te Karere and said she thought David Cunliffe was ready to go as leader and that she didn't see Jones as one of his supporters. This made it clear that she wasn't pushing for a run by Shane Jones. 

But in my view, she and the other Māori MPs should consider a run. Louisa Wall and Moana Mackey would also be well placed to do this. As John Tamihere pointed out in the above video, they aren't going to realistically win the election. But they could ensure kaupapa Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi are firmly on the Labour Party’s agenda.

Māori have supported the Labour Party for over 80 years, but in recent years Māori support  has been taken for granted. It's time for a Māori voice in a leadership position.


UPDATE: Duncan Garner has announced on Twitter that Shane Jones is in the race. While it's pretty clear I'm not one of his fans, good on him all the same. At least one Māori MP is in the race. It will be interesting to see if the Māori caucus support him.


P.S - this also raises another question; should Haare Williams stand for Parliament? He would be an ideal candidate for Labour and add real depth to their Māori caucus. He may feel that his efforts are more needed on the organisational side of the party, but he could be an excellent Labour MP if he wanted to be. There are rumours going around that Shane Jones may not stand in Tāmaki Makaurau. Is this because Williams is considering a run, or is Shane Taurima angling for it?


Post by Jack McDonald

Free advice: framing the fundamentals

It’s fashionable to comment on and critique Labour Party strategy. On Twitter this morning Lew Stoddart added his thoughts:

(the) NZLP need to find ways to inspire the same public enthusiasm in other areas as we saw for marriage equality. It can be done. Framing matters.

Well, it’s hard to disagree with that. However, Craig Ranapia and Giovanni Tiso argued that framing is a secondary concern when the “picture inside is crap” and when “the party has nothing to communicate”.

Without wanting to cop out, I agree with both views. Framing is important, but not possible where there is nothing to frame. Having said that, I think we’re missing the point here. Framing does not have to be understood in terms of policy, but on a more basic level.

Essentially, Labour has failed to draw a meaningful contrast between themselves and National. National stands for cutting the deficit and, well, so does Labour. Labour wants to target beneficiaries and, well, so does National. National wants to boost employment and, well, so does Labour.

David Shearer needs to position Labour against National on the fundamentals. Yes, Labour can stand for cutting the deficit, but that idea needs to be presented from a left wing perspective. For example, Labour will grow our way out of the deficit. Shearer must then juxtapose Labour’s position against National’s ‘let’s cut our way out of the deficit’. An unsophisticated example, I know, but it illustrates the point I’m trying to make.

Helen Clark drew an interesting contrast between Labour and National in (I think) the 2005 election when she told Breakfast, and I paraphrase, that the National Party doesn’t stand for anything except power. It was a powerful contrast (ignore the pun). Clark painted National as unprincipled and willing to push divisive policy for the sake of power. On the other hand, Labour was painted as the party of principle - the party of Working for Families and so on. Framing on that fundamental level matters, framing policy comes second. Labour might be running on a different policy platform, but it makes little difference when the party stands, or is seen to stand, for the same goals as National.

In August Kelvin Davis wrote that “It's like they're more comfortable being ignored than criticised”. Correct: Labour fears being seen as different on the fundamentals. They don’t want to risk offending the orthodoxy. To use the above example, they fear being seen as opposed to deficit reduction – or the orthodox approach to deficit reduction (i.e. cuts). The party fear being seen as a party for beneficiaries. However, if the leadership had more political nous they would frame themselves as the party for the poor. Instead, in a clumsy attempt to inoculate himself against beneficiary sympathising David Shearer delivered the infamous beneficiary on the roof speech.

Unless Labour reframe themselves on the fundamentals, there’s little reason to vote for them. In this respect, Labour can take their lead from John Tamihere. This may seem counterintuitive, but Tamihere has taken a lead role in attacking the government’s “shonky economics”. On Q&A last week Tamihere explicitly rejected neoliberalism. Tamihere contrasted himself against National on a fundamental point – the economy.

At the moment Labour looks like the National Cabinet in red ties – I don’t want to vote for that and I suspect most on the left don’t want to vote for that.

John Tamihere: National MP for Waitakere

You read that right: John Tamihere is eyeing up the wrong party. Let’s list his positions:

• Supports asset sales 
• Supports charter schools 
• Opposes marriage equality 
• Has attacked welfarism and advocated for the privatisation of welfare delivery 

First of all, let me be clear about a few things; I like John Tamihere, I think he's an outstanding communicator, a strong advocate for urban Maori and I’d welcome his return. However, he’s a poor fit for Labour 2012. Tamihere’s economic liberalism and social conservatism will sit awkwardly with Labour MPs and members. I struggle to see how Tamihere can reconcile his values and beliefs with Labour values and policies. As one example, in 2010 Tamihere rejected class politics writing that:

The large number of so-called working class people have now migrated to the middle class. As a consequence, describing your politics in a class way is no longer sustainable.

Well, this may have held true under Clinton’s America, Blair and Brown’s Britain and Clark’s New Zealand, but following the global economic downturn the left is tilting back towards class politics. Barack Obama, and to a greater extent Ed Miliband, are staking their re-election on class politics. Obama’s strategy in, for example, Ohio is aimed squarely at winning “blue collar workers” (what we call the working class). Miliband’s strategy is aimed at amplifying class tensions and painting the Conservatives as governing for their own class. If the economic situation in New Zealand worsens, the safe bet is that Labour will follow suit and pivot towards the working class. This would further marginalise Tamihere. However, as an identity politician Tamihere can find common ground with some of his colleagues. He sits well with Labour on Treaty and Maori issues. Having said that, that’s where it ends.

In any event, it’s all academic. Even if Tamihere were a lefty liberal Carmel Sepuloni has the Waitakere branch stitched up, Nanaia Mahuta has rejected his return (and I’m not surprised why) and David Shearer appears lukewarm. If Tamihere cannot win the support of Labour’s West Auckland branches he will need to win the support of the Maori caucus and David Shearer to ensure he receives a winnable list position. Unlikely.

Another route to return for Tamihere is Tamaki Makaurau. But, again, that’s a poor fit. Not because he won’t or can’t win, but because Willie Jackson will want that seat if he decides to stand. However, if Auckland becomes two separate Maori electorates then both could stand; Tamihere in the electorate that incorporates West Auckland and Jackson in the electorate that incorporates South Auckland. What, you ask, happens if West and South Auckland form part of the same electorate? Well, then one of either Tamihere or Jackson would have to stand down or it’s back to aiming for Waitakere or a list position. Whatever way you look at it, Tamihere’s route to return will be very, very rough.

UPDATE: Tamihere gave an excellent interview this morning. He rejected "Rogernomics", read neoliberlism, and spoke of a need to "regrow activism" and change New Zealand's macro economic settings. A clear tilt to the left and an attempt to reconcile his views with the views of the Labour Party.

Turia and Sharples reconsider retirement

Audrey Young reports:

Maori Party co-leaders Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples have revealed they are reconsidering retiring from politics next election - just as a new poll shows them potentially holding the balance of power.

Mrs Turia and Dr Sharples had indicated that the 2011 election would be their last.

But they are reconsidering after being asked repeatedly by supporters, a party official said.

This is the party’s only option. Te Ururoa Flavell’s majority in Waiariki is soft and will weaken in the face of a strong candidate and campaign. If Tauranga or Tuwharetoa fall towards Annette Sykes, or the Labour candidate evenly splits the area, then a win in Rotorua will not be enough to carry Flavell.

The same is roughly true of Pita Sharples. John Tamihere is considering a run at the 2014 election and Mana will stand a strong candidate, potentially Nga Puhi man Clinton Dearlove. Sharples came within a whisker of defeat in 2011 and that, quite worryingly for the Maori Party, was against a Shane Jones whose mind was on his personal life and a Mana candidate who entered late. Hypothetically Sharples will be up against the strongest candidate Labour can field, read Tamihere, and one of the strongest Mana can field, read Dearlove.

Tamihere, along with his likely campaign manager Willie Jackson, are probably the best Maori campaigners in Auckland. Labour also has access to the likes of Shane Phillips and Kelvin Davis. The Maori Party, on the other hand, don’t appear to have access to like campaigners.

Having said that, Pita Sharples unseated in Tamihere in 2005. However, the Sharples of today is nothing on the Sharples of seven years ago. Sharples is tired and not cutting it well, I think at least, as a Minister at the moment. He is slow and does not appear as intellectually capable as he once was. In contrast, Tamihere has, minus one or two minor controversies, rebuilt his reputation and continues his good work with the Waipereira Trust.

As for Tariana Turia, she’ll win no matter who runs against her. Turia knows, perhaps better than her colleagues, that without her and Sharples – the party’s anchors – the Maori Party will fall. The tide is going out on the Maori Party and rising on the Mana Party. For that reason, she knows that she needs to stay. Such a move, however, only seems to prolong the inevitable. Without an ideological shift and tangible wins for Maori, the Maori Party is paddling against the current.

JT on Nanaia

Oh dear. From Stuff.co.nz:

Former Labour MP John Tamihere has criticised David Cunliffe's choice of running mate for the party's leadership, saying he picked Nanaia Mahuta because she is female and Maori.

''The only thing she's lacking is she doesn't have a limp. Then he would have got the disabled [vote] too. That's the truth of it and that's the way it smacked as soon as I saw it.''

You can always rely on John Tamihere to call it how he sees it, and that’s a good quality, but sometimes the way he calls things is unnecessary. The point JT is trying to make is that Nanaia was selected on tokenistic grounds. A fair point, no doubt, but the way he phrased his point was low – offensive basically. He may have got a laugh out of a few racists, ableists and fuckwits, beyond that his comment didn’t serve anyone. JT continues:

Tamihere said Cunliffe's choice of deputy was ''smarmy'' and typical of him.

''I'm the type of Maori that doesn't back dumb Maori, so I'm not saying she's a dumb Maori. I'm just saying if she was awfully meritorious, I'd back her 100 per cent, that has not been my experience.''

Nanaia was the standout in the Native Affairs Kowhiri 11 debates. She defeated her opponents by a Waikato mile in the debates and was, in my opinion, the best communicator of all the Maori candidates who fronted in the different debates. Nanaia is, in my experience, fiercely intelligent too. I don’t know how JT missed that. He must never listen to her I guess.

Jones was a better choice despite not having run a strong campaign in Tamaki Makaurau, Tamihere said.

''Out of the two of them you'd have to rate, on Labour Party values and on the street bringing the men's vote back and a whole bunch of other things, Shane all day long; if he can get over in his own mind the self mutilation that he conducted in that hotel room,'' Tamihere said.

I think this comment gives a hint to where JT is coming from. It seems to me that a little bit of sexism is at play.Yes, Nanaia is a woman and Shane is a man. That doesn’t make Shane the superior candidate.

JT has overstepped the mark. He didn’t need to launch an attack against Nanaia to prove his point. She’s a strong candidate. She deserves respect not this sort of marginalisation.

Racism and power

Marty at Mars 2 Earth delivers a powerful post:

To be upfront - I don't rate John Tamihere and that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the good he has done for Māori - I just feel the negatives outweigh the positives - Tamihere doesn't speak for me. Which is what he says about Professor Mutu and that is why he entitled his post "Mutu doesn't speak for me". Tamihere calls Professor Mutu a reverse racist and I don't care about that because as I have mentioned, racism = prejudice + power and if you think a Māori woman within academia has power you would be incorrect. So the worst that anyone can say about Professor Mutu is that she is prejudiced and I have no issue with that. Tamihere makes this statement

I also rate the positive work John Tamihere has done for Maori, but I – like Marty – disagree with the thrust of Tamihere’s piece. Having said that, I do not share Marty’s definition of racism. Racism is an unfortunately subjective term. My definition of racism does not include power as a precondition. I can hold prejudice and perpetuate prejudice without holding power. I may need power to further racism in a significant way, but on a day to day level I do not need power to be a racist. If I were to say “all Asians are bad drivers” what does that make me? I think it makes me a racist. Or am I just stating a truism? No, I am furthering a racial stereotype based on my own unfounded prejudices – I think that makes it racism.

So what are you saying john - that everyone is tangata whenua now - if they have lived on their land for 3 generations, because if you are - you are wrong. We are all guests in this country at times - if you visit a new marae you are a guest, if you travel to another area you are a guest - guest isn't a swear word it is a term of honour because of the reciprocity of obligation and responsibility attached to it. This term 'ethnic supremacy' is also inflammatory and incorrect - it is not about supremacy it is about equality and any Māori who frames it incorrectly is treated with suspicion by me.

Marty is right. Pakeha are not tangata whenua, read indigenous. Pakeha are New Zealanders and this is their place, but Pakeha do not share the same interests as Maori. We all share this country and it is as much mine as it is my Pakeha flatmates, but my place in Aotearoa is different. For example, I have unique interests in the whenua given my whakapapa i.e. As a Maori I have an obligation to exercise kaitiakitanga over the lands of my tipuna (the same tipuna who settled this land before anyone else).

Like I said last week, I have no appetite for debating Professor Mutu’s call. The racists on both sides ensure reason is forgotten and poison introduced. New Zealand needs to mature before we can deal with this subject adequately.  

Willie Jackson for Tamaki Makarau

I admire Tim Selwyn’s analysis of Maori politics, but I feel he misses the mark today:

Willy Jackson has been a stronger advocate for a compromise between Maori and Mana parties than he has been an advocate and activist for the Mana Movement.

This is true. However, one has to understand that any overt activism on Willie’s part will compromise his chances of securing subsequent seasons of his show political show, Newsbites, as well as his daily program on Radio Live. Secondly, but more importantly, any political activism Willie undertakes will hurt the chances of the Manukau Urban Maori Authority, of which he is the CEO, from securing social services contracts. Seriously - don’t underestimate the vindictiveness of the Tory’s and their Maori Party mates. Thirdly, you can not begrudge Willie for advocating for the sensible option. In terms of increasing Maori political power, the best approach was a joint effort in the Maori seats. Mana would target the party vote while the Maori Party would target the electorate vote. It made more sense for Willie, who is in a position of authority and influence, to push for that option before committing exclusively to Mana.   

His vacillation over standing against Pita Sharples and Shane Jones in the Tamaki Makaurau Electorate will not serve him well I would have thought. Partly it may have been out of political courtesy to give these impressions, but it is difficult to tell if Willy has the fire in the belly to win Tamaki Makaurau.

I largely agree with this statement. It is very late in the piece and that isn’t helpful. Conventional wisdom would, perhaps, dictate that in order to win an electorate a year long effort is required. Then again, Willie isn’t any old candidate.

I don't know Stephanie Harawira (who has put her name forward for the nomination) so I don't know what her chances of selection are if a big name like Willy should stand.

My understanding is that the other interested candidates have agreed to step aside should Willie decide to stand. However, were Harawira to remain in the race I doubt she will win the nomination.

My feeling is that Willy is just not going to be a hard enough candidate against Pita or Shane to take the seat because he has too much personal respect for both men and this will dull the edge. Even with a huge swing from Maori Party to Mana it is a big ask. It will be interesting what the radical elements in the proliferation of Mana branches in Auckland have to say.

Willie’s views are far-left, the thing is that he is an expert when it comes to massaging the message and presenting a mainstream face. He can do radical when the situation demands. What we see of Willie in public nowadays is, for want of a better term, mainstream and acceptable to many New Zealanders. This is because the situation demands a non-threatening face. Can you imagine Radio Live hiring a Maori radical? Or TVNZ agreeing to run Eye to Eye? Willie can do radical and he will if he runs.

If Willie decides to stand his campaign manager will be John Tamihere. At the last election Pita largely relied on Willie, John and their networks. This was the case in 2005 as well. Now that both men and their networks have moved on I struggle to see how Pita will manage to run a worthy campaign. He has next to no experienced people behind him and he is, in my opinion, a politician lacking nous and any sort of pulling power. He may charm the kuia at Hoani Waititi, but he doesn’t do so well with rangatahi and male voters.

Shane’s team will not pose a challenge for Willie’s experienced and soldier-heavy team. Willie is an institution among Auckland Maori. He is, as Hone Harawira once told me, the quintessential urban Maori. Willie is also, and I am only speculating here, held in higher esteem among the union movement.

Before a Mana candidate can stand they must commission a poll and that poll must show that they have a realistic chance. If Willie decides to stand that means his private polling shows he is in with a real chance. The only public poll we can rely on, and only slightly, is the Horizon Poll from earlier this year. The poll showed a massive swing from Pita Sharples to Shane Jones. I commented at the time that it was a reflex backlash against the Maori Party’s support for the Nat’s, but more particularly the MCA Act. The voters swung behind Shane because he was the default option, not because Tamaki Makaurau had all of a sudden come back to Labour (in fact Auckland is, at the moment at least, a National stronghold). Were Willie a factor at the time I would pick that the swing would naturally move to him. Willie shares more in common, both policy wise and personality wise, with Pita. Shane is somewhat converse to both Pita and Willie.

Should Willie stand Tamaki Makaurau will be one of the most interesting contests. I am not going to call it for anyone at the moment because it is too close, for now at least. Once things become clearer I will produce a comprehensive analysis and call the result – maybe even endorse a candidate.

Iwi and investment

Closeup ran an interesting story on Wednesday night around the use of treaty settlement money. The show invited John Tamihere, as CEO of the Waipareira Trust, and Tuku Morgan, as Chair of Te Arataura, to discuss whether or not Iwi are using their settlement funds appropriately. The gist of John Tamihere’s argument was that more money should be directed towards the people and, as a consequence, preventing Maori entering the health system, the prison system and so on. Tamihere would rather see money directed towards social services as opposed to “buying assets”. Tuku Morgan, on the other hand, thinks Iwi do not have the economies of scale to make a major difference. Tuku also pointed to the fact that Iwi investment in, for example, the Te Awa mall in Hamilton is creating employment for Maori.

I agree with both men here. It is not the role of Iwi to stand in place of government. The provision of social services is, first and foremost, the role of government. Having said that, there are cultural obligations on the part of Iwi to help their people, think whanaungatanga. Rather than have Iwi use their own capital to invest in the provision of social services, I would like to see more Iwi pursue government contracts. This is a plausible avenue given the implementation of Whanau Ora.

The primary role of settlement money should be to level the playing field. Iwi should, and are, using settlement money to increase Maori economic power and, as a result, Maori political power. Iwi are attempting to move into a position where they cannot be ignored. Hence Tainui’s interest in strategic assets (e.g. Auckland Airport, electricity companies and Air New Zealand).

I think this is a debate that needs to occur. Are Iwi fixated with growth at the expense of ordinary Maori or is growth a means to an end?   

Kawerau on Closeup

Last night Closeup ran a story titled “shocking teen life exposed in Kawerau” (or words to that effect). The story was alarmist and delivered without any context to ground the viewer. The panel discussion following the story was even worse. John Tamihere provided useful and insightful commentary, however Christine Rankin and Daryl Aim contributed nothing useful.

I will preface this post and restate my connections to Kawerau. Long time readers will know that I grew up in Kawerau, although I have lived in Wellington for the past one and half years and Rotorua the five years prior, I still call Kawerau home and I have an intimate and deep understanding of the people and the issues.

To be fair, Closeup has highlighted issues that need to be addressed. Where the programme strays is in tainting the entire town as dysfunctional. Yes, there have been incidents of organised fights, sex for drugs and youth suicides, however this is symptomatic of a larger problem in New Zealand society – not symptomatic of problems confined to Kawerau. These sorts of things are hardly alarming or new. In fact organised fights and suicide are, to be frank, thoroughly pedestrian. Even sex for drugs is hardly unheard of. Spend a night of Courtney Place and you’ll see more than your fair share of such behaviour. Other small towns face the same problems that Kawerau does, Rotorua faces the same problems and so to do a collection of other suburbs and cities. The difference is that the ripples of suicide, organised fights and so on travel further and reverberate across the entire community. Social problems in small towns seem more pronounced because the entire community is affected as opposed to, as is the case in cities, a segment of the community. Kawerau is, for the most part, a good town with a strong sense of community and citizenship.

If we are to understand why Kawerau's social problems we need a history lesson. Kawerau’s decline coincided with the onset of Rogernomics and slowly continued through to the early 2000’s. In the late 80’s the Mill experienced large-scale redundancies and large retailers like Farmers and the Warehouse decided to locate their Eastern Bay of Plenty stores in Whakatane. Partly because the Kawerau labour market was volatile (job losses and strike actions were common) and partly because Kawerau was experiencing something of an exodus. Many middle and high-income mill workers left Kawerau for nearby lifestyle towns like Ohope. Demand for the Mill’s product also declined through the 90’s as competition throughout Australasia and Asia increased. Many Kawerau residents started to question the long term viability of the Mill and the local economy. Consequently, many residents searched for opportunities elsewhere.

In the late 90’s and early 2000’s the town stabilised. Although the population continued to decline the future of the Mill was certain and other opportunities, such as geothermal power, emerged. Social indicators continued to paint a depressing picture, however the stats had not manifested into large scale anti-social behaviour.

Fast forward to the mid to late 2000’s and things take a turn for the worst. Small but frequent redundancies begin to occur at the Mill, consequently local businesses begin to flee or go under, no new jobs are created and the local high school hits rock bottom. The town’s decline is complete.

Kawerau is the victim of failure – failure on the part of successive governments. Successive governments have thrown resources at Kawerau. However, those resources have not come with qualifications. The government has not ensured adequate funding is given to the best organisations, government agencies in the town work in competition with each other and improved outcomes are, therefore, compromised.

Perhaps the most significant let down is the chronic short-termism that plagues New Zealand political and policy thinking. New Zealand is always searching for immediate solutions and quick fixes. We like to treat symptoms but are blind to the structural causes of anti-social behaviour etc… The government can encourage novelty schemes for beneficiaries, increase the number of Police and open a trade training school, but unless the structural causes are addressed no long term difference will be made. New generations of lost children will be made each day.

The structural cause of anti-social behaviour in Kawerau is, in my opinion, our current economic settings. Let me be clear, I believe in the market as the best mechanism, however I do not believe in the neo-liberal model New Zealand adopts. A model that encourages low wages and inequality. A model associated with, and in my opinion responsible for, poor educational and health outcomes, high crime rates and incarceration and chronic inequality.

Unless we switch to a model that promotes higher wages, reduces inequality and addresses other poor social and economic problems, like the problems that occur in Kawerau, will continue to occur.     

One thing that really gets me is ignorant suggestions that gangs and drugs are the cause of social problems in Kawerau. Gangs have always been a problem in Kawerau. By all accounts gang violence peaked in the 80’s. During my childhood gang violence was non-existent. Many of the town’s troubles are blamed on the presence and influence of gangs. However, this misses the point. Gangs are an expression of social dysfunction, not a cause. Undoubtedly, gang culture influences many young people, but gang culture is itself a symptom and suppressing one symptom will not improve the condition. The same is true of drugs. Drugs are an expression of a larger problem and serve mainly to lock people into destructive lifestyles.  

I am disappointed Closeup chose to spin the situation in Kawerau. Kawerau faces serious issues that deserve adult treatment, not sensationalist bullshit. 

Closeup will feature a follow-up story tonight. I will comment on it tomorrow hopefully.

Put a name to a face

I’ll be appearing on tonight’s episode of Native Affairs. I’ll be joining John Tamihere on the panel and we’ll be discussing the Labour Party, specifically the Darren Hughes controversy. The show begins at 8.30pm on Maori TV.

John Tamihere: is he right for once?

Taken at face value the $3.4m budget for the Maori Statutory Board appears excessive, especially considering it has to come out of the existing council budget which has already been approved. However, John Tamihere makes the pertinent point;

“We are a cheaper alternative to the eight authorities who multiplied their costs by eight. We are an immediate example of the super city working a lot better and a lot smarter”

I am unsure of the figures but surely it is reasonable to assume that $3.4m is considerably less than the combined amount the eight previous councils spent on Maori. I am not familiar with the Supercity legislation but by all accounts the Maori Statutory Board has a very wide brief. The reality is government costs a lot. $3.4m appears like a huge amount to the individual but it is small change for body exercising public functions. Peanuts really. Unfortunately, the council will probably gut the boards funding. Any move to do so will seriously affect the board’s ability to operate effectively and fulfil its statutory obligations.

This whole issue was an easy political target. Any perception that Maori are receiving hand-outs is jumped on by dipshit rednecks and subsequently exploited by the likes of the repugnant Cameron Brewer. However, credit to Cameron for scoring a few easy political points. He comes out of this affair having enhanced his image and at the same time damaging Len Browns.

I hope the council sees sense and reason, rather then votes, when considering this issue. But this is probably too much to expect.

Briefly

I will not have much time for blogging over the next week or two so I will post my brief thoughts on some issues affecting Maori;

Hone Harawira:

Hone has the Maori Party on the ropes and they know it. Public opinion, both Maori and non-Maori, is building in Hone’s favour. You know your position is righteous when, amongst the usual sympathetic commentators, the likes of Garth George and Fran O’Sullivan come out in support of you.

When attacked Hone responds aggressively. In the past he has responded in a manner that arguably worsens the situation, however this time around he appears to be making all the right noises. The leadership is beginning to look increasingly weak and out of touch as a result of the sustained pressure Hone is applying. With opinion set firmly against the leadership the party elite need to realise that their end game (Hones expulsion) will be self destructive. Hone will without doubt take the integrity, mana and base of the party with him whilst those Maori at the flaxroots will return to Labour and/or the Greens.

Maori and supercity council committees:

Some Maori (John Tamihere in particular) have shamelessly claimed this as a victory for Maori. It is not. Victory will only come in the form of dedicated, and by definition legitimate, Maori seats. The current arrangements are anathema to democracy and an insult to Maori voters. Why can we not elect our own representatives?

I suppose self interest plays a large part in John Tamihere’s position. As a member of the Maori advisory board, and no doubt now member of many council committees, he has a tangible interest in the suppression of democracy and the continuation of the current autocratic situation.  

Shane Jones:

  

I am no fan of Shane Jones but he has not put a foot wrong in his response to the MP schism and unelected Maori sitting on council committees. As Pita’s name is tarnished further by the day Shane’s chances of snatching Tamaki Makaurau increase.

Privatisation:

Corporate cheerleader and profiteer Mark Solomon has, inevitably, come out in support of the government’s plans to partially privatise some state assets. Typically, Mark has only profit in mind as opposed to the well being of all his people and iwi katoa.  

Ratana:

It is interesting to see many church members questioning the wisdom of their move away from Labour towards the MP. This sentiment certainly reflects what a lot of Maori are thinking. The MP has morphed into something utterly foreign and inconsistent with its founding principles.

I guess it was no coincidence that John Key was welcomed on with his Maori Party chums. It appears John Key and Pita Sharples share a close working and personal relationship. This makes me wonder whether or not the MP’s current closeness with the Nats is a result of personal feelings rather than pragmatic or ideological reasons.

(P.S. You may have noticed I am no longer blogging under a pseudonym)