The real impediment to a Mana-Maori merger (and it's not National)

Mana Party President and tino rangatiratanga advocate Annette Sykes

Claire Trevett reports:

The Maori Party and the Mana Party have reached a truce of sorts after a meeting between the parties' hierarchy last night. 

Mana President Annette Sykes met the Maori Party's co-vice president Ken Mair last night and the two parties agreed to work framework setting out areas of policy on which they would work together. That is due to be launched in early 2014 and it likely to include areas such as Maori unemployment, poor housing, and child poverty.

Yesterday I ran through the archives of this blog. I was disappointed with the tone (and some of the substance). It was angry. But it was a reflection of Maori politics at the time.

The seeds of tension emerged in 2008. The Maori Party had traveled the country to secure the membership's consent to a supply and confidence arrangement with National. By most accounts, the party leadership won an overwhelming mandate and there was optimism in most circles. But time eroded the consensus. Difficult policy choices started to build. The party misstepped when it supported the ETS and pressure was applied on its MPs to pull their support for Budget 2010 and the GST rise.

Come 2011 the tensions had swelled and the understanding between the Maori Party's radicals and the conservatives – meaning the idea that a Maori political movement is strongest when its united - came crashing down. The rest is history. Hone Harawira broke away with half of the Maori Party and Mana was born. Political parties reap what they sow.

But a relationship accord between Mana and the Maori Party (hopefully) signals that the tide is going out on that conflict. There’s an increasing acceptance that Maori are better off because of the Maori Party’s relationship with National. It hasn't been progress, but the Maori Party has acted as a buffer against decline.

Yet one impediment remains - and it's not necessarily National. The conflict is between Mana and the Maori Party’s conception of politics. Mana is ideological, but the Maori Party acts as post-ideological.

Working "at the table" is the Maori Party's ideology. Party policy is dictated by what can be achieved at the table and what is necessary to remain at the table. There's a pragmatic logic in that, sure, but the consequence is that Maori politics is confined to what's palatable to the ninth floor. There's also an element of circular reasoning when being at the table is both the means and the end.

So if being at the table is the Maori Party's raison d'être then there's little room for Mana - a party that values external change and leftwing ideologies. After all, Hone Harawira threatened the Maori Party's place at the table and he was removed. 

Yet maybe the Maori Party is on the right side of history. The trajectory of Maori politics hasn’t been towards revolution or wholesale structural change. Leaders of the later stages of the Maori renaissance and now the Maori Party, Iwi Leaders and many others prefer integration into New Zealand power structures. The attraction among battle-weary activists and heroes of the movement is clear. But it’s not an approach that attracts Mana. And that’s the real impediment to a merger – not National.

Maori politics: crises, opportunities and the Greens

I was born in 1991. In 1991 Pita Sharples was working across the public service and he was a visiting professor at Auckland University. In 1991 Pita Sharples was working with and for Maori. In the decades before 1991, Pita Sharples was working with and for Maori. He’s still working with and for Maori. For that, he has my deepest respect.

Though service is the rent we pay for living. Pita Sharples’ record of service is long and it's his time to step down.

Crisis versus opportunity

There are two views on Pita’s resignation: that it represents a crisis in the Maori Party or that it presents an opportunity for political renewal.

Well, political crisis’s trigger resignations, but vacancies come with opportunities.

Generational change will create a break from the political period that Turia and Sharples embody. The post-settlement era is close and the Maori renaissance era is closing. The Maori Party must use the leadership change (and the ideological and personnel openings that that change creates) to renegotiate the contract between their party and the Maori electorate.

That means recreating the Maori Party’s political identity. The party was founded in opposition to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and based on the premise that the party wasn’t left or right – it was Maori. 

In other words, the Maori Party was a pan-Maori political party. That has failed. The Maori political landscape has fragmented (Mana has split to the left, Labour might be “rising” and the Greens are emerging). The Maori Party doesn’t have to accept the left/right dichotomy, but it must carve a coherent position (e.g. tino rangatiratanga for the post-settlement era). There is space for a kaupapa Maori party – that is independent (and is seen to be). The Maori Party, in its current arrangements at least, is not (and is not seen to be). A leader who doesn’t hold a ministerial warrant (e.g. Te Ururoa) is better positioned to reclaim the party’s independence.

However, the great barriers are that the Maori Party is accountable against its record and Pita Sharples helps anchor the Maori Party’s remaining support. He’s Papa Pita – one of the most trusted Maori MPs. Pita has to leave on his own terms. If his resignation is seen to be forced that will compromise the mana of the man and the party. In that sense, the resignation poses its consequences.

Who deserved the blame?

It’s unfair that Pita has shouldered the blame. Na Raihania’s poor placing in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti byelection was not solely a reaction against the leadership battles in the Maori Party. The party’s troubles are more deep rooted.

If you view politics as a horse race it’s tempting to identify leadership battles, disunity and the back-and-forth of the political process as reasons for the poor showing of party X or politician Y. Reality is more complicated.

Doubts developed in the Maori Party’s first term. The party entered government on a high. Te Tai Tonga elected a new Maori Party MP and a “mana-enhancing” deal was reached with the Prime Minister and the National Party. After the conflict of the previous four years, 2008 felt positively peaceful.

When in Rome, do as the Romans. When in government, don't always do as the government. From 2008 to 2011 the fatal narrative crept in and solidified: that the Maori Party wins had been more symbolic than substantive and that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National. Colin James encapsulated it well in arguing that the Maori Party is and was seen as National’s “proxy” in the Maori seats.

The party swallowed its defeats, but its wins weren’t seen to neutralise the eroding trust that the defeats had triggered. The debacle over the Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights, a defeat for Maori seats on the Auckland Council and bad faith in the Tuhoe settlement negotiations contributed to the idea that the Maori Party was part of a mana-diminishing deal. The party also voted for unpopular pieces of legislation (e.g. the ETS) and (consistent with their supply and confidence agreement) a budget that Maori opposed. The Maori Party’s strength is that it’s independent and accountable to Maori (c.f. Labour). But its independence was beginning to be questioned.

In 2010 the negative narratives started developing and the consensus within the party begun unravelling. Hone Harawira tried to cross the floor against budget 2010 and he appeared increasingly isolated. In early 2011 the consensus broke when Hone – after taking a swipe against the Maori Party in the Sunday Star Times – was expelled. The Maori Party split right and Hone (soon to become the Mana Party) split left with prominent Maori Party members (including Annette Sykes, Angeline Greensill and Mereana Pitman) too. The narrative that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National solidified and Maori politics divided along class lines. Mana carved a position for the Maori working class and (mostly by omission) the Maori Party was seen to be the party for iwi and the Maori middle class.

Accepting a deal with the National Party was always a risk. Although Labour’s vote had been trending downwards, the Maori electorates remained overwhelmingly left. There was little affection for National, but a grudging acceptance that Maori should operate across the political acceptance. Tough circumstances (e.g. high Maori unemployment) took that acceptance to its limits and in 2011 it broke. With this in mind, the decline of the Maori Party is best traced to 2011 – when the narratives solidified, Hone steered half of the party left and broke Maori politics along class lines - rather than contemporary leadership trouble.

Te Ururoa is the heir apparent

Te Ururoa Flavell is the ideal leader for the contemporary Maori Party: pragmatic and respected across the left and right. He also offers continuity post-Turia/Sharples and a generational change.

However, the party must consider whether their interests are better represented by an external leader. A leader who isn’t tainted by the debacles in 2011 or the leadership disunity in 2012 and 2013. Rawiri Taonui has identified Naida Glavish as a potential leader. If she were elected that would be a platform for her to succeed Pita in Tamaki Makaurau.

Alternatively, a co-leadership arrangement. Glavish as the female leader and Te Ururoa as the male leader. That gives Te Ururoa the position he has been seeking for (literally) years and Glavish represents a break from the toxic period 2008-2011. Rahui Katene has indicated that she is interested in co-leading the party too. However, Rahui wasn't reelected as the MP for Te Tai Tonga in 2011. She does not represent the clean break that Glavish does. Glavish is the clean break, Te Ururoa is the continuity.

Tamaki Makaurau has fallen

Unless the Mana and the Maori Party come to a deal, say the Maori Party runs Glavish and Mana runs a party vote campaign, then Tamaki Makaurau will fall to Labour.

In 2008 Pita won a 7000 vote majority and the Maori Party secured 28% of the party vote. In 2011 Shane Jones came within 1000 votes of unseating Pita and the Maori Party secured 14% of the party vote. The Mana Party secured (literally) half of the Maori Party’s 2008 vote.

The new Maori Party candidate is not guaranteed to inherit Pita’s vote. The vote will fragment further and the Labour candidate (Shane Jones isn’t guaranteed) will storm through the middle. If Mana and the Maori Party want Tamaki Makaurau to remain with a kaupapa Maori Party then they must come to an arrangement.

Te Tai Hauauru might not fall
Ken Mair has been named as a potential replacement. I think he can win. He has the name recognition and the reputation (he is a respected activist and isn’t tainted by association with the National Party).

Of course, it all depends on how strong the field is. A stronger Mana candidate might cannabilise the Maori Party vote and Jack Tautokai McDonald (assuming he stands again) is well placed to increase his share of the vote. It’s too early to call, but I think Te Tai Hauauru remains winnable for the Maori Party.

The Greens are rising?

The beneficiary might not be Mana or Labour, but the Greens. Mana could be perceived as too close (and partly responsible for) the toxicity in Maori politics. Labour is stable, but associated with the foreshore and seabed era. The same is not true of the Greens.

The Greens are now an accepted part of Maori political discourse. The Treaty is at the heart of the party and its policy is aimed at equality. After 173 years of inequality, Maori are hungry for structural change and the equality that the Greens promote.

The party affirmed its commitment to Maori in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti belection and Metiria Turei has been a consistent and prominent voice on Maori issues. If Maori voters are shopping around for a replacement, the Greens are the best alternative. The Greens are rising? 

Meka will win Ikaroa-Rawhiti: discuss...

I’m suffering from cognitive dissonance. I know – I feel – that Meka’s going to win. The momentum is with Te Hamua, though.

John Minto isn’t wrong to write that “most pundits are picking the seat as Labour’s to lose, on the ground the feeling is very different. If I was a betting man I’d put money on Te Hamua to win”. Mana Poneke has been and is knocking on doors and discovering that most households are committed to voting for Te Hamua. I’ve received several emails (thank you) arguing that I’ve misread the electorate. Maybe I have.

Byelections turn on, well, turnout. That’s where Labour’s at an advantage. The future is micro-targeting. Labour gets that. Micro-targetting requires 1) knowledge of who and where your voters are and 2) the right messaging.

As bad as Labour’s messaging has been (“we will organise, mobilise and terrorise”), the party knows who and where its habitual voters are. Even putting terror and immigration comments aside, Labour and Meka are still at a messaging advantage. Meka can credibly frame herself as the successor to Parekura’s legacy and she can position herself to inherit the affection that Parekura earnt.

Requesting a copy of the electoral roll with the names and addresses of every person enrolled in Ikaroa-Rawhiti – as I believe Mana, the Maori Party and the Greens do - is is an exercise in hit and miss. Political campaigns are about the allocation of scare resources. Sending your human resources on door knocks that don’t guarantee a political return can be wasteful. Having said that it appears that Mana has a good hit rate.

However, on the issues, the field is even: jobs, housing and health and local issues like empty state homes in Maraenui, erosion on the East Coast, oil exploration in Dannevirke and school closures in Gisborne favour no one.

I might be horribly wrong (wouldn’t be the first time) and this election might not depend on turnout at all. I’m open to people sharing their experiences on the ground. The comments section is open.

Shane Jones key to Labour's future

Hon. Shane Jones MP

Now Parekura Horomia has been safely buried next to his mother at Kohimarama in Uawa, the political world looks to Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to see who the various political parties will select as their candidate for the by-election to fill the vacant seat. I'm of the view that it will be a fairly straightforward election for Labour if they aren't complacent and don't take Parekura's large margin for granted. I don't think they will. They know better than anyone the dynamic nature of Māori politics in recent decades. 

In 1993 Tau Henare won Northern Māori and in doing so broke Labour's more than 50 year hold on the seats. This was the catalyst that saw New Zealand First sweep the five Māori seats in '96. Since then the Māori seats have been hotly contested and have seen some fairly significant swings of support between parties. But due to the unfortunate circumstances the nature of this election is unique. If Labour select a candidate who is believed to be able to carry on Parekura's local work and commitments then they should be pretty confident.

So assuming Labour do win comfortably they will be well placed in the Māori seats for the 2014 general election. But it's not just Parekura's position as Māngai for Te Tai Rāwhiti that will need to be filled. His role as the Labour Party's 'Chief' will now probably be taken up by Shane Jones.  As Annette King said in the Parliamentary poroporoaki on Tuesday, Parekura passed his 'baton' of political position within Labour to Shane Jones. There will now be huge expectations on Jones, whose career has had its controversies, but I think he is perfectly placed to respond to the challenges of the current Māori political climate. As he showed in his Parliamentary tribute, which was by far the best of the day, Maori statesmanship has not perished with Parekura Horomia. Jones composed a mōteatea for his "closest friend in the political world". It was a beautiful and moving waiata that confirmed that Jones himself is "a link with the old world", as he described Parekura on the day he passed away. Jones was intensely trained and educated during his youth by the kaumatua of the North. He has oratorical brilliance, an exceptional intelligence and a sharp political mind, all of which will be necessary for Labour to try and fend off Green and Mana advances in the Māori seats. The Māori Party will probably continue to decline further with the departure of Tariana Turia.

So it's almost certain that David Shearer will now give Jones the Māori Affairs portfolio, the position of seniority in Labour's Māori caucus. Even if Shearer and Robertson decide instead on Nanaia Mahuta, who has the Parliamentary experience, whakapapa and talent to be able to do well in the role, Jones will still be seen as the 'Chief'. This will help him if he stands again in Tamaki Makaurau as it would be a contest between the two kaumatua of Parliament, himself and Dr Pita Sharples, and also an electoral battle between the current Minister and probable Shadow Minister for Māori Affairs. Jones has the political instinct and nous, but Sharples has better established links with the electorate. If I were to hazard a guess more than a year before the election, I would put my money on Jones. Sharples' declaration that he wants stay in Parliament until he is taken out in a box, won't go down well in what is actually quite a young, liberal electorate.

Jones campaigning at Otara Markets in South Auckland

Jones' biggest challenge will be his perception within flaxroots communities. He needs to be able to convince low paid workers and community sector advocates that he is on their side, like Parekura did so excellently. He does not have the same working class background as Parekura Horomia, but his oratory and achievements do, and will continue to, endear him to many Māori and Pākehā alike. But if Labour really want to stop Green and Mana momentum in the Māori seats they will need to try and inspire the taiohi Māori vote. The 18-24 grouping is the largest in all seven of the Māori seats but many taiohi don't vote on election day. The Greens are relatively strongest in this area of the population and have a lot of potential in electorates like Tāmaki Makaurau, Te Tai Tonga and Te Tai Hauāuru, while Te Mana will probably continue to do well among young people in Te Tai Tokerau and Waiariki. 

Jones does have the potential to inspire young voters as he in many ways epitomizes Māori aspiration. He has worked at the highest levels of Māori and Pākeha society in both the public and private sector, while always retaining a deep level of commitment to tikanga Māori, reo Māori and iwi Māori. Be sure that Jones will do his very best to hammer the Greens and Mana in the run up to the election. However, his recent call for the re-planting of native trees in the North as part of a strategy to support the reforestoration of marginal land, shows that he has a high level of political discernment, because he realises that his attacks on the Green Party maybe seen as hostility to strong environmental policy. He knows that Labour can't ignore environmental concerns in the Māori electorates.

With the passing of Parekura Horomia the political dynamic of the Māori seats has once again changed. Shane Jones looks set to play a central role in the lead up the 2014 election and beyond.

Shane Jones' mōteatea for Parekura via Claire Trevett at the NZ Herald:

Ko te uranga o te Ra
Terenga waka torangapu
He waihoe tuku iho
Ko Apirana kei te ihu
Ko Parekura kei te rapa.

E Hina i te po hutea
E Tama te painaina
Hei a wai te hoe a Pare
Haupu a tini moehewa
He waka utanga kaita

E ahu ki te pae o te rangi
Ma te tai a Paikea - ariki
Te Matau a Maui tikitiki
Te Upoko o te Ikaroa
Tena te ripo kawanatanga.

Nana te ohaki whakarere
Whangaia a pipi patere
Kia ngata, kia mapuapua
Aue e Pare ngakaunui
E whakawairua kau iho.

Under a rising sun
A waka appears
A time-worn journey.
Apirana is at the prow,
Parekura at the stern.

Moon goddess of pale light
Sun god, we feel your heat.
Who takes Pare's challenge?
Driven by great dreams
His is a waka of legacy.

Fix your course
By the tides of Paikea
Past the Hook of Maui
To the Head of the fish
Where power swirls.

Your departing words:
Feed the little ones
To grow and flourish
Pare, of great heart
Your spirit enjoins us.


Post by Jack Tautokai McDonald

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.

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.

Merging the Maori Council

It’s commonly accepted that the New Zealand Maori Council is redundant. With the rise of the Maori Party, the Mana Party and the Iwi Leaders Group, the Maori Council find their position threatened.

For consultation purposes, the government prefers to deal with the Iwi Leaders Group. The government prefers to deal with an organisation that’s ideologically sympathetic. I think it's fair to describe the iwi leaders as neoliberal. For example, they support asset sales, PPPs and so on. However, what cements the Iwi Leaders Group as the advocacy and consultation group of choice is money.

The Iwi Leaders Group are a multi-billion dollar collective. The Maori Council, however, is anchored by an Act of Parliament and an act that is due to be reformed or, quite possibly, wiped off the statute books. The Iwi leaders are secure. On the other hand, the Maori Council is subject to the whims of the government of the day.

In my opinion, the Maori Council still have an important role. The Iwi Leaders Group largely represents the commercial interests of iwi, with some notable exceptions, whereas the Maori Council’s focus is more broad. It is, after all, the Maori Council who are lodging the water claim. In contrast the iwi leaders are engaging in backroom dealing in an attempt to secure a political solution. The iwi leaders are taking a pragmatic approach, arguably the best approach, but I prefer the Maori Council’s approach. Before engaging in deals, I’d prefer to know the legal position. Then again, an adverse finding undermines your bargaining power. The threat of legal action is persuasive, but neutralised when the Court has or will find against you.

Perhaps the water claim issue illustrates the need for the Maori Council and the Iwi Leaders Group to merge. Both sides are taking opposite approaches and, in the process, undermining each other. The Iwi leaders already perform many of the Maori Council’s functions, only with economic leverage and political connections that an Act of Parliament can’t give. Surely the only option, or the most sensible option at least, is to merge.

On a slightly different note, there are claims that the revival of the Maori Council is merely a power play on behalf of Donna Hall and Sir Eddie Durie, the co-chair and Hall’s partner, and a useful vehicle for other Maori power players, for example Rahui Katene. I don’t put much stock in this. I rate the integrity of Sir Eddie Durie too highly.

Ultimately, I think a merger has to be on the cards. The Maori Party, Mana Party and the Iwi leaders perform what the Maori Council once did, only more effectively. There isn’t any space for the Maori Council.

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.

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.

Controlling Maori reproduction (updated)

The government’s welfare plans are out and some aspects are deeply disturbing:

Women on benefits - including teenagers and the daughters of beneficiaries - will be offered free long-term contraception as part of a $287.5 million Budget package for the Government's welfare reforms.

In other words, quoting Deborah Russell, “you and your slapper daughters better not breed any more of your type.”

On grounds of principle, having the government involved in such an intensely personal matter is inappropriate. There is a persuasive argument that the government should only regulate or interfere in matters that present a risk to the individual or society. A purist would read this as meaning the government should keep its nose out of our personal affairs, unless those affairs are criminal, negligent or so on. Reproduction is a human right and, on the above principle, not an area where the government has any business – even if the person in question is reliant on government support. This, it’s fair to say, gives the government no right to influence our personal choices.

The contraception plan is not compulsory of course. The plan as it is represents the most a government can do to control reproduction without attracting credible claims of eugenics. Arguing that the voluntary aspect negates the argument that the plan infringes on personal choice is, at best, naïve. PeterCresswell puts it well:

Rest assured that those employed by the state will be offering “incentives” to beneficiaries  to cooperate with the plan—and when bureaucrats begin “strongly suggesting” to beneficiaries they should take up an “offer,” they expect their “suggestions” to be obeyed. (As former minister Marian Hobbs once explained the state’s view of “encouraging” behaviour the stale likes, “we start with encouraging, but there’s always the big stick.)

Sue Bradford makes a similar point when she points out that there is a power imbalance between beneficiaries and case managers.

Paula Bennett is doing a good job selling the plan. However, you can couch the plan in sellable terms, but that doesn’t change the fact that the government is selecting a certain group to influence (or control which is the more appropriate term in my opinion). If the government was offering free contraception to all New Zealanders, including men, then claims that the government was choosing who they wanted to breed and who they didn’t could be negated. However, this isn’t the case and to borrow a phrase from biology: the government is selecting against beneficiaries. That, it can be argued, amounts to eugenics.

Quoting Deborah Russell again, the government’s plan has significant consequences for Maori:

I’m also catching a whiff of racism about this move, I think. Via Tallulah, in response to a comment I made at TLG, we know that 43% of DPB recipients are Maori, and 10% are Pacific Islanders. So over half of DPB recipients have brown skins. I think it’s not just about making the slappers keep the legs together. It’s also about stopping those brown people from breeding.

So, in effect, the government’s plan will substantially interfere with the reproductive freedom of Maori. I’m waiting, hopefully not in vain, for the Maori Party and the Mana Party to take an official position. When Maori will be so heavily affected, the two kaupapa Maori parties are obligated to take a position. I note that Metiria Turei has been leading opposition and, I think, quite competently. It’s contrary to Maori values to have the government interfere in matters of the whanau. The whanau, as the Maori Party often says, is an autonomous unit and, on my understanding of the values of our people, should be free from undue interference and influence from outsiders – read the government. Also, and more importantly, issues of over-fertility are not viewed as a problem in Te Ao Maori - its welcomed. Lastly, it   

I hope more Maori come out against, or in support if they’re that way inclined, because I can’t help but feel that I’m not the most appropriate Maori to comment on this. If there are any wahine out who want to comment, please feel free to leave a comment.   

UPDATE: Tariana Turia, continuing her strong form on the issues, has come out strongly:

The initiative drew fire from National's ally - Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, who is also the associate social development minister. She said it was insulting to tell somebody how many children they should have. 

"I've always supported the growing of our population, the growing of our hapu and iwi and so I'm certainly not one who's ever believed that we should be controlling people's fertility."

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.

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.

Maori cuts at MFAT

I find it difficult to get worked up about MFAT cutting their Maori Policy Unit. The obvious question is: why does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, key word foreign affairs and trade, need a Maori policy group. I can understand why, say, Tourism NZ would need a Maori policy team. Maori culture is a unique selling point. Having said that, I suppose I’ve just highlighted why MFAT needs a Maori policy unit. In terms of trade, Maori culture is a unique selling point. The Maori Policy Unit, I imagine, advocates the Maori economy overseas and helps overseas governments etc understand the place of Maori in New Zealand and so on. Without a Maori Policy Unit, there’s a hole. Most Pakeha, and by extension diplomats, have no, not even the slightest, grasp on Maori culture, the Maori economy, Maori exporters, the place of Maori in New Zealand and the like.

I guess it’s worrying. When MFAT does need Maori experts they can’t farm it out to Te Puni Kokiri. That Ministry is going to be a shell of its former self and, I think it is fair to assume, will only have the capacity to perform internal tasks. MFAT is looking to hire a Kaumatua. However, a Kaumatua will only consult on cultural aspects, I doubt the Kaumatua will be qualified to work on broader Maori issues.

All this, the Maori cuts at MFAT and the cuts at TPK, amount to a sustained attack on Maori in government. What’s next? Cuts to Te Taura Whiri? Smashing the Maori Policy Units in other Ministries? A funding freeze at Maori TV?

It’s a shame that the Maori Party and the Mana Party are nowhere on this issue. Labour, the Greens and NZ First are all over it, but taking a broader approach. They know that the majority of NZders support scrapping anything with the word Maori in front of it so they’ll tread carefully. With that in mind, it’s up to the Maori Party and Mana to oppose this.

On the farcical scenes at Waitangi and the possibility of NZ Day (updated)

News is breaking of some despicable appalling behaviour at Te Tii Marae this morning. From the Herald:

Protesters ignored pleas to show respect at Te Tii Marae this morning, where Prime Minister John Key and fellow politicians were verbally abused during ugly scenes at Waitangi this morning.

Protester Wi Popata heckled prominent Maori MPs regardless of party affiliation, calling Dr Pita Sharples, Te Ururoa Flavell and Hekia Parata "niggers." 

Around six to 10 protesters rushed onto the marae when Mr Key first arrived at 10am, knocking aside members of the media as they moved. Two photographers, including one from the Herald, were seen bleeding after the rush.

This isn’t on. What do these protestors, and I use the term protestors in its loosest sense, expect to achieve? Actions like the above serve only to reinforce negative opinions and galvanise the public against your cause. Of course, these village idiots wouldn’t know the first thing about making gains for Maori. They know how to make a lot of mindless noise, but they don’t know what progress looks like, let alone how to achieve it.

The temperature at Waitangi was always going to be high. Coming on the back of cuts at TPK and the possibility of dropping s9 from new SOE legislation. I don’t think anyone was expecting thug-like protest though. What makes the protestors' actions even worse is that they're playing right into Key's hands. The average Kiwi will sympathise and side with Key in the face of, what appears at the moment, to be thuggish protest. Public opinion was always on the PM's side and that support will solidify in the face of rancorous "Maori's".

There are suggestions that Key wanted this sort of thing to happen. After more than a week of negative headlines Key was, apparently, searching for an event to regain public sympathies. What better time to do this than Waitangi. In the run up to the weekend Key baited Maori - or at least that's how I see it. For example, he promised to talk about hot bottom issues like welfare reform at Te Tii. This intensified feeling following the TPK cuts and s9 controversy.

Anyway, I’ve said time and again, the protest generation is over. Maori have a foothold, the path goes from there. We don’t need to keep alive the fight for things we already have. Maori must work for gains from within. Within Parliament, government, the National Party and the Labour Party. Jodi Ihaka made a salient point this morning when she noted that most of the protestors of the past were sitting at the Copthorne Hotel with the PM – think the Maori Party leadership and the Iwi Chairs Forum. This is where progress will be made, not on protesting one day a year on Te Tii Marae.

These protestors risk reducing Waitangi Day to a farce. It’s all well and good to hold protests. Maori, after all, remain at the bottom on the heap and festering wounds from historical injustice remain. This is to say nothing of contemporary injustices. But you need to have a strategy – a realistic one and one suitable for 2012 conditions. New Zealanders will gladly ditch Waitangi Day for, say, New Zealand day if mindless, violent and intimidating protest continues to occur. Should a New Zealand day come about, Maori will be deprived a legitimate platform to bring attention to Maori concerns and discuss ways forward.

This brings me to another point. I don’t think we need a New Zealand day. Our nation was founded on the signing of the Treaty, therefore, there is a day no more appropriate for celebrating NZ than Waitangi Day. The calls for New Zealand day come from, more often than not, Pakeha who would rather ignore historical and contemporary injustice. People who would rather ignore the fact that the NZ government, and many an average NZ citizen, treated and in some cases continue to treat Maori like crap.

NZ day would be a backward step that would create more racial division rather than less. The significance of the Treaty would be diminished and, as a result, the place of Maori in NZ.

I’m not trying to portray Waitangi Day as a day for Maori to have a piss and a moan. Waitangai Day should be a day for reflection, discussion and, most importantly, celebration. For the past three years, probably not this year, I think we got the balance right. It’s a shame this isolated gang of fools are taking us back a decade or two.

Ratana celebrations begin

The poli-scramble at Ratana begins today. Labour leader David Shearer will be welcomed onto the Marae alongside much of his caucus and, symbolically, Metiria Turei and the Green’s Maori caucus. As is tradition, Labour will enter the Marae and meet with the Ratana leadership before National. If my memory serves me correctly the only occasion where National was invited onto the Marae before Labour was in 2010. Mana’s Hone Harawira will also enter the Marae this week with his Ratana Minister, Kereama Pene (unless he already has). The Maori Party’s Pita Sharples will accompany the Prime Minister when he enters the Marae (Tariana Turia is already on the Marae) and Winston Peters will visit tomorrow.

Interestingly, the Greens will accompany Labour onto the Marae. This is, I believe, a first. The decision to invite the Green’s onto the Marae with Labour signals, perhaps, the beginning of Maori acceptance of the Green’s as a party of Maori and for Maori. Prior to the election, the Greens were viewed as an outlier when it came to things Maori. The party often polled sub 5% among Maori despite strong Maori representation within the parliamentary wing, a comprehensive Maori policy statement and a consistently pro-Maori stance. In 2012 this, coupled with the ascension of Metiria Turei and serious Green candidates in the Maori electorates, appears to be contributing to an acceptance of the Greens as a Maori party.

Labour will also hold their caucus meeting on the Marae and the party will look to make maximum use of Rino Tirikatene. Rino and his whanau are well connected to the Ratana movement. David Shearer and Labour’s media team have lost no time in making this known. Louisa Wall, MP for Manurewa, is also connected to the Church.

Despite the pro-Labour mood, we should expect to see some anti-Labour rhetoric. The Marae is a place for debate and dissenting views are always encouraged. In front of the nation’s media some anti-Labour Ratana members may look to make a point.

The mood at the Pa appears, to me at least, far less favourable towards National and the Maori Party. Labour, the Greens and Mana could, if they play it right on the paepae and among the people, reclaim some of the ground lost to National and the Maori Party in previous years.

Mana: a discussion

John Moore has done some great work analysing the Mana Movement. His latest post at Liberation is a must read. This from the post itself:

Guest blogger John Moore argues that the selection of Kereama Pene represents the marginalisation of the left within the Mana Party. For although the party appears radical on paper, in reality a number of Mana’s leaders aim to cut deals and form alliances with parties that would have little interest in Mana’s ‘socialist’ policies. Therefore, the selection of Karema Pene sends a signal that Mana is both ideologically flexible and that the party’s socialists are being kept on a tight leach. All of this amounts to the attempt by a section of Mana’s leadership to present the party as respectable and non-threatening. So, is the game up for Mana’s left?

What needs to be understood is that the left in Mana is a minority, albeit an influential minority. The party’s rank and file, or the flaxroot if you will, consists almost exclusively of ex-Maori Party members and young Maori with a tino rangatiratanga bent. There is a scattering of socialists and political newbies (mainly Maori). The left do not have the strength of numbers at the base of the party to exercise any influence on decisions like candidate selection, policy remits etc.

As Matt McCarten takes a step back Gerard Hehir is taking a step forward. Gerard’s presence and prominence in the party ensures that the left punch above their weight in the party. Hone has a great deal of respect for Gerard and the work he does for Mana.

The marriage between Hone and Matt, read Maori nationalism and socialism, is one of convenience. Mana Movement satisfies both men’s ambitions. Matt serves to extend Hone’s electoral base while Hone provides the genesis for Matt’s dream of building a working class movement. However, both men share a similar political outlook. Hone is the product of a Maori nationalist upbringing, but he is intuitively left-wing (as are most Maori nationalists). Matt is the product of an underclass upbringing, but he maintains an intuitive Maori nationalist streak.  

Hone knows that he will not build the movement he dreams of without extending his base beyond hardcore Maori nationalists. Therefore, he will not allow the left to be marginalised. I think the decision was made not to veto Pene’s selection because Hone, and his advisers like Hehir and McCarten, felt that it did not pose a serious threat to the role of the left in the party.

An examination of Mana’s policy reveals a leftist bent. As I’ve said before the party’s policy platform is almost devoid of any tino rangatiratanga type policy.

I can almost guarantee that Hone will not enter a coalition government in the medium term. I say this because Hone has told me as much. Of course, circumstances change and so do a person’s intentions, but at this stage Hone appears unlikely to even consider lending support on a coalition or confidence and supply basis to any government. Mana is aiming in the short term to renter Parliament with, hopefully, two extra MPs - Annette Sykes and John Minto (and if things go better than expected Sue Bradford). In the medium term the party hopes to build a sustainable movement. Building a sustainable movement includes extending the party membership and implementing a succession plan. As an aside Maori politics specialist Veronica Tawhai is leading the party’s succession plan. In the long term the party will, inevitably, enter government. Forcing change from the streets is a nice concept, but a far fetched one in my opinion and Hone and co. know this. There are so many variables and the opposition (capitalism) is so overwhelming. Furthermore, Mana does not have the intellectual grunt at the moment to put forward a viable alternative to the current system.

Mana has a long way to go yet. The contradictions, nuances and ultimate direction of the party are yet to be settled. This is the nature of a new movement. In the mean time we can analyse and predict where the party is and will head, but, ultimately, we just don’t know enough yet.

  

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.

Controversy erupts in the Maori Council

Controversy has erupted in another Maori organisation. The New Zealand Maori Council is making waves with the news that senior Council member Maanu Paul has been expelled for speaking publicly on behalf of the organisation. After falling ill last year Chairman Sir Graham Latimer appointed Maanu Paul to act on his behalf. However, the Executive Committee held that Sir Graham was acting unilaterally and did not have the power to make such an appointment. The Executive Committee argues that in Sir Graham’s absence the elected Deputy Chair, Richard Orzecki, acts in the Chairpersons role.    

Maanu Paul has been acting under the title of executive chairman and commenting on a number issues including the Councils activities surrounding an impending treaty claim. The claim concerns Maori rights to fresh water. This clearly got up the nose of the Council members, but mainly the Deputy Chair, and they have resorted to the strongest response possible – expulsion. However, Maanu Paul maintains that he has not been sacked and will continue to comment publicly until Sir Graham directs him otherwise.

This internal strife speaks to the growing irrelevance of the Maori Council and is illustrative of the growing political conflict in the Maori world. The National Government has selected the Iwi Leaders Group (ILG) as their Maori vehicle of choice when it comes to consultation and access. The problem for the Maori Council is that they are a creature of Statute (The Maori Welfare Act 1962) and, consequently, relies on the acquiesce of the government of the day. On the other hand the ILG set their own mandate and enjoy access to their own capital, i.e. the government does not fund them and, therefore, cannot strangle them when they fall out of favour. The Maori Council is also, ideologically speaking, non-aligned with the current government whereas the ILG falls firmly in line with the Nat’s ideological position (e.g. privatisation). The Maori Council is creating issues for the government, for example by fuelling debate on Maori rights to fresh water, while the ILG is actively supporting the government’s asset sales campaign. It is easy to see why the government has turned to the ILG at the expense of the Maori Council. 

The battle within in the Maori Council is also indicative of the larger political conflict occurring within the Maori world. At its most obvious the conflict is typified by the conflict between the Mana Party (representing the working class) and the Maori Party (representing the Maori ruling class interests). There is also conflict in Tainui between Te Arataura (the Tainui elite) and Te Kauhanganui (the Tainui people at large). Also the Maori Women’s Welfare League between Hannah Tamaki and Destiny (the Maori elite) and the traditional members (the people at large). Of course it is more complex than just a battle between the poor and the elite, but at its most simplistic we are seeing a class conflict. 

I also wonder whether Maanu’s connections to the Maori Party have anything to do with his expulsion. Maanu is one the Party’s most prominent and vocal supporters. It will be interesting to know whether his connections and pro-Maori Party/National Party actions were getting up the nose of the increasingly left-wing Maori Council. 

I’ll be following this story very closely and update any further developments.