The politics of the level playing field: why Colin Craig is wrong

Sensing a theme in the Conservative Party's campaign literature. pic.twitter.com/R4LQRtyjDz
— Toby Manhire (@toby_etc) July 19, 2014

Pretty much this. Via Te Ururoa Flavell:

“Māori Party Co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell says the Conservative Party’s policies to get rid of the Māori seats, shut down the Waitangi Tribunal and implement ‘one law for all’ are ignorant, dangerous, and are not welcome in our political system or our country… 

The old assimilation policy is hidden behind a few new terms and slogans, such as One Law for All, but the intention is the same and we know all about it. In this day and age there is no place for political leaders who know nothing about our history and know nothing about us”.

Craig and his Conservatives aren’t here to restore “unity”. They’re the exhausted rear guard of New Zealand racism. Armed, it seems, with very little but a slogan and a cheque book. 

The intent is clear: Craig is trying – failing - to tap the reservoir of racism. It’s not “one law for all” but “one law to rule us all”. The latter sounds more chauvinist than the former, quite a feat, yet doomed to fail. What Brash had with one law for all and Craig doesn’t with one law to rule us all is institutional acceptance. The veneer of respectability. As Brash was fond of saying, he was for “mainstream New Zealand”. Craig is merely the perfectly pitched 5 percent politician. 

Mihingarangi Forbes revealed as much in her interview with Craig on Native Affairs. Best described as extended torture, Craig can’t muster a coherent explanation for, firstly, his apparent support for Māori Television and, second, his opposition to division “based on race”. The same for te reo Māori. Craig supports government funding, yet can’t reconcile it with his “one law to rule us all” position. He is left to grasp at artificial distinctions. 

But even in the face of such impressive incompetence, it’d be negligent to ignore Craig. His message is still insidious because it’s pitched at the progressive – yes, irony - desire for equality in liberal democracy. 

That is, the idea all people are created equal and any deviation from that principle constitutes the real injustice. It’s the myth of the level playing field. There’s room to recognise the Treaty and historic injustice, yet Craig and his Conservatives seem to be claiming that – at some unspecified point in time - modern democracy created a nation of equals. It didn’t, but that’s a foundational myth in New Zealand. The idea that a neat line separates the bad Old Days and the more enlightened Good Days. 

So if the level playing field is true - it isn't - then you’re poor, dumb and incarcerated because you deserve to be. Where the injustice is not the fact that you are poor, dumb and incarcerated, but that you need and receive targeted rights because of it. The reasoning is absurd: catering for substantive inequality is actually creating legal inequality. On Planet Conservative, the latter is the real crime. 

But it’s a very attractive argument – especially among the selfish. If disadvantage is a matter of personal responsibility then it requires no response from the advantaged. The demand that Māori accept “equal rights” – so no legal distinctions between different people – is really a plea for assimilation. Craig is really asking Maori to accept their disadvantages quietly. Well, no thanks. 

Replace “Māori” with any other category of difference in New Zealand society. Now try to argue that this category of difference must be abandoned for the sake of “unity”. It doesn’t really work unless there is some manifest harm, yeah? Te Ururoa is right. Craig is merely resurrecting “the old assimilation policy”, but “hidden behind a few new terms and slogans”. Now that “is not welcome”.

The Meaning of the Internet Mana Party

Hone Harawira

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

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

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

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

Kim Dotcom

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

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

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

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

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

Shane Jones: the political obituary

I know Shane Jones. I like Shane Jones. I don’t want to seem like a sycophant, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that I admired him. I disagreed with much of what he said, sure, but I recognised a commanding Maori leader.

Here was a man – and I’m deliberately using gendered language, but more on that later – who understood the Maori experience and the Maori condition: our idiosyncrasies, language, literature, history, philosophies, spiritualism and our politics.

And that’s what set Jones apart. In that respect, he was above the Maori leaders of his generation. He was the successor to Ngata’s legacy. It’s probably because he was a student of James Carroll. Both men appreciated that Maori society is always adapting tradition to modernity. Carroll took that to mean integration into and imitation of British political institutions. Jones took that to mean integration into and imitation of Anglo-American capitalism.

It’s said that Maori walk backwards into the future. History is closer. Jones knew this better than many. I think it’s what influenced his political thinking and practice. It’s the reason he favoured integration on Maori terms – he was drawing on the wisdom of experience, as he saw it – and the reason he valued oratory. He traced his political descent down the same line as Carroll, Ngata, Couch and Peters. Shane was a model of these Maori men. He drew on their strengths, but he also inherited their weaknesses.

Shane inherited the prejudices of the likes of Carroll, Ngata, Couch and Peters. These were conservative men who didn’t care as much for other marginalised groups. Take Apirana Ngata. He was an Anglo-patrician who believed in a racial hierarchy. Although he committed his entire being to Maori, he was not open-minded on today’s standards. I’m not saying Jones’ believes in racial hierarchy, but that he inherited blindspots from his predecessors.

It’s those blindspots that make Shane a social democrat, but not a liberal. That was a cause of tension, stress and confusion on the left. Labour was always his default home, but I don’t think it was ever his proper home. Shane was socialised into politics off the back of, for lack of a better term, the old left. His introduction to Parliament and the Beehive was while working for Geoffrey Palmer in the fourth Labour government. He would've been a better fit - ideologically - in the Maori Party. He might've had a more successful career in National.

This meant he was neither perfect for Maori nor perfect for the left. (But perfection is a false chalice, yet that didn’t stop many from demanding it). The attacks against women were uncalled for and wrong. The struggle for gender equality shouldn't and can't be divorced from the struggle for ethnic equality. Equality works best when it's equality for the whole and not the parts.

I think many of Shane’s Maori supporters were always willing to recognise that. Yet his opponents rarely acknowledged his significance for Maori and in Maori political history. His place in Maori politics and Maori history was ignored. That was a telling signal to Maori - a people who revere the past and always try to fit their thinking in it. Shane worked because he understood this. He knew what made Maori tick, though it was always undermined by the faults of his political line.

But what was worse – and very neo-colonialist – was being told to wait for someone better. That moment had too much in common with when the radical left realised tino rangatiratanga meant ownership and then Maori suddenly became the new bourgeois. I’ve said it before: Maori politics doesn’t sit apart from the political spectrum, but below it. At least the political right doesn't pretend to be a false friend.

Maori political history isn't rich with choice. Telling us to wait for a more "progressive" candidate is deeply offensive. Maori have waited too long for too little. Shane was an opportunity and one many - including myself - were willing to back. He wasn’t perfect, but he was as close as we’ve come in more than a decade to the centre of power. Winston was the last Maori politician to come close to real power. It’s been a century since Maori actually touched it (Carroll as acting prime minister). Forgive us for working with what we have.

Shane was always good to me. I don’t base my politics on how well politicians treat me, but I believe he was a good man with honest intentions. That’s more than I can say for a lot of politicians I’ve met. I wish Shane all the best. But I’m mourning what he represented and what appears to be, for now, a loss of meaning in Maori politics. Who carries the tohu of the likes of Carroll now? Is that political line broken? After all, Parekura has gone. Tariana is leaving. But who is coming through?    

Wrong questions, wrong answers: the rot in the Kohanga Reo

Who's the Kohanga serving? h/t Te Ara.

And the unfortunate becomes the farcical:

The Serious Fraud Office has been asked to investigate allegations of misspending by the commercial arm of kohanga reo, less than 25 hours after Education Minister Hekia Parata put her credibility on the line by promising taxpayers there had been no impropriety.

 

In a humiliating U-turn yesterday, Parata and Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples announced the SFO had been asked to investigate after a trustee from the Kohanga Reo National Trust passed on "fresh allegations" of misspending involving subsidiary Te Pataka Ohanga (TPO). 

 

The development followed a shambolic press conference late on Tuesday evening in which Parata said she was satisfied no public money had been spent inappropriately, despite allegations that TPO general manager Lynda Tawhiwhirangi used her work credit card to buy a wedding dress, an $800 Trelise Cooper dress, a 21st birthday gift, and make a $1000 cash withdrawal as koha for a tangi she did not attend

What makes the issue more bizarre is that EY wasn’t instructed or empowered to investigate the original claims. The Dominion Post details some of the claims in the paragraph above, but others were omitted. For example, why did Te Pataka Ohanga give low interest loans to Kohanga Reo board members?

 

 Parata and Sharples insisted that the Kohanga Reo National Trust purchases services from Te Pataka Ohanga – a subsidiary of the trust. The argument goes something like this: the relationship between the trust and its subsidiary is private and cannot warrant public scrutiny. But that reasoning is artificial. 

 

The trust and their supporters can create academic distinctions, but it doesn’t change the nature of the trust and its operations. The trust might fall outside of the core public service, but it’s performing a public function. Public organisations must be subject to public scrutiny. 

 

That seems obvious and it leads to a series of questions:

 

• Why was EY not permitted to investigate the original claims? When the story broke the Prime Minister offered assurances that if there was “inappropriate behaviour” then persons concerned would “have the book thrown at them”. The review appeared to sidestep the “inappropriate behaviour” and “the book” seems to be a referral. The Auditor-General was probably the better investigator; 
• Also, what new information prompted the referral to the Serious Fraud Office and the Department of Internal Affairs? It seems more likely that the Prime Minister’s office prompted the referral. The issue threatened coverage of Key’s trip to China and might’ve damaged the government’s credibility. There’s no reason for a National government to die in a ditch over a Maori organisation; 
• Lastly, what’s Parata and Sharples connection to board members? It could be their personal relationships that lead them to protect the board. If you pick apart the fabric of Maori society you'll find important seams that connect and overlap.  

 

The behaviour of the board and its subsidiary has been dreadful. Perhaps it’s the predictable effect of lifetime appointments. But I think it goes deeper. There’s a rot in Maori governance. From poor governance at Maori TV to the Kohanga Reo board, Maori aren’t being served. 

 

Would a rational and skilled board re-attempt to appoint Paora Maxwell after the staff revolt? Clearly the board didn’t consider rudimentary factors like workplace culture and staff satisfaction. Would a rational and skilled board sanction a $50,000 koha to a board member? That’s more than triple the median income for Maori. I’ll tell you what kind of board would – one that isn't fit for the job.

 

The cycles of Maori politics

I’m going to make the call: all things remaining the same, the incumbents in the Maori electorates will retain their seats. Here’s how it’s looking.

Te Tai Tokerau

Labour: Kelvin Davis

Mana: Hone Harawira

Tamaki Makaurau

Labour: Shane Taurima (probably)

Mana: tbc.

Maori Party: possible candidates include Bronwyn Yates, George Ngatai, Te Hira Paenga and Tūnuiarangi McLean. The selection hui is scheduled in May.

Hauraki-Waikato

Labour: Nanaia Mahuta

Waiariki

Labour: the candidates are Katie Paul, Ryan Te Wara and Rawiri Waititi.

Mana: tbc (at the AGM I believe between 11-13 April)

Maori Party: Te Ururoa Flavell

Te Tai Hauauru

Greens: Jack Tautokai McDonald

Labour: Adrian Rurawhe

Maori Party: Chris McKenzie

Ikaroa-Rawhiti

Labour: Meka Whaitiri

Mana: Te Hamua Nikora

Te Tai Tonga
 

Greens: Dora Langsbury
Labour: Rino Tirikatene

Labour has a clear run in Hauraki-Waikato and Te Tai Tonga. There are few - if any - viable challengers. Mana and the Maori Party have missed the window of opportunity and it seems that Tamaki will fall Labour's way while Ikaroa looks increasingly safe. Te Ururoa and Hone appear safe too. Te Tai Hauauru is the great uncertainty.

Labour, Mana and the Maori Party can't hope to run viable campaigns in the seats they haven't selected candidates in. The election is six months away and the window of opportunity has passed. At this point, any campaign against the incumbent is nominal. Maori politics is relationship based and its difficult to build a political relationship with the electorate with only six months on the clock. That's leaving aside the other, more practical issues, like campaign personnel and strategy.

But the bigger picture is important too: conflict characterised the last decade in Maori politics. Think of Closing the Gaps, Orewa and the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The cruel irony is that the Maori Party has resolved much of that conflict - Whanau Ora has replaced Closing the Gaps, National has abandoned its Maori bashing tactics and the Foreshore and Seabed Act has been repealed and replaced - yet Labour will be the beneficiary.

That's terribly unfair. But while stability returns to Maori politics, the Maori electorates appear to be reverting to type: Labour-led. Maori politics runs through cycles of uncertainty. When uncertainty and instability arises the Maori electorates turn against Labour. It almost happened with Matiu Rata while it actually happened in the 90s with New Zealand First and the 2000s with the Maori Party. The Young Maori Party was born amidst uncertainty and low confidence among Maori, but when certainty and confidence returned Labour and Ratana swept the Maori seats.

There was a window of opportunity when Mana and the Maori Party might have challenged that cycle. But I think that window has passed. The best they can hope to do is retain what they have.
 

"Property rights for some are property rights for none"

Writing about anti-Maori propaganda is exhausting. It’s not exhausting in the sense that it’s back breaking work; rather it’s intellectually – and, more importantly, emotionally - draining. I’m often writing against stereotypes that have been a century in the making. Stereotypes that are encoded in New Zealand’s colonial memory. Consider this from the Herald:

Iwi's right to stall consents raises fears 

New rule for work on cultural and heritage sites introduces process `based on race'. 

A new rule requiring homeowners and businesses to seek iwi approval to work on sites of cultural and heritage value to Maori is set to be debated by councillors today. 

Groups and politicians across the political spectrum are concerned the rule creates a dual resource consent process - one conducted by Auckland Council and the other by Maori. 

Under the council's draft Unitary Plan, applications to carry out work on 3600 sites of "value to mana whenua" must obtain a "cultural impact assessment" from one or more of 19 iwi groups. 

If iwi do not agree, applicants must apply to the council for a resource consent. 

Waitemata councillor Mike Lee said the rule is likely to mean extra costs for people and create a parallel regulatory framework based on race. 

Employers and Manufacturers chief executive Kim Campbell shares Mr Lee's view that it could lead to an unacceptable dual resource consent process. 

"As it stands, the proposed Unitary Plan's cultural impact assessments would add uncertainty, cost and time delays to the issuing of resource consents," Mr Campbell said.

Note the framing in the headline: iwi’s right to “stall” rather than iwi’s right to be consulted. In the opening sentence the mandatory quote - “based on race” – is included. But then, as a measure of insulation against accusations of scaremongering or racism, the story shifts to an issue of “process” and “cost”. These are the rhetorical parachutes I’ve written about before.

But the story is about neither process nor cost. This is about property rights. Iwi haven’t gained the right to stall development – they’ve regained a small measure of the property rights they lost to force and intrigue. This is a contest of property rights. The story doesn’t acknowledge the iwi property right – the right to a small measure of pluralism over sites of significance – but it acknowledges the title holder’s – read Pakeha’s - right to develop with no impediments.

Title holders retain the ordinary property rights, but where sites of significance are involved the ordinary property rights are subject to iwi consultation. In principle the iwi right works like a conservation easement. Except iwi don’t have the power to veto. It’s an ordinary consultation right. David Taipari gives a different example:

David Taipari, chairman of the council's Independent Maori Statutory Board, said the rule was no different from those protecting built heritage, saying it was important that people did not destroy or affect archeological or sites of significance to mana whenua.

And he’s right. But also note that this single paragraph is the only attempt at balance. The result is obvious: the title holder’s right to develop is framed as the important right while the iwi right to conserve is not framed as property right, but some sort of unearned privilege. But this isn’t a case of the council or the government creating new rights for iwi. The council is recognising a small right that has always existed.

If this story was framed as a contest of property rights it wouldn’t be as sexy. It's not even a case of race. These are sites significant to New Zealand, surely. The stereotype of iwi winning special rights is deeply embedded. Some people go off about it without thinking (it’s a reflex action). Others have more sinister motives (to sell papers, maybe). I don’t care. Maybe it’ll be less exhausting if I care less?

Shane Taurima: political neophyte?

Patrick Gower has thrown a rat among the kiwi eggs:

3 News can reveal state broadcaster TVNZ is being used as a campaign base by Labour Party activists. 

They've even held a meeting in TVNZ's Maori and Pacific Unit aimed at fundraising for Labour. 

The unit's manager, Shane Taurima, has held ambitions to become a Labour MP and his staff have been arranging Labour Party business, using TVNZ facilities like email.
Mr Taurima has resigned following the revelation.

How did several experienced journalists miss the headlines they were creating? The use of TVNZ facilities was minor, but it should have created doubts. The stench of a story should have suffocated every journalist in the meeting room.

I stand by the claim that the use was relatively minor. But the political ineptitude isn’t. There’s a story on two levels: principled and practical. Is it ethical to remain party political while maintaining editorial control at a public broadcaster? On a practical level, does the issue speak to poor political judgement?

I think Shane checked his views at the door. His work confirms that. But perceptions demanded he resign. How could he remain objective?

Well, he remained balanced. Objectivity was a red herring. Journalism demands balance. The myth of objectivity was only a self-serving political attack. Shane didn’t sacrifice his professional skills or values. But the perception that he was tainted – a perception that’s given substance in the latest story – ran too deep.

Shane didn’t make the rod for his own back in front of the camera or in the control room - he made it in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti selection. When he revealed his political ambitions – and social democratic inclinations – he drew a target on his head. In hindsight he should have resigned permanently the moment he announced his candidacy. On a practical level he could have and did remain – I don’t think anyone can question his professionalism – but on a political level the decision to remain was stupid. Does this cast doubt on his suitability as a political candidate?

Post script: Shane has released a gracious media statement explaining his resignation. 

Kaupapa Maori politics: a definition

The tino rangatiratanga flag: the symbol of kaupapa Maori politics?

It’s election year. Expect to regularly encounter politicians who represent “kaupapa Maori politics”. But don’t expect a definition. No one – or no one I’m aware of - has bothered to properly explain what kaupapa Maori politics means. The definition has always been intuitive and subjective. Maybe that's why it's used only as a rhetorical tool when it should be used as an ideological claim too.

Kaupapa Maori research is well defined. But kaupapa Maori politics isn't. My take is this: kaupapa Maori politics provides a Maori account of power-relations – one underpinned by the Treaty partnership; a Maori account of the desired future - one where bicultural and multicultural pluralism is valued through mana motuhake (self-governance); and a Maori account of how politics should work – through consensus politics as exemplified in the Maori Party’s constitution.

We also know some of the governing principles - for example kotahitanga - some of the doctrines - think integration of Maori into New Zealand power structures and integration of Maori values into public policy - and some of the symbols - for example the tino rangatiratanga flag.

That’s a wordy and passive definition. It's also quite unclear and underdeveloped. I’d welcome others who have a different take or can build on what I've written to comment below. It might be useful to hammer this out before the election season proper. Kaupapa Maori politics shouldn’t be an empty rhetorical tool. It should be an ideological claim.

Myths of nationhood: why I'm not "celebrating" Waitangi Day

Behold, Waitangi Day Bingo:

h/t @ColeyTangerina and @Megapope

Bingo is a witty critique of Waitangi Day clichés, but it’s also something more: this is the geography of Pakeha myth-making. Each box is a false political claim. Prepare to hear each claim repeatedly and under the worn robe of “debate”.

Waitangi Day angst isn’t new. Respected columnists will declare the day “broke”, less-respected columnists might announce it’s “a day of lies” while others will broadcast accusations of reverse racism. But most will plea for unity. Yet navigate the calls for unity with caution. Underneath the plea is a denial – Maori have no right to protest their lot. This is the movement to rebrand Waitangi Day.

In 1973 the third Labour government introduced the New Zealand Day Act. Although Waitangi Day had always been acknowledged, that acknowledgment wasn't codified in a public holiday. New Zealand Day – a misnomer – was intended to become the foundation of national identity. A splendid celebration of nationhood.

Except it wasn’t. There could never be unity without equality. The betrayal of the Treaty went too deep, and the collateral effects of Treaty breaches went too far, for Maori to accept a celebration of nationhood that didn’t exist. In 1973 Nga Tamatoa occupied Waitangi with black armbands. They declared the day one of mourning for the broken promises of the Treaty including the loss of millions of hectares of Maori land.

In later years protestors stormed the grounds. Tame Iti spat at a Prime Minister. Titewhai Harawira reduced another Prime Minister to a shaking wreck. An aspiring Prime Minister ate mud. The Popata brothers had a go at the current Prime Minister. It’s easy to argue that Waitangi Day represents “grievance”. But it’s more than that. Waitangi Day is the nexus between the national story and Maori realities.

Two world views collide: the spirit of activism and the fist of oppression.

For more than a century Pakeha society had a monopoly on the national story: the Treaty was a rat-eaten relic, Maori were destined to assimilate and New Zealand had the best race relations in the world. Waitangi Day was a celebration of New Zealand exceptionalism rather than an acknowledgement of broken promises.

But the Waitangi Day of Pakeha imaginations isn’t real. Waitangi Day is where Maori pushback against the myths that society clings to: the Treaty is a living document, Maori retain their identity and New Zealand has poor race relations. The health, wealth and education gaps exist and they exist off the back of the broken promises of the Treaty. Waitangi Day is where Maori can reveal New Zealand's separate realities.

But the movement to rebrand Waitangi Day won’t acknowledge that. It’s easier to switch the conversation than acknowledge that one group is dominant over the other. This is the new assimilation – the battle for history and contemporary meaning. There is a regular plea to make Waitangi Day “our” day. The layers of meaning are clear: Waitangi Day belongs to monocultural nationhood, not multicultural pluralism. Sit down or shut up. That disrespects Maori realities. But it also misunderstands the Treaty itself: the Treaty didn't create New Zealand - that came later - the Treaty created a bicultural relationship.

I'm not going to celebrate the birth of a nation or protest the failed promise of that nation. I'll quietly honour the legacy of resistance and those who are getting it done. I'll acknowledge that colonisation isn’t a distant tragedy, but an on-going process. Maori know it because they experience it. Pakeha might not, but that’s no excuse to deny Maori their agency on Waitangi Day. Myths have many authors, but reality can expose them. That’s what Waitangi Day is about most of all.

Why I am standing for Te Tai Hauāuru - Jack McDonald

Ko Taranaki te Maunga
Ko Taranaki te Tangata
Ko Taranaki te Iwi
Ko te puna i heke mai ai te tangata
E kore e pau te ika unahi nui

The threads of my whakapapa from across the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate weave together to bind my identity – my Māoritanga. A product of Te Tai Hauāuru, I am ready to stand up for our whānau and our whenua. I am ready to provide a new generation of political leadership.

I pay tribute to Whaea Tariana Turia, who has served our electorate with a power and distinction that is rarely seen in the political world. She has been our MP for 12 years, and has for that time been at the forefront of the fight for mana motuhake and has set a benchmark for Māori political representation in Parliament.

No one can replace Whaea Tariana's leadership, but her retirement offers Te Tai Hauāuru a rare opportunity; the opportunity to force a generational shift in our leadership and to chart a distinct course based on new ideas and a fresh outlook.

While attending the Rātana celebrations on the 24th of January I announced that I will be seeking the Green Party candidacy for Te Tai Hauāuru and standing for the Greens’ list.

~

As an uri of Taranaki Iwi and Te Āti Awa, many of my tupuna embarked on the heke that travelled from one end of the electorate to the other; from Taranaki maunga to the coastlines of Kāpiti and Mana. I have lived all my life in the small coastal town of Paekākāriki and I currently serve my community as the Chair of our Community Board and as our representative at the Kāpiti Coast council table.

Green representatives at Rātana Pā 2014

I stood in this electorate for the Greens in the 2011 general elections. It was the first time the Greens had stood a candidate in this electorate, so I had some very clear objectives in mind; spreading the Green kaupapa across the rohe and strengthening the position of the Greens in Māori communities. We were successful in our objectives; tripling the Greens party vote in Te Tai Hauāuru and securing third place in the electorate vote.

I have always believed that the Greens' values are remarkably similar to our values as Māori. And because a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a core part of our party's charter, the Greens are the strongest and most principled advocates in Parliament for honouring Te Tiriti and building a strong Treaty partnership.

~

It’s never been more important that we have strong Green representation in Te Tai Hauāuru. With both National and Labour supporting risky deep sea oil drilling off the Taranaki coast, it’s vital we send a message that we can’t risk destroying the environment which sustains our economy and our well-being. I stand in solidarity with hapū, iwi and community groups that are standing up to the drilling interests.

The extractive industries produce few jobs, while our two biggest industries, primary production and tourism, both rely on our clean, green brand. We also know that continued reliance on a fossil-fuel based economy will lead to increased carbon emissions and a more unstable climate.

There is an unique opportunity for iwi heading into the post-settlement era to be at the forefront of innovation and the transition to a sustainable economy. Greens propose a fairer Treaty settlement process, support for Māori small business and a massive investment in research and development and clean energy.

A strong Green Party will be able to hold both major parties to account. We have proven that we can make change from across Parliament, without compromising our values and our convictions. A party vote for the Greens will ensure there is a social and environmental conscience at the heart of a new progressive government.

The pot calling the kettle brown: why Winston Peters can't talk about "separatism"

Winston’s up to his old tricks:

Mr Peters, speaking at Ratana Pa, says his party would never support "separatist" Maori Party policies such as having separate Maori units in prison, the separate Maori social welfare system Whanau Ora and the Tino Rangatiratanga Flag.

"What Maori need is housing, decent healthcare, decent education system and first world jobs and wages," Mr Peters says. 

"The Maori Party has abandoned that for sociological objectives which are of no interest to Maoridom at all.
"Apartheid policies are based on racial preference. This is, too."

Winston likes to rewrite his own history. It wasn’t that long ago that Winston held the office of the Minister of Maori Affairs. And it wasn’t that long ago that New Zealand First held the five Maori seats. Winston grumbles about separatism, except when it suits Winston.

It might seem counterintuitive, but in 1991 - the year Winston was sacked as Minister of Maori Affairs - “busloads” of Maori arrived in Wellington to protest the move. Odd, you might think, for a person who opposes Maori policy. Except it isn’t.

There’s rhetoric and reality: there is the party leader who argues that “hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are to be siphoned off social services for the race-based Whanau Ora programme”. And then there’s the Minister of Maori Affairs who commissioned the Ka Awatea report, created the foundations of Te Puni Kokiri and – a few years later - contested the Maori seats. The pot is calling the kettle brown.

When Winston debates race he’s making an unstated political claim. His opposition to whanau ora is less to do with race and more to with his opposition to devolution. In the early 1990s Winston aggressively opposed the New Public Management model (NPMM). The Ka Awatea report he presided over was, essentially, a broadside against the NPMM and the fragmentation of the state it created. The report argued Maori interests are best served under a centralised agency combining policy and operational functions. But that advice went against the trends in public sector management and society.

Whanau ora is part of that trend. Winston is trying to make up lost ground. He may have won one battle – over the nature of Te Puni Kokiri – but he lost the war. He’s fighting the battles of the 80s and 90s with Victoria racial rhetoric. Even if it means forgetting his own history.

Winston’s comments overshadowed the real issues at Rātana

It’s a real shame that Winston Peters decided to launch his latest dog-whistle attack while waiting to be welcomed on to Rātana Pā on Friday. As was predictable, his comments became the major story of the day in the media, and they distracted from the very real kaupapa that were raised by the Rātana people themselves as politicians came to honour the birthday of the prophet Tahupotiki Wiremu Rātana. 

Te Temepara Tapu, Rātana Pā

For those who were lucky enough not to hear Winston’s comments, he essentially referred to the Māori Party’s policy gains in Government as “apartheid”. Supposedly, flying the Tino Rangatiratanga flag on Auckland Harbour Bridge, whānau ora, and separate Māori prison units are all apartheid policies. 

For Winston, this is all about electioneering. He is playing to his core constituency with these dog-whistle tactics. The desperate tone of his comments reveal a politician of a by-gone era trying to stay relevant. 

The comments were inappropriate given where he was speaking – one of T.W Rātana’s primary goals was the just restitution of Te Tiriti of Waitangi, a goal which he essentially disparaged with his attack on the Māori Party. They were also hugely inappropriate considering how recently Nelson Mandela passed away, a leader of the liberation movement that broke the stranglehold of real apartheid - a brutal, racist and completely inhumane regime. To compare that with the Māori Party's policies is extremely offensive.

I had the privilege of listening to and contributing to the kōrero on the paepae that day. We were informed by te iwi mōrehu (followers of the Rātana faith), of the realities of the day-to-day lives of their people. They implored political parties to work together for the benefit of the Māori people. Their key proposals were for a strong regional development strategy, investment in reducing youth unemployment, warm dry housing and an inclusive education system that equips tamariki and rangatahi with skills required for the jobs of the 21st Century. 

These are the issues that should have been debated in the media, and the issues political leaders should have been asked for comment on. But no, Winston’s strategy of grabbing the media attention with hyperbole worked for him – as it always does.

Kōtahitanga and the Labour-Green relationship 

The Labour and Green parties were welcomed on to the marae together – as has been the case for the last several years. Labour had a large delegation of MPs and candidates and the Greens were represented by co-leader Metiria Turei, Māori Green MPs Denise Roche and David Clendon, and candidates Marama Davidson and myself (Jack McDonald). 

Labour the Greens being welcomed on to Rātana

One thing that was very apparent was the health of the Lab-Green relationship; both parties work well together and are driven by many of the same core values, both are committed to raising the living standards of Māori, and working in collaboration for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 

Māori expect the parties of the Left to work together and embrace kōtahitanga. To honour Te Tiriti and eliminate poverty, we must change the government. Neither Labour nor the Greens can do that without the other. It's imperative that these parties look and act like a government-in-waiting, ready to get stuck in and work together so they can hit the ground running in the first 100 days of a new progressive government.

Of course the parties have their differences, some substantial, and the debate over risky deep sea oil drilling is a timely reminder of that. That is the nature of MMP and those differences can be thrashed out in post-election negotiations. 

At the end of the day, both Labour and the Greens need to listen to the teachings of T.W Rātana, who always stressed kōtahitanga and unity. Nothing less will improve the lives of those who need us most; the vulnerable, the disillusioned and marginalised in our society.

Post by Jack McDonald

Contracts, consultants and public service cuts

Brendan Horan has revealed a budget
blowout at TPK

This was lost in the Christmas season. From Scoop:

Brendan Horan is concerned that Te Puni Kokiri is massively overspending on contractors and consultants while at the same time lacking the staff to have the capacity to deliver on its core mission. 

“Te Puni Kokori spent over $9.5 million on consultants and contractors in the last financial year. Over 130 businesses, organisations and individuals benefitted from this largesse, holding contracts with a value of nearly $18 million,” said Brendan Horan. 

“At the same time, Te Puni Kokiri’s staff numbers are 15.3% below the minimum needed to deliver the services that are required of them. This is unacceptable at a time when Maori are at the wrong end of the scale in education, in employment, and in achievement.

Every government department contracts for external services. But $9.5 million is excessive. That represents 16% of Te Puni Kokiri's total budget and 28% of its total personnel budget. In 2012 only $4.7 million was allocated to Te Puni Kokiri for "consultant's fees".

Michelle Hippolite, the CEO, explained to RNZ that she thinks Te Puni Kokiri "has the appropriate mix of staff and consultants" while officials told the Maori Affairs Select Committee that the consultant blowout was a result of "holding off from filling 56 jobs while a review of the department was carried out".

I'm not convinced that it's appropriate to leave 56 positions in limbo in any department, least of all a department that provides important administrative services and policy functions to several ministers, gives inter-agency advice and manages a number regional offices. Issues like Whanau Ora and the government's response to Wai 262 have also led to a significant increase in workload. 

Te Puni Kokiri's wanton outsourcing compromises efficiency and strategic capabilities. Existing and former staff have always been dedicated to Maori - and they've always done a good job - but management (appears) to be dragging the chain. Words like "efficiency" and "strategic capabilities" are derisory buzzwords, but they do affect Maori at the end of the line. An inefficient bureaucracy affects the services Maori receive. From Marae development to the Maori potential fund. Whanau Ora to Maori wardens. Why did we let this story escape our attention? 

Calling the horse race

In the Te Tai Tokerau byelection many pundits predicted
that Hone would lose the seat. They were wrong. They
misunderstood the logic of Maori politics.

In the latter end of last year I tried to avoid political writing. I wanted to focus on issues like race and ethnicity. But that'll change. It's an election year. Expect this blog to revert to horse-race politics more often. But before that, some scene setting for 2014.

****

When following Maori politics, remember that Maori maintain a separate polity. Although the Maori seats are part of Parliament, they've been integrated rather than assimilated.  There's structural overlap with New Zealand politics - Maori politics is practised within New Zealand politics - but there's little intellectual overlap. The logic of Maori politics is different.

DPF captures the contrast well in his post on the electorate debate between Derek Fox and Parekura Horomia:

Derek (the) Fox is an accomplished politician and speaker. He got up and flayed Labour’s record, and Parekura’s record. It was a brutal devastating indictment of their time in office. 

The response from Parekura was a real contrast. He spent probably most of his speech greeting the various audience members by name, citing their children, what schools they are at, what he had done for those schools or communities and just connected to the audience is a very real way. Finally he declared that not only were post of the audience part of his extended whanau, even Derek was his cousin and he loved his cousin even when he was trying to take the seat off him and that Derek was a good man. 

Parekura was the winner of the debate, and of the election. It was a good reminder that politics is about more than just policies and politics, but can be very much about people at the individual level, not as abstract statistics.

Parekura understood that Maori politics is (literally, culturally and spiritually) relationship-based. That's not to say Maori politics can't think beyond its relationships, rather the practise of Maori politics is particularised.

The art of Maori politics reflects the importance of its intellectual foundations: ideas like rangatiratanga, mana whenua, mana moana, whakapapa, kanohi kitea, ahi kaa and so on. Each idea is relationship based - for example mana whenua is about the local relationship with the land - and each idea manifests itself differently from hapu to hapu, iwi to iwi and locality to locality. For that reason, it's difficult to universalise Maori politics.

Compare that against New Zealand politics. National politics is exercised on another level. It's party-led and state-focused. Maori politics isn't. All politics is issues-based - the economy, the environment and so on - but New Zealand politics doesn't come with the explicit overlay of particularised cultural concepts. The New Zealand political tendency (and the Western tendency, see colonisation and globalisation) is to universalise its values and experiences.

The difference is most obvious in Maori voting patterns. The Maori electorates vote overwhelmingly left-wing. Certainly at a rate that exceeds the proportion of those on the general role who vote left. The left has succeeded in integrating its values with Maori values. That's not to say that Maori values are left values, rather the left has done and continues to do a better job at articulating and exploiting common ground (particularising).

The art of relationship politics is more refined on the the left. Take Michael Joseph Savage and T.W Ratana. They recognised the power of relationship politics in Maori society and Labour enjoyed the benefits of that alliance for decades.

So when following Maori politics remember that when calling the horse race it's important to adopt the right frame of analysis. The logic of Maori politics is different. Parties and candidates that particularise and integrate with Maori concepts will be more successful.

Post script: this is something of a cultural analysis. A class analysis of Maori politics and Maori support for the left is also appropriate. I don't claim that there's an objective truth to the character of Maori politics. There are different perspectives and mine is one. 

Winning in Te Tai Hauauru

The Maori Party has revealed that six candidates will contest the nomination for Te Tai Hauauru. From the party website:

Hundreds of Maori Party members from throughout the electorate gathered at Whangaehu Marae south of Whanganui yesterday to hear from the six nominees and cast their vote... The nominees are: 

• Frana Chase; 

• Rahui Katene; 

• James Makowharemahihi; 

• Christopher McKenzie; 

• Amokura Panoho; 

• Pakake Winiata.

With the exception of Rahui Katene, these aren't big names. Or put it this way: there isn't a Julian Wilcox. But the party doesn't need a name candidate. Tariana Turia's endorsement and support could be enough to keep the electorate in Maori Party hands. It'd be reckless - and more than unfair - to underestimate the respect and support Tariana has earnt and enjoys. Ken Mair makes an important point, though - "we aren’t looking for a candidate to fill Tariana’s shoes. We are looking for a candidate to carve a new path".

The Maori Party needs to rebuild its identity. The Maori renaissance is over and the post-settlement era is beginning. Tariana and Pita Sharples were - and to some extent still are - central figures from the Maori renaissance. New hands are needed to redevelop what a Maori party looks like in 2013. Being loosely pro-Maori doesn't cut it when three other parties can credibly claim the same rationale (Greens, Labour, Mana).

There's increasing political choice in the Maori electorates. Labour's monopoly is over and the two-way battles of 2005 and 2008 were short lived. Four parties can credibly claim that they're contenders. In an environment where each seat is contested vigorously the Maori Party needs to have something more. New blood is better positioned to redefine the contract between the Maori Party and Maori society than the old hands. That's why the decision in Te Tai Hauauru might be the most important decision the party makes. Good luck to them.

It's time to talk about colour: why we have to reject labels like 'white Maori'

Manuera Benjamin Riwai Couch: a former All Black, Minister of Maori Affairs
and the first Maori after the abolition of the half-caste rule to win a "European"
(now called general) electorate. Couch is perhaps the father of the ideologies about
Maori development that run through National's Maori MPs. HT Te Ara.

We hardly talk about skin tone. That’s not because we live in a post-racial society, but because our identity as Maori is grounded in whakapapa. Aesthetics don’t define Maori-ness.

But that doesn’t mean colourism is a non-issue. The reverse is true. Colourism is encoded in our colonial memory and the heady hangover remains.

In New Zealand “half-castes” were privileged over “full-blooded” Maori. But the division between full-bloods and half-castes – or dark skins and lighter skins - wasn’t unique to New Zealand. We inherited it.

In the early days of colonialism Britain would divide its slave labour according to skin tones. In the fields of the American South slave owners would privilege light skinned slaves over dark skinned slaves. In South Africa the difference in skin tone (and other features) determined whether a person was black or coloured. Blacks had to carry dompas, coloureds didn’t. In Australia the Half-Caste Act gave states the power to remove “half-caste” children from Aboriginal care and assimilate them into white society.

Early commentary on half-caste Maori cast them in a positive light. Josiah Firth, an early New Zealand farmer, went as far as to celebrate half-castes. He wrote:

“The Half-Castes of New Zealand are in general a fine type of men and women… They are of fine physique, the women being often very handsome…” 

“I have employed Maori half-castes as stockmen, boatmen, and one, as Captain of a river steamer, and I never had better servants”.

But the full blooded or the dark skinned Maori was a paradox. Writing in the early 1900s a perplexed Professor John Brown tried to get his head around Polynesian beauty standards that didn’t value whiteness:

“The finest type of European faces might… find their match in these islands of the Pacific, [but] these were not the most admired by the dusky races, just as the fair skin that sometimes appears amongst them was not admired”.

In an effort to try and explain why Polynesians beauty standards favoured dark skin and “flat noses” Brown argued that it was a result of conquer and intermarriage by and with Melanians who were “negroid” in appearance.

From the early days of settlement and into the 20th century New Zealand society has tried to classify and understand Maori according to skin colour, blood quantum and – but to a lesser extent – cultural practice (i.e. assimilation). But the most telling factor in whether a Maori was half-caste or, well, just a Maori depended on whiteness.

I hope it’s obvious why this matters: skin tone was and is loaded with social and political assumptions. Today there’s a difference between being labelled a “white Maori” and just “Maori”. They’re categories based on appearance, but the first category carries an unearned privilege over the second. Whiteness means full integration and acceptance. Just being Maori implies browness. There are a set of assumptions attached to being brown. Think of the warrior gene.

In a Euro-centric society whiteness can be monetised. Overseas research has indicated that a relationship exists between skin tone (colourism) and upward mobility. A Brazilian study found that people with lighter skin and mixed ancestry have higher rates of social mobility. Anecdotally, the same could be said about New Zealand. Skin tone can have a tangible effect.

Rejecting this is hard. But it starts with self-identification: owning our own identity and using whakapapa as the true measure of identity. What’s external isn’t important when whakapapa is adopted as the only measure of identity. If we can cut ties with labels like half-caste, white Maori, plastic Maori and the others, then we’re half way there.

But rejecting the assumptions that come with being, say, outwardly white is more difficult. The social assumptions attached to being coloured remain. Every Maori who can pass as white has witnessed the racism that seeps through when people think they’re in safe company. Changing that requires a cultural shift. But that comes later. The first step is for us to reject classifications based on appearance and embrace whakapapa as the true and only measure of identity. Other measures minimise people's identity as Maori. Once we get over the hang over from colour in the 19th and 20th century, then we can take on the rest of society.

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.

The iwi power rankings: who are the most powerful iwi in 2013?

Pita Sharples and Ngai Tahu members with reprsentatives
 from the China Development Bank

Pita Sharples claims that the Maori economy is worth $37b. BERL calls the Maori economy a “sleeping giant”. Jamie Tuuta characterises the Maori economy as a “developing economy within a developed economy”. What does it all mean? It means that the Maori economy is a synonym for Maori power.

The Maori economy can’t be separated from a discussion on iwi power. But power is more than that: it’s cultural, political and it might be esoteric. I’ve adopted a fluid definition. Iwi power is measured against three factors: cultural power, economic power and political power. Each ground is subjective – I might value profitability over asset value while another person might reverse that – but I’ve tried to apply each consideration consistently.

The Breakdown

That Ngai Tahu topped the rankings will surprise no one. In the year to June 30 2012 the tribe enjoyed a net profit of 95.7m. In the year to June 30 2013 the tribe declared a net profit of 77.9m. Ngai Tahu Holdings Corporation owns assets worth almost $1b.

But Waikato-Tainui can claim similar numbers. Ngai Tahu emerged at the top on the strength of two factors: its stability and support for its members. Ngai Tahu isn’t burdened with cumbersome governance structures nor plagued with internal warfare. Parts of Ngai Tahu Holding’s profit will be spent on funding a superannuation scheme with 18,000 iwi members. Waikato-Tainui is behind the ball on these counts.

But others made the list for different reasons. Ngati Porou only recently settled, but they exercise a disproportionate pull on Maori politics. The highest ranked Maori minister in Cabinet – Hekia Parata – is from Ngati Porou. The highest ranked Maori minister in the last Cabinet – Parekura Horomia – was Ngati Porou. Some of Maori society’s most celebrated politicians – think of Ngata – were Ngati Porou.

Te Arawa isn’t the wealthiest iwi, but Rotorua is the centre of Maori culture. Thousands of tourists pass through Mitai, Te Puia, Tamaki and Whakarewarewa. They experience a few aspects of Maori culture, but it’s Maori culture presented through Te Arawatanga. Don’t underestimate the power of that.

Nga Puhi is the largest iwi. And here’s an interesting fact: the Maori mythology that’s presented in society often reflects Nga Puhi mythology. When Mataku - the drama series – dealt with Maori death the show used the Nga Puhi perspective that spirits depart from Te Rerenga Wairua. In Struggle Without End Ranginui Walker (despite being Whakatohea) uses Nga Puhi traditions to pin point the location of Hawaiki. Nga Puhi’s conception of the Maori world has a disproportionate influence on how we see ourselves and how others perceive us.

The Rankings

List of iwi

      1. Ngai Tahu

One of the headlines of the year goes to the Christchurch Press for this effort: The Wisdom of (Mark) Solomon. Make that Sir Mark Solomon.

Ngai Tahu sits on the Land and Water Forum. The Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority is obligated to consult local and regional council and Ngai Tahu. The government is also paying out what’s owed under Ngai Tahu’s relativity clause. Solomon has been critical in each respect.

Ngai Tahu is strategic. It helps having the capital and labour (in the form of young Ngai Tahu tradies) that the government needs for the Christchurch rebuild, but Ngai Tahu knows better than any how to put its economic leverage to work.

Ngai Tahu also secured the hosting rights to the next Te Matatini Festival. It might seem insignificant, but Te Matatini is Maori Society’s equivalent to the Rugby World Cup.

Ngai Tahu’s influence reaches across South Island: from aquaculture in Southland, farms in Kaikoura, tourism in Queenstown and property in Christchurch. There’s only one other iwi with such widespread economic influence…

      2. Waikato-Tainui

On July 3 Waikato-Tainui announced its annual result at The Base – the iwi’s $99m mall at Te Rapa. Waikato-Tainui is on track to become the most important component of the Waikato economy.

Ngai Tahu tends to go it alone. Waikato-Tainui hasn’t. In the last decade Waikato-Tainui has developed strategic partnerships with Accor Hotels, Auckland International Airport and several other companies. Those partnerships allowed Waikato-Tainui to build the Novotel Hamilton and the Novotel Auckland Airport.

Partnerships are crucial to iwi development. Waikato-Tainui appears to recognise this better than most. Iwi can’t raise capital through share or bond offers. It’s also iwi policy to maintain a debt ceiling of 30% and retained earnings (the money that is retained by Tainui Group Holdings rather than distributed) are not as high as you'd immediately expect. That makes joint ventures crucial to financing iwi investments like the inland port at Ruakura.

But it’s that ambition – coupled with the notorious instability mentioned earlier – that puts Waikato-Tainui in 2nd place. Ambition could turn to overreach and internal instability could do the rest. The inland port and associated developments at Ruakura are estimated to cost $3.5b. The Herald reports that:

[Waikato-Tainui will] develop a massive commercial inland freight hub… 6000 to 12,000 jobs will be created, more than 2000 houses will be built and the Waikato area's GDP will increase by $4.4 billion.

$3.5b appears to be a cost that Waikato-Tainui’s balance sheet can’t bear. Ngai Tahu appears to be in a (comparatively speaking) more sustainable position. But I hope to be humiliated in 10 years’ time when the development is finished and it’s proven that Mike Pohio was right to say “don’t bet againt our ambition”.

      3. Ngati Porou 

Forget the economy for now. Ngati Porou is powerful for different reasons – cultural and political reasons.

Ihimaera's Whale Rider

Some of Maori society’s best are and were Ngati Porou. Best thinkers (Moana Jackson); best writers (Witi Ihimeara); best composers (Derek Lardelli); best speakers (Kāterina Mataira) and best politicians (Apirana Ngata).

Ngati Porou have had and still have a disproportionate sway over Maori society. 

When the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was passed Ngati Porou managed to negotiate a "comprehensive package of rights and protections" (with the help of two of their sons in Cabinet – Parekura Horomia and John Tamihere). No other iwi did so. In fact, it might not have crossed their minds. Ngati Porou can tap its talent in government to achieve the outcomes it needs. A rare thing. 

In the current government the highest ranked Maori minister is from Ngati Porou.

      4. Nga Puhi

122,000 Maori, or around one in five, identify as Nga Puhi. Nga Puhi is power in numbers.

For much of the 19th century the North was the home of British power. Nga Puhi hosted the first Christian Mission, Kororareka became the first European settlement and the Bay of Islands had become one of the most important ports in the country. Shrewd Nga Puhi leaders took advantage of that. But power has shifted south to Auckland and Wellington, but Nga Puhi retains a pull on Maori society and the national consciousness.

Enter Waitangi Day. Arguably, Nga Puhi has the power to determine the mood of the nation on our founding day. Will it be protest and a mood of indignation or peace and a mood of reconciliation? Nga Puhi has pedigree in the Maori renaissance too. Many of its former leaders and leading lights – for example Hone Tuwhare – and current leaders – Hone Harawira – are Nga Puhi. Nga Puhi is pervasive and through weight in numbers it manages to influence Maori society iwi more than most other iwi.

      5. Ngati Tuwharetoa

Geothermal power is New Zealand’s most reliable renewable energy source and Ngati Tuwharetoa controls most of New Zealand’s geothermal fields. (For clarity, Ngati Tuwharetoa doesn’t control the geothermal energy itself - there are various statutes which deal with that – but they own the land where many bores are located).

Ngati Tuwharetoa also plays an important role in the Kingitanga. Iwikau Te Heuheu, the paramount chief of Ngati Tuwharetoa at the time, was approached to take the Kingship. He declined. In theory, the Kingitanga could pass to Ngati Tuwharetoa. After all, the Te Heu Heu whanau still play an important role in Ngati Tuwharetoa, the Kingitanga and Maori society.

The iwi is also making inroads with tourism ventures in Taupo and they’ve engaged former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen as a Treaty negotiator. Shrewd. Having already settled in the Treelords settlement and the Sealords settlement, Ngati Tuwharetoa is poised to become one of Maori society’s most powerful iwi. They sit on strategic resources and they're set for a significant cash injection. I wouldn't bet against them.

Honourable Mentions: 

• Ngai Tuhoe
• Te Arawa
• Ngati Whatua o Orakei
• Ngati Kahungungu 

Where to now? 

If Waikato-Tainui call pull off their inland port at Ruakura they'll dominate the rankings for years to come. Ruakura will be a strategic resource. It's going to be at the mid-way point between Auckland and the Port of Tauranga (New Zealand's largest freight port), located on the Waikato Expressway, built on the East Coast Main Trunk Railway and close to Hamilton (which for some reason is one of New Zealand's fastest growing cities).

Ngai Tahu will remain solid. They're in a sustainable position and the Christchurch rebuild has presented incredible opportunities for iwi development (both financial development and development for whanau through job creation, papakainga housing and so on).

The most interesting movement will be among iwi like Te Arawa, Tuhoe and Ngati Whatua o Orakei. Tuhoe are soon to settle for $170m and are in an incredible position on self government issues. In that respect, Tuhoe will be a template for other iwi. Ngati Whatua o Orakei is in an interesting position too. Auckland is growing rapidly and Ngati Whatua o Orakei are asserting themselves as a central part in that development. Watch this space.

Is Tuhoe Mana Motuhake the next step?

Defining iwi - Iwi is a modern concept. For the most part, Maori society organised itself along hapu lines. But for ease of reference I’ve used iwi in its ordinary sense. But the term becomes problematic: for example Waikato-Tainui is a confederation. It’s made up of various iwi and those iwi are made up of various hapu. Iwi is the overlay. For the purposes of this post, iwi is used as synonymous with the settlement body (i.e. “the large natural grouping”).

This isn't a wholly serious exercise: don't get carried away with this or gutted with the analysis. This isn't a definitive list. It's more of a discussion. Feel free to add your opinions in the comments section. 

Disclaimer: I primarily identify with Ngati Awa and they didn't make it - there's no bias here.