Ikaroa-Rawhiti byelection coverage

Maori TV will be live streaming their coverage of the byelection from 7.00pm to 9.40pm. Follow the link.

Both Q+A (TV One) and The Nation (TV3) will cover the results on Sunday morning.

The Daily Blog is aiming to call the winner around 7.00pm. Follow their Twitter feed.

And lastly, I'll be following the results too. Follow my Twitter feed here. Depending on how hungover I am, I'll write preliminary analysis tomorrow. If not, I'll publish my full analysis on Monday at The Daily Blog.

Note: if you want to leave a comment, I won't publish it until after 7pm (to avoid breaking election rules).   

Native Affairs Review: Ikaroa-Rawhiti debate

In some ways it was a debate for the party hacks. The candidates stuck to their scripts. Marama strongly emphasised Green policies and principles - think sustainability and innovation – and didn’t shift further. Meka riffed off of her experience in iwi and the public service. Labour policy was light. Na stressed at the table narratives and Te Hamua relied on his street credibility. There was very little for the undecideds.

I'm not going to pick a winner, but here are some thoughts. 

Marama

She didn’t let herself get pushed over. There was a tussle (with Mihi) over whether or not sustainable jobs are realistic, but Marama held her ground. I wasn’t entirely convinced, but Marama didn’t concede an inch.

On other issues, though, Marama scored clear wins. On the marijuana question Marama demonstrated the most depth. Marijuana is and should be a health issues, not a criminal issue, and Marama argued the point well. 

The Ikaroa-Rawhiti race is a platform for Marama and the Greens. Partly an attempt to announce the Greens arrival in Maori politics and (hopefully) a springboard for Marama to enter Parliament off of the Green Party list. Marama, Metiria Turei and our mate Jack Tautokai McDonald have been active in Maori politics. After the byelection the Greens can credibly claim that they are committed to kaupapa Maori politics and a credible alternative in 2014. 

 

Te Hamua

He’s funny, right?

Humour aside, Te Hamua ran the most consistent message: I’m you, you are me – I’m real. He owned that narrative too. Each candidate emphasised their relative strengths, e.g. Marama highlighted the strong position the Greens will be in in the next left-leaning government, however Te Hamua argued his strengths the most convincingly. He was the “B.R.O”.

I imagine the brothers in Kaiti were most impressed with Te Hamua. That’s a strength. Maori political engagement is woeful. Politics doesn’t serve them and isn’t seen to serve them. Politicians (with some exceptions, think of Parekura) can be detached from the experiences of the poor and marginalised. Te Hamua isn’t.

But politics is more than that. I felt that Te Hamua was the weakest candidate on policy. He ran hot and cold. Substantive and focussed questions were his weak point.

Meka

She needs a big push. Any residual momentum is lost.

Meka found herself on the back foot. She is the leading candidate, but despite entering as the favourite she didn’t use that position to her advantage. The leading candidate should have been controlling the agenda, instead Meka was responding to it.

Having said that, possibly unfairly and the comments section is open to those who want to discuss it, Meka revealed a little fire. She smacked down Te Hamua after his ‘I still shop at the Warehouse’ speech arguing that Parliament requires an MP with the smarts. Meka was right, Parliament is a labyrinth unless you know how to navigate it, but talking down to Te Hamua won’t wash with the 18-24 demographic. The key demographic (if they turn out, which is unlikely).

It wasn’t until the last segment that Meka found her footing. She closed well (she had the most convincing political closing). The other highlight was the foreshore and seabed and the Urewera raids. Meka owned up to it. She admitted it was a mistake. She was responding to a question on honesty and, in owning up to the mistake, demonstrated more honesty than many Labour MPs before her. 

Na

For the most part, Na did great. Arguably a technical win on points. He doesn’t excite me though. As much as he attempted to divorce the Maori Party from National I didn’t accept it. The Maori Party is in a confidence and supply agreement with National, two Maori Party MPs hold ministerial warrants and a select committee (with a National majority) just gutted one of the party’s best members’ bills. That gutting was met with meek acceptance.

Na also fell into a trap. He accepted Mihi’s framing of the Maori Party as the party of the right in Maori politics. In accepting that framing, Na legitimised the argument that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National. He slammed that suggestion in the first segment of the debate, only to implicitly accept it later. A tactical low point in an otherwise strong performance.

Oh, with the exception of the casual xenophobia. Na argued that migrant worker jobs should be transferred to Maori. No. Just no.

That aside, Na was strong on Parekura’s legacy: bringing people together. He also answered well on most questions. He seems like a great guy and has deep knowledge of local issues.

Maori TV

Mihi and Jodi were great. But what's most interesting is how Maori TV has changed Maori politics. Maori politicians are more accountable and the Maori electorate is more informed. The Maori electorates are no longer marginal games in far off parts of the country. Instead, the Maori electorates are becoming an increasingly important part of New Zealand politics and political discourse.

Monday on Native Affairs

Native Affairs screens Monday nights at 8.30pm on Maori TV: 

NATIVE AFFAIRS TO SCREEN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH ANTHONY RATAHI HOSTAGE VICTIM 

Marcelle Beer – the ex-partner of Anthony Ratahi, who police shot dead after he took her hostage in Taranaki last year – breaks her silence on Maori Television’s NATIVE AFFAIRS programme this Monday, July 9 at 8.30pm. 

In an exclusive interview with NATIVE AFFAIRS reporter Semiramis Holland, Beer talks about her relationship with Ratahi leading up to the shooting and her repeated attempts to seek mental health care for him. 

Ratahi’s daughters and their mother also speak out about their frustration with the mental health system, and the police operation that ended 12 hours after Ratahi took Beer hostage at the Headlands Hotel in Opunake last July. 

Ratahi had been out of prison just 10 days before the hostage crisis, after serving time for attempting to cut Beer’s throat. 

His family first spoke to NATIVE AFFAIRS last year, a week after the shooting, about the lack of police support following Ratahi’s release from prison. 

They granted Semiramis Holland exclusive, unlimited access to the tupapaku (body) and the tangihanga (funeral) at Oeo Pa. 

The resulting coverage showed the human side of the tragedy – and was part of NATIVE AFFAIRS’ winning portfolio at the 2011 Aotearoa Film and Television Awards, in which they won Best Current Affairs Series. 

Also on NATIVE AFFAIRS this Monday is the story of the so-called Maori stowaway, Busby Noble, now a celebrity castaway in Norway; and a live panel discussion with anchor Julian Wilcox.

Study reveals racism in the media

Confirming what most of us already knew, a study has revealed that the mainstream media is guilty of portraying Maori poorly. The researcher team consisted of six academics and the paper was published in the New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship. The study examined:

Television news coverage of Māori stories gathered from Te Kāea (Māori TV), TV1 (both English-language and Te Karere), TV3 and Prime during a six-month period. They looked at how many Māori stories there were, and the tone of each piece.

They found Māori stories made up less than two per cent of the news items in the English-language newscasts and the majority of these items encouraged viewers to think about Māori in terms of violence towards and abuse of babies and children in their care.

The media play a prominent role, if not the most prominent role, in encouraging and cementing negative perceptions of Maori. The stories the media tend to single out, think crime stories, do not reflect the reality for most Maori and most New Zealanders.

It should be asked, however, whether or not we can blame the media for demeaning Maori. After all, that is what the consumers want – controversy and crisis. Nothing screams controversy and crisis better than a brown man and bad behaviour. The question, therefore, is whether or not there is a problem with the media or a problem with society.

Demand for controversy and crisis means racism is a profitable industry. Consumers enjoy Maori controversy and crisis, the media responds and ratings increase, revenue growth occurs, bosses and shareholders are happy. Repeat formula.

I am also attracted to the analysis that the media is an instrument of the capitalist class and racism in the media is an attempt to divide and rule the working class.

Racism is certainly a profitable industry and the second analysis is attractive too, but I think the explanation may be a little simpler: we’re still suffering from a colonial hangover.

The consequences of this hangover are severe. The media’s portrayal of Maori threatens the progress we’ve made in race relations. It encourages antagonism, both on the part of Maori and non-Maori.

This is why Maori TV and shows like Marae Investigates are so important – they portray Maori in all their diversity and they challenge mainstream portrayals and perceptions. 

Having said that, I doubt that Maori TV, Maori radio and Marae Investigates alone are the answer to racism in the mainstream media. These initiatives are counter-weights, but not solutions by themselves. We need a cultural change in the media and in society, and until we achieve that we may keep sinking.

UPDATE: I don't think we have racist journalists. However, I think there is an underlying imperative for negative stories re Maori. Every journalist I've ever met, and I've met more than a few, was utterly professional and certainly not racist. 

Native Affairs tonight

Coming up on Native Affairs: 

How racist is sport in New Zealand?

That topic will be up for a panel discussion on Native Affaris, Maori Television’s acclaimed current affairs show.

After yet another racist diatribe, this time by text message, against Auckland Blues coach Pat Lamb we debate the issue with a range of panellists including former All Black great Andy Haden, former double international (Black Fern and Silver Fern) and now Labour MP Louisa Wall and Race Relations Commissioner Joris De Bres. 

Native Affairs won the Aotearoa Film and Television Award (AFTA) for best current affairs series in 2011.

Native Affairs screens at 8.30pm tonight on Maori TV.

Native Affairs tonight

I'll be on Native Affairs tonight with Sandra Lee probably. The show starts at 8.30pm on Maori TV.

Funding cuts for Maori TV....

Maori TV’s awesome, one of the crowning achievements of the last Labour government, but DPF makes the point that nobody’s watching:

Maori TV has in many ways been a success story. They have managed to avoid the culture of excess that their predecessor Aotearoa TV had. They have managed to capture ANZAC Day in a way no other broadcaster has. They had some of the best debates in the election campaign, and I understand their election night coverage was very good. Native Affairs is a must watch show for those interested in politics, and they had great Rugby World Cup coverage.

But there is one big elephant in the room. The elephant is that almost nobody is watching them. And when we invest $50 million a year into them, it is an elephant that should not be ignored.

Farrar goes on to explain that on Wednesday last week there were, according to Neilsen ratings, less than 4000 people tuned in at the lowest point and around 20,000 at the highest point. For a $50m investment from the government, DPF doesn’t think this is good enough. That’s fair enough, one of Maori TV’s central aims should be to increase viewership, but they have obligations beyond gaining mass appeal.

Maori TV’s central aims should be 1) the preservation of Maori culture, especially Maori language 2) increasing accessibility to and understanding of Maori culture and 3) creating a platform for Maori to project their perspective. Ratings tie into these aims, especially 1 and 2, but ratings aren’t the be all and end all. S8(1) of the Maori Television Service Act 2003 states that the principal function of Maori TV is to is to “promote” te reo Maori and tikanga Maori and enrich “New Zealand’s society, culture and heritage”. There is not a ratings imperative in the Act.

With the above in mind, Maori TV should not be measured against ratings alone. Maori TV has, arguably, done more than any other initiative to protect, preserve and promote Maori culture.

Maori TV offers unique programming. Native Affairs, indisputably New Zealand’s leading current affairs show, is given prime time billing. On that note, Willie Jackson’s Newsbites (a political show) is also given a prime time slot. Local and international documentaries are given 8.30pm time slots, as are many art house films and local films like the Topp Twins. Politics, documentaries and art house films aren’t, in my opinion, ratings winners. However, they do serve to enrich New Zealand society, culture and – most importantly – they educate New Zealanders (or at least those New Zealanders who are watching). This is consistent with Maori TV’s statutory obligations.

As an aside, some believe ratings are misleading. It's certianly true that significant criticisms exist. Without wanting to sound conspiratorial, I cannot accept that there were so little people watching Maori TV last Wednesday. Every Maori and Maori whanau I know watches Maori TV as their main channel. I don’t watch much TV, but most of what I watch is on Maori TV. I also watch a lot of Maori TV programs on their website. Needless to say, ratings to do not measure viewers who watch a program through the internet. This is a significant flaw, television watchers are increasingly turning to the internet – especially young people - and the ratings companies aren't measuring this.

Recently I suggested that Maori TV may be in line for a funding cut or freeze. This would be consistent with the government’s attitude towards Maori funding and the government’s broadcasting ideology. The cynic in me would say that DPF is softening the ground for cuts, but that is probably a stretch too far. It’s not as if his audience need to be encouraged to support cuts at Maori TV. Having said that, in 2009 BERL found that 84% of New Zealanders thought Maori TV should be a permanent part of the broadcasting landscape.

It would be a shame to see funding at Maori TV frozen or cut. They operate on a shoe string budget as it is. The government only provides 16.6m in direct funding to cover operational costs and this amount has not changed since 2004. In Maori TV's words "the cumulative impact of inflation on our cost structure makes it increasingly difficult to sustain the current levels of delivery, continue to enhance the service and keep pace with the new technological developments in the television industry". Programming costs are covered by Te Mangai Paho and, but to a lesser degree, New Zealand on Air.  

 I’d hate to see shows like Wairua, Kai Time on the Road and Code dropped. I’d be gutted to see Native Affairs dropped or Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day coverage scaled back and New Zealand would be worse off if Maori TV couldn't do events like Rise Up Christchurch again. Maori TV provides New Zealand with a valuable service - there's no need for cuts. 

Native Affairs Debate

I often find myself disagreeing with Brian Edwards, but I agree and support his praise of Maori TV and Native Affairs. Last night’s debate between Dr Don Brash and Dr Pita Sharples was brilliant. Julian Wilcox’s handling of the debate was perfect as well. He was even handed and he posed the questions that needed to be asked. Native Affairs is easily the best current affairs show in New Zealand and Julian is the best presenter. Full credit to Maori TV.

In terms of who won the debate, I’ll tentatively call it for Pita. Pita remained largely composed and raised stronger points, including the need for equality and the need for specific measures to address inequality. Brash largely relied on the notion that Article III bars Maori from enjoying rights that other New Zealanders do not enjoy, while conveniently ignoring Article II may I add, and he also hammered the argument that Maori enjoy some sort of constitutional privilege. God knows what he meant by this. For more analysis on the debate see Tumeke and Kiwipolitico.

As an aside I love it how Brash calls it “the Maori issue”. Although old man Brash attempts to argue substantively, he always reverts to offensive terms, slurs, anecdote, selective readings of history and warped interpretation of fact. He calls Maori “animist” – which is fine, however the word carries negative connotations and is too similar to animalistic – Brash also slurred Pita Sharples calling him a “radical”. Brash frequently reverted to what “people tell him”, he conveniently ignored Article II and he then went on to advocate the minimum wage which discriminates against young people. I thought Brash was all about equal rights? Apparently not.     

Every time this rights debate surfaces I wish a Maori politician would echo Thomas Jefferson:

There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.  

Native Affairs tonight

I'll be appearing on Native Affairs tonight at 8.30pm on Maori TV. I'll be on the panel with former MP Sandra Lee and we'll be discussing Saturday's byelection. If you don't have time to watch it live you can watch it online.

Put a name to a face

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

Annette Sykes vs. Te Ururoa Flavell

I am glad that Annette Sykes is still considering running against Te Ururoa in Waiariki.  From Waatea News:

Former Maori Party adviser Annette Sykes says her local MP Te Ururoa Flavell has betrayed Te Arawa people with his support of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.

The Rotorua lawyer says Mr Flavell was sent to parliament by the Waiariki electorate to roll back the confiscation and discrimination of Labour's Foreshore and Seabed Act.

But she says the work he did on the new Act failed on that count.

“None of those compromises justify in any way the confiscation of the lands of the people of Te Arawa from Matata to Maketu and for me it’s a betrayal of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is established but also the foundations on which the Maori party established,” Ms Sykes says.

She is considering standing against Mr Flavell in Waiariki if former Maori Party MP Hone Harawira creates a new Maori political party.

As a Kawerau boy, I like to think I have a deep understanding of the Waiariki electorate. The seat is winnable, but winning will require a huge effort. At the last election Te Ururoa enjoyed near unanimous support with 68% of the vote. This is an almost 10% increase on his 2005 result. However, the circumstances this time around are vastly different. The political landscape is about to change with the formation of Hone’s new party and the relationship between Maori and the Maori Party is strained.

Say what you will about the Maori Party, but bear in mind that they are not amateurs. The party maintains campaign infrastructure in all of the Maori electorates, for example a ready pool of volunteers, key Marae/Runanga contacts, mailing lists, enrolment statistics, street by street voter analysis etc… Te Ururoa is also, in my opinion at least, a commendable electorate MP. Although he has performed disgracefully with regard to the MCA act – he remains committed to Waiariki.

The challenge for Annette is to bring together an experienced and knowledgeable team and replicate the campaign infrastructure the Maori Party has in place. The next step would be to define the message e.g. A vote for te Ururoa is a vote for National and then focus on soft areas where support for the Maori Party is thin and where tribal links to Te Ururoa do not exist. I am thinking of Kawerau, Tuhoe (Ruatoki, Taneatua), Opotiki, Te Whanau a Apanui (Te Kaha, Omaio), Whakatane and Taupo.

Kawerau is a strong Labour town, in 2005 Steve Chadwick just managed to retain Rotorua thanks to Kawerau voters. Among Maori voters the same is true i.e. support for Labour is strong. I am not sure how the candidate vote went, however I think it is safe to assume that Annette, like me a former Kawerau resident, will have no trouble in winning support. As a staunch tino rangatiratanga advocate she will cruise to victory in the Tuhoe rohe as well. People from Whakatohea (roughly the Opotiki area) and Te Whanau a Apanui (from about Torere to the East Cape) are also furious with the Maori Party. The party has refused to back the people over mining off the East Coast. Te Whanau a Apanui has had to rely on the Greens for political support and groups like Greenpeace for protest/public relations support. A vote against the Maori Party will be almost a reflex action up the coast. I am unsure what way Whakatane and Taupo will swing. But I will say, and this is speculation on my part, that these two centres are marginal. Rotorua will almost certainly back Te Ururoa based on his good record as an electorate MP there. Tauranga is probably anyones game. However, I think neither Annette nor Te Ururoa will win there. At this point I am putting my money on Louis Te Kani, the Labour candidate. Louis is a well respected local barrister and a genuine nice guy. By the looks of it he is held in high regard in the local Labour region as well. Given the MCA act betrayal I am not sure any coastal iwi, like the iwi of Tauranga Moana, will vote for the Maori Party or any Maori Party candidate. While on the other hand the harsh rhetoric of Annette Sykes may turn off many of the working class Maori voters in Tauranga.

It is conceivable that a three way race will benefit the Labour candidate. I do not think this is the case though. As Te Ururoa has drifted right he has vacated the left. Annette needs to focus her efforts towards left leaning voters and tino rangatiratanga voters. Te Ururoa and Loius Te Kani will be left to fight over the limited number of right wing voters in the electorate.

The Maori Party is under pressure following the MCA act and the continuing decline in Maori living standards. Many Maori are looking for a new political vehicle. One would think that Maori would, almost naturally, return to Labour. However, Labour still lacks credibility on Maori issues following the foreshore and seabed raupatu. Labour has yet to repent and Maori will not return until they do. This means the time is ripe for a third way. A new political vehicle. Annette Sykes and Hone Harawira could be that third way. They must keep in mind though that Labour will not remain idle forever and time will soon ensure that the sins of the Maori Party are forgotten. Timing is crucial. Annette and Hone must make a decision soon or risk losing the window of opportunity. Labour will soon reclaim the left and crowd out any competitor. Annette and Hone must act while both parties are in disarray.

So Waiariki is there for the taking. So long as Annette musters a professional team and executes a professional campaign. The Maori electorates are huge, therefore reach is essential. Annette cannot rely on the 6 o’clock news or Maori TV. She must get into every corner of the electorate and push her message hard. This is a terrible generalisation, but most Maori are not informed voters. Voting is often an intuitive exercise. Annette must give them no reason not to vote for her.

For the sake of Maori, the Maori Party must be stopped. The Maori Party is the key to a second term National Government – so the weaker the Maori Party, the less likely we will have a second term National Government. Your people need you, Annette.