The hikoi arrives

I joined the hikoi today as it descended on Parliament. The mood was solemn - a sense of sadness pervaded the group. As the people marched through Wellington a strict silence was observed as a means of acknowledging the intense hurt successive governments have caused. It was incredibly moving both watching the hikoi and then joining it at Parliament. You could feel that the people walked with the wairua of their tupuna and this gave them strength.

The hikoi was, by my estimation, around 500-700 strong. Obviously this is well down on the hikoi of 2004. A respectable number anyhow. The group was, in terms of age, incredibly diverse. It was uplifting to see so many young people. The Greens also had a strong presence, as usual, and a number of sympathetic Pakeha marched with the hikoi. The only politician, or aspiring politician I should say, that joined the hikoi was Rino Tirikatene, Labour’s candidate for Te Tai Tonga.   

As the hikoi arrived we were welcomed onto Parliament grounds by the local iwi. Unsurprisingly there was a huge police presence at Parliament. I like to contrast the heavy police presence at Maori protests with the relatively light police presence at, for lack of a better term, mainstream protests. At one of the mining protests I attended last year there would have been around ten police officers. At today’s protest there were well over 40, including plain clothes police officers.

To my surprise a number of MP’s were there to meet the hikoi. Labour’s Maori team was there, a number of National MP’s including Chris Finlayson, the Greens were there of course. The Maori Party was also present, however they tended to hide behind the Nats. And, as you would expect, Hone met the hikoi as well.

The formalities then began. The old people spoke, and spoke brilliantly at that, and a number of items were ceremonially placed, including the text of the MCA bill, in a casket which was returned to Parliament. This was a symbol of Maori discontent. A number of taonga were also returned to Kaipara and Tamaki Makaurau iwi signalling their regret in supporting the Maori Party. Unfortunately the weather did not permit any speeches from the other side.

It really did sadden me to see the hikoi. Many of those participating were clearly destitute. A number had just walked away from their jobs to support the kaupapa. I heard of a story of a kaumatua who felt so strongly about restoring our mana whenua that he walked with the hikoi all the way from Te Rerenga Wairua to Wellington. By the time the hikoi arrived in Wellington his shoes had worn away to almost nothing. This brings me to a point I want to make. This hikoi was so small, in comparison to the 2004 hikoi that is, because people just could not afford to march. In the current economic environment our people cannot afford to drop everything and march on Parliament. Not anymore.

Hopefully something will come of this hikoi. Not necessarily a backdown on the MCA bill. But perhaps it may awaken Maori political consciousness. This hikoi should not have been for nothing.

Armstrong has it wrong

John Armstrong is, without doubt, an astute political commentator. Having said that I think his latest column is well off the mark. In this post I want to address a few points Armstrong makes. Consider this:

(re MCA Bill) Having thrown out the cuckoo from their nest, they have since largely kept their silence. In doing so, they have kept their dignity.

This is simply untrue. In keeping largely silent the party has lost all dignity and credibility among Maori. Maori in general, and some Maori Party supporters, have and continue to demand a two way conversation with the Maori Party. Significant concerns remain and Maori want to work over those concerns, however the Maori Party has effectively shut the door. The views of thousands of Maori were ignored at the select committee stage, the leadership refuse to substantively justify their stance beyond “it is what we promised” and the only person within the party who had the courage to reflect the views of almost all iwi and indeed Maori is no longer around. I do not see how this amounts to a dignified position. Silence is insulting.

The overwhelming desire of most parties is not to revisit this potential political hornets' nest once the bill is law.

That is one reason why the solution hammered out by National and the Maori Party should endure.

Armstrong is right in suggesting that most parties will not want to revisit this issue. As I have said many times this is one of the reasons I oppose the current bill. If the MCA bill passes then the issue is closed. The foreshore and seabed is electoral poison and neither Labour nor National will swallow it again. Where I disagree with Armstrong is in his suggestion that the solution should endure because no one will want to revisit it. This is weak reasoning and, frankly, a cop out. The electoral interests and desires of two political parties should not dictate policy. In reality it usually does dictate policy, but in terms of the foreshore and seabed issue, notions of justice should dictate whether the issue is reopened. At some point the issue will resurface because Maori are not satisfied. As Maori electoral power increases it will become harder and harder for the government of the day to ignore Maori desires.

Even the Maori Party might well prefer the new status quo be given time to bed-in, regardless of whether the party is propping up a Labour-led or National-led Administration.

I don’t think so. The Maori Party will revisit the issue as soon as the situation allows. For all the false rhetoric the party does not actually like the bill.

The Maori Party knows that no matter what further concessions it might be able to extract from National almost certainly none _ it can never satisfy its critics who demand full and unfettered Maori ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

I consider myself a critic - and a somewhat representative one at that. I, like most Maori, are moderate on the issue and I do not demand full and unfettered ownership of the foreshore and seabed. I demand a fairer and more sensible test to establish customary title. But more especially I demand the same rights as  private owners. It really, really fucks me off that Maori are expected to do with less rights than private, mostly foreign, owners. The private ownership vs Maori ownership issue really highlights what a repugnant, racist country New Zealand is. Why does the Coastal Coalition et. al. believe that Maori will restrict access and mine all the minerals beneath the foreshore and seabed while staying silent on private owners who already do this?

Moreover, Harawira is also fast being consigned to irrelevancy. He refuses to work with National. Now Labour has announced it will not work with him.

Phil Goff may have left people _ including his own caucus _ confused and wondering what happened to his maxim that no one be ruled in or out of postelection deals and accommodations until after the people had decided. Goff, however, can count. And four is bigger than one.    

Harawira will remain relevant so long as he holds his seat – which he will. Any old layman knows that if Hone holds the casting vote then Labour will come knocking. Goff is a notorious flip flopper and he will not pick principle over three years as Prime Minister. Who would? Is Harawira irrelevant if he manages to bring in one or more MP’s? Armstrong also assumes ceteris paribus – that Hone will remain a one man party while the Maori Party will retain their four seats. This is, in my opinion, unlikely. Rahui Katene is unstable in Te Tai Tonga, Te Ururoa is hardly guaranteed to romp home and Pita is vulnerable. On the other hand Hone holds the safest seat in New Zealand and commands the support of 32% of Maori voters. If anything Hone will hold four seats while the Maori Party holds one.

Better that he choose one or other now. Goff's effective choice of with whom he is prepared to work amounts to the biggest olive branch Labour has thrust in the Maori Party's direction.

It will not go unnoticed. Just as Labour's opposition to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill won't either.

Of course Goff would love nothing more than to work with the right wing Maori Party. Labour governments tend to spurn the left. But anyway, Labours opposition to the MCA bill has nothing to do with principle or common position with the Maori Party. Labour is just searching for a few votes.

By this time next week, the bill will be law or very close to it. Public debate will go into hiatus. No longer will Harawira be able to garner attention and publicity solely through his rejection of the legislation now before Parliament.

He will still try to provoke the Maori Party into fighting the battle over who speaks for Maoridom. Turia and company will ignore him. They can afford to do so. They have already won.

Armstrong should know, in terms of attentions seeking success, Hone rates first (or perhaps second to Winston Peters). Armstrong is wrong in suggesting that Hone will battle the Maori Party over who speaks for Maori. Hone accepts that the Maori Party speaks for Maori and that he speaks for Te Tai Tokerau. But the debate is not about who speaks for Maori. It is about what is best for Maori. Mandate is not the issue, direction is and always has been. Ultimately the leadership cannot ignore Hone because Maori listen to him. If his views are not confronted they will be accepted de facto. If the Maori Party remains silent they fall out of view and they fade into irrelevancy.   

The Maori Party is losing. They have been losing ever since Te Ururoa’s complaint letter. Hone has embarrassed and utterly outplayed the Maori Party. I do not know what Armstrong’s definition of winning is, but if it includes large scale loss of support and potential electoral doom, then yes the Maori Party has won.

The Hikoi's coming

As I expected (and predicted) the hikoi protesting against the MCA bill is off to an underwhelming start. This is hardly unexpected given Maori concern is primarily focussed on the cost of living and the like. There is really an inherent intangibility in the notion of mana whenua. Some Maori, mainly urban Maori disconnected from their culture, find it difficult to capture and hold any depth of feeling towards such an issue. This is disappointing yet entirely understandable. To some extent Maori values, such as mana whenua, are a result of cultural conditioning as opposed to some sort of genetic hardwiring. With this is mind it is understandable that the hikoi is off to a slow start in Auckland.

Having said that it is reasonable to expect to see an increase in numbers as the hikoi passes through coastal rohe where tino rangatiratanga is strong. I do not expect the hikoi to surpass, in terms of size, the hikoi of 2004. I do expect to see a large increase in numbers though.

One would think that given the huge rate of Maori unemployment, stagnant wages, the rise in GST and tax cuts for the rich that Maori would be hitting the streets in their tens of thousands. Though as we can see this is not occurring. I think this is not occurring because the MCA bill is the wrong issue. As I said many Maori find it hard to connect with the issue, but more importantly most Maori who protested against the Foreshore and Seabed confiscation of 2004 are now members of the Maori Party. This is their bill so naturally they are not going to oppose it.

I look forward to meeting the hikoi in Wellington and I can’t wait to see the Maori Party, and Labour for that matter, react to it. Something tells me the Greens will be the only ones who show up on the day.

As an aside Tim Selwyn has done some outstanding work re the MCA bill. See Tumeke.   

Briefly: The earthquake and Maori Politics (updated)

It still seems a little crass to be discussing the political ramifications of the Chch earthquake but ultimately we cannot lose sight of something as significant as politics. In this post I want to briefly discuss the effect the earthquake will have on Maori politics, specifically Rahui Katene and the passage of the MCA bill.

For Maori politics the big question is will Rahui Katene retain her seat as a result of the earthquake. Up until now I have been predicting that Rahui will almost certainly lose her seat. But of course in light of recent events this is now uncertain. To win Te Tai Tonga you need to win Chch and Wellington. Wellington is still anyone’s game but Chch may now swing behind Rahui. From what I hear Rahui is doing a good job moving around the community reassuring and supporting Maori affected by the earthquake. By all accounts The Maori Party and Ngai Tahu leaders are also doing a good job setting up Marae to support displaced whanau. As Rahui moves around the Maori community the people get to see her human side. A compassionate and supportive politician. People do not see the Rahui who supports the MCA bill or the Rahui who voted for an increase in GST. They see someone who is forming a very strong and very personal relationship with them. People are responsive to politicians who act in a human capacity as opposed to a political capacity.

The Maori Party, and by extension Rahui, are, in a political sense, managing the situation very well. No showmanship, no criticism, just a quiet flaxroot effort. One could assume that I am saying the Maori Party and Rahui are using the situation for political gain. I am not. Ultimately they just want to help. But the way in which they are helping is politically beneficial.

Some commentators have suggested that the MCA bill may be put on hold or scrapped altogether. I think this is a little naïve. The Maori Party will not allow the MCA bill to fall off the legislative agenda. If universal opposition and the threat of a second hikoi are not enough to deter the party then an earthquake and the resulting political sensitivities probably won’t either. The country’s attention will be focussed almost exclusively on Chch for the next month at the least. The Nat’s would love the opportunity to slip the bill through while the public consciousness is directed towards bigger issues. The MCA bill was electorally damaging yet a political necessity, therefore the Nats will welcome the opportunity to placate their support partner and limit electoral damage in the process.

In conclusion the earthquake may mean Rahui Katene will retain Te Tai Tonga and the MCA bill will proceed. This means, in my opinion, that The Maori Party will come out of the election having retained all their seats (excluding Te Tai Tokerau of course).

*As an aside, I do not share the surprisingly common sentiment that the earthquake will ensure the government is re-elected, perhaps with a majority. My reading of the situation in the months following the initial quake was that many people in Chch were not satisfied with the government’s response. Why would they do any better this time around? Everything to come out of the government’s mouth has been uninspiring.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention the quake will damage the momentum Winston Peters is, well was, generating. I don’t think the country has the stomach for Winston at the moment. Even in the coming months the Nats can easily label Winnie a distraction and an impediment to progress in Chch. A man stuck moaning about yesterdays issues. Winston needs to refocus. The old issues of immigration, separatism and the like may lack the potency they once possessed. However, in the wake of the quake nationalism may prove to be a key issue. I can imagine calls for contracts to be awarded to local businesses as opposed to some cheap overseas corporate going down well. One thing is for sure, Winston’s chances of re-election have plummeted.    

Matt McCarten on Hone Harawira

Matt McCarten, in an excellent piece in The Herald on Sunday, has suggested that the Hone Harawira expulsion could determine the election. Matt, who is a close advisor to Hone, thinks Hone will form a new party and target the party vote. I guess this almost confirms that Hone will form a new party. However, I am unsure that Hone has the time, skills and support to form a new party. In a previous column Matt made it pretty clear that he is not involved in the formation of a new party. Sue Bradford appears to be in favour one minute and then downplays her enthusiasm the next. Without Matt’s involvement Hone will not be able to delegate the groundwork to a capable pair of hands. Parliamentary and electorate work is all consuming. Hone simply does not have the time to form and launch a new party without experienced operators like Matt and Sue Bradford. Another problem is Hone will find it hard to attract the administrative and political talent needed to form, launch and sustain a party. Let’s be honest, Hone will need the services of youngish, Pakeha, urban middle class administrators and political operatives, however attracting said talent will be difficult. This demographic is hardly responsive to some of Hone strongly held opinions.

But for arguments sake let’s say Hone does form a new party. Matt tells us Hone will run a campaign against the MCA bill, low wages, welfare reform, GST and mining. Matt thinks these issues will mobilise support among Maori and non-Maori working class folk. I am not so sure. Matt’s showed us in Mana that mobilising the poor, not so much the working poor rather beneficiaries, is near impossible. Of the above campaign issues only the MCA bill and mining have proved widely contentious. However, mining was a middle class issue in that it mobilised the middle class, the poor were, well visibly at least, indifferent. Furthermore, the MCA bill has proven more of a Maori concern. Pakeha concern is comparatively light – with the exception of a few rednecks. With the above in mind it becomes obvious that the MCA bill and mining, the two big issues if you like, play to contrasting groups. Low wages, welfare reform and GST have failed to elicit a whisper from those most affected. Without doubt the working poor and beneficiaries are feeling or will feel the bite but there is simply no response. How will Hone ignite and organise a response to these changes? The poor are politically apathetic and apathy has no straightforward cure. Having said that if there is anyone who can speak to the poor and disaffected it is Hone Harawira. I should not write him off so easily.

Matt also suggests that Pita Sharples and Rahui Katene will find it difficult to retain their seats without Hone’s endorsement. Again, I think this is goes a bit far. Pita is damaged but no more than Shane Jones. Shane is hardly an endearing figure and Maori will not return to Labour so easily. Maori are excellent strategic voters and there is really no benefit in returning Shane Jones as the member for Tamaki Makaurau. Hone’s supporters are not going to vote for a man who labels their man a “hoodlum”. Ultimately the voters of Tamaki Makaurau have a shit choice – Shane’s vision is a corporate vision with working class overtones. Pita’s vision is a Maori vision hijacked by a corporate agenda. So it’s basically a contest between which corporate you like best. Arrogant and abrasive Jones or affable and approachable Sharples? The choice is clear. (I will address Rahui Katene and Te Tai Tonga in my next post).

The constituency for a new left party exists. The challenge is to mobilise that constituency. I would love to see a new left party with Hone and Sue Bradford, the two most effective backbenchers in recent memory, and Matt McCarten, the most skilled operator in NZ politics. However, I worry that the practical challenges a new party would face are too great. I hope I’m wrong.

Breaking News: Hone's out

So Hone has just gone quietly. This is good. The last thing anyone wants to see at the moment is petty political bickering.

It appears that Hone and The Maori Party have come to a sort of mutual compromise. And I say sort of because I think the deal primarily benefits The Maori Party. Hone quits without fuss and rules out standing in any other Maori electorates, stressing that it is best for the party and him as an individual, while The Maori Party agrees not to stand a candidate against him. A pretty one sided agreement if you ask me.

This will have serious repercussions for The Maori Party. Firstly, they lose their principled voice. The only remaining sign of integrity and connection to ordinary Maori, especially rangatahi. The Maori Party is now a wholly complete corporate vehicle with a single ideological purpose. The Maori Party is unique in its ability to move between the left and right, the party’s ideological fluidity means they can form a government with either the left or right. However, with Hone gone it becomes very difficult for the party to move left and as result they lose their greatest strength. The party becomes rooted to the Nats.

Secondly, as Gordon Campbell puts it, Hone can now denounce the party as the “sell outs in Cabinet”. Its not like this theme needs to be cultivated either, it is already firmly rooted and Hone can now refine it by the day. If Hone does choose to do this the Maori Party will suffer enormous damage. The evidence is right there, Harawira just needs to highlight it. Easy.

Thirdly, The Maori Party has alienated their base. Te Tai Tokerau is fiercely loyal and they will not accept this result as fair (because it wasn’t). In the eyes of Te Tai Tokerau the way the party handled the entire process was nothing short of insubordinate. As a consequence membership will bleed heavily between now and ultimate defeat at the ballot box in November.

Shane Jones will now rate his chances, and rightly so. As I have said previously I think Pita enjoys a personal following rather than a political one. However, his affable persona has taken a huge hit. He has displayed a fair bit of rhetorical aggression towards Hone and at Waitangi he was exposed as double dealer by actively seeking a replacement for Hone. Not a good look.

Tariana is probably safe. Then again I do not know much about her seat.

Te Ururoa is probably safe, for now. At the moment blame is directed towards the leadership and to certain degree Pem Bird. Te Ururoa has managed to stay under the radar but that may change. I do not think he will lose his seat. Labour is standing Louis Te Kani, a local barrister, although I do not want to write him off I am yet to see or hear anything from him which is a bad sign. The election is coming and he cannot afford to begin his campaign late in the piece. Te Ururoa is vulnerable and he should be formulating a plan of attack.

Rahui will probably lose her seat as a mere reflex action. What has she done? Nothing. About the only thing I can remember is her stomach stapling operation and a quote she gave in a story about the GST rise. The people of Te Tai Tonga expect better. They deserve better.

Hone will romp home in Te Tai Tokerau. Kelvin Davis may as well not turn up. In the past few days Hone has been gifted two issues. The WWG report and the MCA bill. One is a bread and butter issue while the other touches everything it means to be Maori. Standing on these two issues alone Hone could probably court a few thousand Maori votes if he were to form a new party.

The Maori Party is cultivating a significant amount of distrust among their supporters and it will probably be fatal. Certainly this whole affair is turning off many non-aligned but sympathetic supporters. To be brutally honest I think the Maori Party has had it. Tino rangatiratanga is out the window and the corporates are in. There is no way the party can ride back into Parliament on the backs of one or two indigenous corporates. The party needs the people, the problem is the people just left with Hone.

6 topics, 1 post

A few quick points:

1. I have no idea why Hone did not show at today’s hui. I’m not even going to bother hypothesising. Attempting to understand the man’s mind is perhaps a futile task. He is hot and cold, hit and miss, yin and yang. One moment it appears he is calculated and considered while merely a breath later he may act erratically and with little lucidity. Hone will never sit around the Cabinet table if he cannot contain himself – he is politically unmanageable. Hone wants to become a minister, but he never will unless he displays some discipline. Hone Harawira, as he is today, is political poison. He will sink any government he is a part of. Hone needs to realise merit is only a small part of ministerial appointment, at the end of the day MP’s become ministers because they can be managed. Hone cannot be managed, therefore Hone cannot become a minister. Ultimately Hone acts on impulse and more often than not he is swayed by the last person he spoke to, normally his mother wife, or Tai Tokerau kaumatua and kuia. He needs to act with a view to the long term.
2. On a related note I am perplexed as to why the party decided to delay announcing the outcome of the hui – after all it was predetermined, right? At some point the hopeless Maori Party PR team needs to realise that nothing they do will kill the issue. A media ban is only so effective and a delay in proceedings is utterly impotent. People are not going to forget about this issue and nor will they cool over time. In the interests of resolution the party should be announce the outcome immediately. This is a circus that makes Maori look politically incompetent. UPDATE: The committee came up with “a range of options” which will be presented to the National Council. The final decision is in the hands of the NC. What a drawn out process.   
3. Peter Paraone intends to stand in the coming election. Yawn.
4. Te Arawa team Te Matarae i Orehu are national kapa haka champs.
5. Tariana Turia has released a video in defence of the party’s support for the MCA bill. It is pretty silly. It merely confirms the Maori Party has lost the debate. The best Turia can do is continue the ‘it’s not great but the best we can get’ theme. A self defeating narrative.
6. Second rate journalist Karl Du Fresne, no doubt channeling Peter Dunne, wants to deny our history. Karl wants to ignore the continuing struggle for equal rights. Karl wants us to forget about the fact that Maori are less likely to be offered and receive chemotherapy compared to our Pakeha mates. He wants us to forget about all that other discrimination, like when a Maori woman was denied a job due to her moko. Karl wants us to ignore our ugly history too. Forget about the fact that Maori received smaller relief payments during the depression. Forget about all that land confiscation. Gosh, that scorched earth policy is all in the past. Ultimately Karl just wants us to have a glorified wank over how great our country supposedly is. Get with the program Karl – this country has issues that need confronting. If you can’t appreciate that then go fuck yourself. (For a far more insightful, sober and articulate post on this issue see No Right Turn).    

UPDATE: I think I need to apologise for the strong language used at 6. I am not inclined to edit anything I have already written, therefore it will remain. I am very young and many issues make me very angry.   

Hikoi 2.0

I remain unconvinced that a hikoi is a step forward in terms of opposition to the inadequate MCA bill. First of all, I doubt that Wikatana Popata possesses the organisational skills required to co-ordinate an effective, not to mention large scale, protest. I also doubt that he has skilled people behind him. One could argue that he proved his leadership ability and organisational skill at Waitangi, however there is a significant difference between organising a group of 200 people with whom you have personal connections and co-ordinating a protest connecting politically inactive and disparate groups across the North Island.

Secondly, the government is immovable. If anything a hikoi is a gift to the government. Hikoi are a great way to create anti-Maori sentiment. The government will appear strong and principled in the eyes of non-Maori if it refuses to shift position and offer Maori no further concessions. The government has nothing to fear from a hikoi, it’s none of their voters protesting after all. Certainly it is a golden opportunity for the government to stick it to those cry baby land grabbing Maoris. An easy PR victory.

Thirdly, the Maori Party appears immovable as well. Their logic is clear – this is the best that can be achieved at this point in time. Although I disagree with such a defeatist attitude there is a small pinch of truth to it, but that does not make it right. The party’s challenge to their people is essentially – come up with a better way forward or shut up. Therefore, I do not think a hikoi which is offering no answers will be of much interest. Unless of course that hikoi involves a significant amount of people. Which brings me to my next point.

There is not a significant amount of popular discontent with the bill. Yes, many iwi are disappointed, yes, many of the party’s members are disappointed and, yes, many Maori political commentators are disappointed. Yet disappointment among these groups has not translated to popular disappointment. In tough economic times concepts such as mana whenua are relegated to the back of people’s minds. Wages, benefits, prices and so on dominate people’s political thinking. Correcting historical injustice and delivering on the promise of the treaty is such an intangible concept. It lacks immediacy and is ultimately a secondary concern for many Maori.    

In the end I support the idea of a hikoi against the MCA bill. Whether that hikoi will result in any gains is open. I remain sceptical. Having said that I do hope to be proved wrong and The Maori Party should be very, very worried.  

Hat tip Whenua Fenua Enua Vanua

Maori Party Propaganda

Marty Mars has reproduced an interesting panui he received from The Maori Party. Taken at face value the piece appears to be standard political material, nothing controversial or new, just restating what is already in the public domain. However, a few points caught my attention, specifically;

(The Bill) Allows iwi to claim customary title. Customary title is a property right that includes customary interests plus all minerals except gold, silver, uranium and petroleum; all newly found taonga tuturu, development rights, and a right to develop a plan which regional councils must recognise and provide for.

The MCA bill does allow iwi to claim customary title; however s33 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (FSA 2004) allows iwi to claim territorial customary rights (TCR). s32(1) defines TCR as “customary title or an aboriginal title that could be recognised at common law”. So what is the difference between the FSA 2004 and the MCA bill? As far as I know, not much. TCR and customary title, or customary marine title (CMT), are basically the same thing under the common law. The key difference I suppose is the MCA bill clearly defines the rights associated with CMT under s64(1) while the FSA does not define any rights associated with TCR rather under s37(1) a successful applicant group must enter into negotiations with the Attorney-General and Minister of Maori Affairs “for the purpose of negotiating an agreement as to the nature and extent” of TCR. So under the FSA 2004 customary rights are conferred via order-in-council, after negotiation with the relevant ministers, whereas under the MCA bill rights are conferred via legislation once the relevant criteria are met. In sum, not much difference, but I personally think the MCA bill approach is superior. 

The peice also claims;

Restores the right of access to court. If negotiations with Ministers do not reach agreement, tangata whenua can take their title claims to court.

First of all – right of access to the courts was not extinguished. s33 of the FSA 2004 reads; 

High Court may find that a group held territorial customary rights

The High Court may, on the application of a group, or on the application of a person authorised by the court to represent the group, make a finding that the group (or any members of that group) would, but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 13(1), have held territorial customary rights to a particular area of the public foreshore and seabed at common law.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted this, and I do not think I have, does this section not grant The High Court power to determine whether iwi posses customary title? Why then is The Maori Party claiming to have restored access to the Courts? Bizarre.

I also want to address this point;

The Crown has to prove customary rights were extinguished, not iwi.

While s105(1) of the MCA bill reads;

Burden of proof

The applicant group must prove that it is entitled to the customary interest that is the subject of the application.

This section clearly sets out that it is the responsibility of iwi to prove customary rights were not extinguished. It does not fall upon the Crown to prove otherwise. Why has The Maori Party made such a wild claim when the bill clearly states that the opposite is true. Is The Maori Party deliberately misleading Maori? Have I missed something? I am leaning towards the former.

I also took issue with this statement; 

The Bill does not settle the issues, but it keeps them alive.

I disagree - the bill definitely settles the issue. No party will revisit such a toxic electoral issue unless they are moved by the majority to repeal it. Debate around Maori property rights always breeds controversy and discord. No government will reopen a can of worms as unpredictable as the foreshore and seabed. Labour will not go anywhere near the issue because National will savage them. While a second or third term National government will lack the political capital required to revisit the issue without alienating their support base.

I have run out of time so I will quickly conclude. It appears The Maori Party are engaging in some good old fashioned political propaganda. Well done to them for recognising the power of the blogsphere and reaching out to Marty Mars. However; if the party is going to put stuff out in the public domain it should make a greater effort to ensure the material is accurate. I hesitate to say the party is making a deliberate effort to mislead people, maybe I missed something,. Either way, The Maori Party should tread carefully.   

No photos!

The Maori Party has finally realised they need to shut down media conjecture surrounding the disciplinary and disputes committee re Hone Harawira. As such Pem Bird has issued a press release announcing a media ban on all aspects of the process.

This is somewhat disappointing but understandable. However, The Maori Party should not lose sight of the fact that they are a political organisation currently part of government. As a member of government the party owes, to a somewhat limited extent, the public a degree of transparency. As a political organisation the party owes its members a degree of transparency as well. Communication, i.e. media coverage, is central to all political activity but of course the counter argument is that internal party problems are of no concern to the public. However, one could argue when those problems begin to affect government stability, essentially the ability of government to govern, then it does become the business of the public.

Banning media coverage was a slick move. The party clearly realised that they had no control over the narrative, certainly the media were moving the issue in an increasingly unfavourable direction. Therefore, the party needed to reclaim the natural advantage. A blanket ban on media coverage means the party can manage the news in its favour. The Maori Party now has power over how and when news re Harawira is presented. The party will also control the content and thus have more influence over the direction the news will take. The news will be presented on The Maori Party’s terms. Naturally there is no guarantee the media will follow the party’s lead but it is apparent that the party has more power of the news as a result of the ban.

I think a ban on media coverage is a good thing for political discourse. The whole saga is dragging on and on and consequently deflecting focus on arguably more important issues such as the MCA bill and the upcoming welfare report. The party does deserve a degree of privacy over this issue and I hope the media respect this.

Death spiral

 

The Marine and Coastal Area Bill is deeply flawed. The Bill is riddled with drafting errors and ultimately will not restore mana whenua. So naturally I was disappointed to see the Bill returned without amendment.

I half expected Te Ururoa to adopt a degree of independence from the Nats on this select committee. Sadly, he, and his mates, had formed a common intention. The question I find most intriguing is when did the two parties decide they were going to use their majority to return the bill unchanged? I am merely speculating but I think it was done a number of months ago, perhaps when the select committee commenced. I would also postulate that the complaint against Hone Harawira was an attempt to silence him before the bill was returned to the House. I think Te Ururoa and the leadership did not think it likely that Hone would hold on for so long. I imagine they thought he would quickly shoot himself in the foot and the matter would be dealt with relatively swiftly. As we know the opposite has happened and Hone is beating them at their own game. Given that Hone was not expelled before the bill was due to be returned the leadership needed another way to silence him – suspension from caucus. Hone’s behaviour over Waitangi weekend provided an excellent excuse for doing so. Now he cannot speak out on behalf of The Maori Party, he is something of a castaway. But that’s enough speculating – back to the select committee.     

As a select committee member Te Ururoa’s role is to facilitate public scrutiny and consultation. Furthermore, Te Ururoa, as a self proclaimed Maori representative, has a responsibility to act as an agent for Maori interests. I expect him to exercise his own independent judgement but ultimately it is more important that he act as a conduit for Maori concerns. However, Te Ururoa has put political considerations ahead of his moral and democratic responsibilities.

The MCA bill is not an elite concern. The implications of implementation will be far-reaching. The bill affects all Maori and all New Zealanders. Therefore, it was almost an imperative that the Maori Affairs Select Committee took into account the views of submitters and reflected that in their report. What the committee has shown is that policy formulation is an insider’s job. Influence over policy is only open to members of government and those with institutionalised access to it, for example the Iwi Leaders Group. This theme is becoming all too common across Maori Party policy. Access and consequently influence is granted only to the elite (iwi leaders) while ordinary Maori are excluded (I have touched on the subject of the Iwi Leaders Group limiting Maori political participation here).

It cannot be said enough that what Te Ururoa has done is nothing short of disgraceful. Annette Sykes sees it as a betrayal and I agree. It is disappointing that Te Ururoa has not rationalised his actions nor made any attempt at all to at least defend what he has done. It makes you wonder if he is not reacting to the situation is he even anticipating it?

 

The party must surely be doomed. It has no money, it is losing talent and in due course will probably lose members. Surely Moana Jackson, a prominent critic and conscious within the party, will leave. It is difficult to say if many will follow but I would not rule out the possibility of mass exodus. The Maori Party is descending down a corridor to destruction. Only they can save themselves, although I doubt they have the self awareness and foresight required to do so.