Jones advocates mining

Shane Jones is running an interesting line – a pro-mining line:

The Labour Party says it might come as a revelation to some that not all Maori are opposed to mining and oil drilling.

Maori Economic Development spokesperson Shane Jones says there is a fossilised view that Maori aren't interested or capable of making pragmatic decisions.

While he acknowledges there are been pockets of resistance, Mr Jones says there's a variety of views - not a monolithic one.

He’s right in one respect: there isn’t a singular view. However, I would guess, that the vast, vast majority of Maori oppose mining. Case in point, the almost universal opposition of the East Coast against oil prospecting, let alone oil drilling. In 2010 iwi leaders also rejected government suggestions to mine Maori land and Northland iwi sent a strong message that exploratory miners will be treated as “trespassers”. I think Dayle Takitimu’s open letter to the Maori Party represents Maori feeling well.

It’s interesting to see Shane Jones searching for what he keeps terming “pragmatic” ideas. Jones should be applauded for stepping out, but advocating mining, as I have said previously, runs contrary to Maori values (think kaitiakitanga) and David Shearer’s (read Labour’s) vision for a clean, green and clever economy.

I come back to the idea of hypocrisy. We, as Maori, share a special connection with the land and we like to remind people of this. However, Maori advocacy for mining is out of step with our claims to be the kaitiaki of the land. We cannot, on the one hand, denounce mining as a crime against Papatuanuku, while on the other hand, one of our leaders trumpets mining as a panacea.

Surely other options for economic development exist. For example, aquaculture, like this aquaculture set up in Opotiki, may provide economic growth for Maori on the East Coast. Maori have generations of experience in primary production, therefore, we probably have a competitive advantage when it comes to food production. Aquaculture products, like the sea cucumber which is a sought after delicacy in Chine, are value added products. Any operation on the East Coast would have to deal in value added products as the operation would lack the ability to produce high volumes of product. Therefore, value added products like sea cucumber, lobster/cayfish and so on fit nicely in a low intensity operation.

It isn’t harmful to have a debate about mining. Either way, I think Jones’ idea would be soundly rejected.

Shane Jones on asset sales and mining

You might remember Shane Jones’ bout of honesty following Labour’s election defeat. Jones came out saying that Labour got beat and beat good. Jones advocated a new approach and a period of reflection. The media and the commentariat praised him for his willingness to be upfront with the public and his party. However, towards the end of December Jones stretched his honesty a little far. Firstly, he came out effectively endorsing iwi looking to invest in state assets. A few days later Jones, as Labour’s regional development spokesperson, moved to champion mining for job starved areas.

I don’t think it was a sensible move to come out and effectively endorse iwi investment in state assets. Yes, Jones is of the northern conservative breed. He is also a product of iwi politics. But his comments go against Labour’s strong opposition and Maori opposition to asset sales. Labour does not need to cosy up to iwi. Iwi have an agenda and furthering that agenda will always involve cultivating a cosy relationship with the government of the day. Shane Jones, and the rest of the Maori caucus for that matter, would be better served advocating a different approach for iwi. Labour should publicly lobby iwi to invest in their own people. The line doesn’t mean much, but it goes down hella well with Maori.

The less sensible move was Jones’ mining advocacy. Mining is an economic solution for dry minds. It’s also bad politics. Mining is an idea that is in conflict with Maori values. It runs against the idea of kaitiakitanga and most other Maori values you can think of. It also runs against Kiwi values and Labour’s new direction. David Shearer is promoting Labour’s vision for a “clean, green, clever” economy. Surely that economy will exclude dirty extractive industries. Jones would also do well to remember that the largest protest in a generation was against mining.

Shane Jones is now the highest ranked Maori in Labour. So basically the spokesperson for all issues Maori. I hope Jones’ form recently is not something to go by. If it is, Labour’s going to have a hard time.

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.