On the role of criticism: Te Matatini

So this happened. Via Te Manu Korihi:

“The Tainui group, Te Iti Kahurangi, took to the national Te Matatini kapa haka stage last week and performed a haka which challenged the way [Māori Television] covered Maori issues.

After the performance, its kaitataki tane Kingi Kiriona, [a former Te Karere reporter], questioned how Māori Television covered stories.

He suggested that the station should be doing more uplifting stories about tangata whenua rather than negative stories about them”.

There is a very basic problem here: Kiriona and Te Iti Kahurangi are confusing negativity with accountability. Māori Television – and Native Affairs in particular – do the latter. The investigations into the Kōhanga Reo National Trust were not designed to undermine Māori, but to expose wrongdoing. We could have left it at that, but then this happened:

“Waikato-Tainui said an initial decision by Māori Television to not show the haka performance was censorship.

Te Arataura o Waikato-Tainui Chairman Rahui Papa said the matter served as a reminder to protect not only the right to freedom of speech but also the age-old Māori customary practice to openly discuss and debate issues.

He said the censoring of Te Iti Kahurangi not only impinged freedom of speech but did not align with an important tikanga that had been practised for years”.

There is another basic problem here: Te Iti Kahurangi is arguing for a double standard. While they made the case for their own freedom of speech, their haka simultaneously made the case against Native Affair’s freedom of speech. That is not to say Māori Television’s decision to edit the haka was right, but neither was the substance of Te Iti Kahurangi’s criticism.

If this were merely a question of form then no problem arises. Te Matatini is a proper forum for voicing criticism, as Mihi Forbes acknowledged on Waatea. Yet it is equally true that Native Affairs is a proper forum for criticism and, more importantly, accountability. To suggest, like Te Iti Kahurangi did, that criticism must take a particular form - especially a form which is not accessible to all Māori - is a kind of cultural elitism.

There seems to be some resistance to the idea that Māori Television is, well, Māori. As if Māori cannot take modernity and repurpose it. It is a rigid view which takes things Māori to mean things historical. The irony is that such a view is, in fact, ahistorical. Māori in colonial and postcolonial New Zealand have always borrowed Western systems, technology and aesthetics and then repurposed them.

This is an issue of power, as Leonie Pihama suggests. Yet the power does not lie with Native Affairs – the primary target of the haka – but with those who the haka sought to defend. Native Affairs is a show run by a team of young women with little institutional support from Maori Television (or anyone else). Who holds the power here?

The outsiders on Native Affairs or the establishment figures who they hold to account…

How not to manage a crisis: why the Kohanga Board must resign

The first Kohanga Reo with Sir Eddie Durie and Paul Temm QC

Consider this: in 2012 the Waitangi Tribunal held that the government must provide "funding for property maintenance and upgrades to avoid the exposing 3,000 mokopuna to the possibility of losing their kohanga reo buildings". The head of Te Taura Whiri, Glenis Philip-Barbara, says that Kohanga are running "on the sniff of an oily rag". According to Native Affairs the number of kohanga have gone from over 800 at the movement's peak to a little over 400 today.

And compare that against this: in 2011 Lynda Tawhiwhirangi purchased a wedding dress for her daughter and in 2012 she purchased a Trelise Cooper dress. Tawhiwhirangi also purchased "a 21st present for a woman who was in a relationship with one of [her] son's and had carried out work experience at the trust" Over a number of years withdrawals were made that included $1000 for a hui that wasn't attended. Native also revealed that "$129,000 [was] given out by the trust in koha... that wasn't receipted or tracked". All the while the whanau at the coal face went and are going without.

This is a breach of trust and a breach of ethics. Public money demands a greater standard of care. In the last financial year the trust received $80m in taxpayer funding. The Prime Minister told Firstline that "this is taxpayers' money. It needs to be spent appropriately and if it's inappropriate behaviour then they'll have the book thrown at them." And he's in the right. Public money demands public accountability.

But the aspect that grates is that while Lynda Tawhiwhirangi and Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi were using their trust credit cards for excessive and luxurious spending - the whanau at the flaxroot were going without. There's also an element of hypocrisy: the kohanga themselves have to follow strict accounting practices, but the same doesn't seem to be expected of some trustees and directors.

But to be fair most of the money was eventually paid back. Most. It's important not to lose sight of that in the heat. Dame Iritana is a titan of the movement too. A laspe of judgement can be forgiven. But is anyone else uncomfortable in that a pattern appears to have emerged?

The crisis provides a useful case study in what not to do when the temperature is up. Don't take defamation proceedings. That turned the anticipation-dial hot and gave the story legs of its own. Don't go to ground. That means speculation will run rife. Apologise - the issue might be cooled. If not, resign. The media and the public need a get. But on a moral level, an honour code demands a resignation.

I worry that if an independent investigation uncovers more inappropriate spending then that is an invitation for non-Maori to sort the issue. The solution will be (I imagine) greater integration with the Ministry of Education and early childhood education. I don't think that's the right approach. The trend is towards devolution (Whanau Ora, Charter Schools etc) rather than reintegration. An independent Maori organisation is better equipped to deal with Maori education. Centralised and state-led Maori education failed in the 20th century.

But the New Public Management Model created the beast. Devolving public functions to a myriad of semi-private organisations was a mistake. Devolution is justified on efficiency grounds, but many aspects of public accountability are lost. The government can also wash its hands of responsibility. The trust isn't part of the core public service nor even the wider public service.

The trust has to sort itself. If it doesn't, others will. The best way to sort itself out? Resign. Hold an election. The worst option is if the government is forced to intervene and break up the Kohanga board and remake the structure. There'll be all sorts of collateral damage in that possibility.

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.

Moe mai rā e te rangatira

E te hunga mate, te hunga kua whetūrangatia moe mai rā, moe mai rā, moe mai rā,  haere ki te huinga o te kahurangi, ki Hawaiki nui, ki Hawaiki roa, ki Hawaiki pamamao, haere, haere haere ōti atu ra.
I tēnēi wā ka tuku au I ōku mihi aroha ki te whānau Horomia me te whānau o Dick Grace hoki.

I didn't know Parekura Horomia well, I did, however, meet him several times at Ratana and at Parliament and he was extraordinarily gracious and kind, and very approachable. I have always been hugely impressed at the representation he provided for his constituents. For those who loved him and knew him well, his whānau, his iwi, Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and the Labour Party, this is a very difficult time. My thoughts and aroha are with you all.

Shane Jones shared some memories of Parekura on Native Affairs tonight. Jones said that Parekura was “a link with the old world”.  The Native Affairs political panel also remembered the life and times of Parekura. John Tamihere and Ward Kamo paid tribute to Parekura’s amazing time as Minister of Māori Affairs and his ability to progress forward unscathed through  political controversy. Morgan Godfrey served as Parekura's intern and shared his experience of Parekura giving him lunch money every morning.

Tributes for Parekura have come in from across the political spectrum with John Key sending his respects, Helen Clark naming him as one of the kindest people she has ever met, and Metiria Turei crediting him with the establishment of Māori TV.

Much will be said in the following weeks and months about Parekura's legacy, but I would like to put on the record that I think he would probably be the most loved (by his constituents) electorate MP in our Parliament and I think he will be remembered as the most effective Māori electorate MP of his generation. He is an inspiration for those of us taiohi who aspire to represent our people in Parliament. His commitment to the social and political development of Te Tai Rāwhiti and of the Te Ao Māori was unwavering and will forever be remembered and celebrated.

Nō reira, e te rangatira, haere rā kei tua o te arai. Haere, haere, haere oti atu rā.

Native Affairs continues its ground-breaking journalism

I was really looking forward to Native Affairs’ season premiere last night, and it didn't disappoint. In comparison to the mainstream current affairs shows – it was exceptional. It was always going to be interesting to see Native Affairs post Julian Wilcox as presenter. But if last night’s show was anything to go by then they made an excellent decision to appoint Mihingarangi Forbes as the presenter of New Zealand’s best current affairs show. Even with her significant experience and talent it was going to be a big task to match up to Julian Wilcox. But in her first political interview for the show she did just that. She continued Wilcox’s practice of asking the hard questions while being respectful and she naturally brought her own style to the show.

The show began with an informative and lengthy story on Tonga’s maritime transport. It is a significant issue that I knew very little about, but as viewers we were given all sides of the story (although Foreign Affairs Minister Murry McCully didn't agree to being interviewed). There were interviews with the Tongan Minister of Infrastructure, concerned locals, the owners of the ferry companies. It became clear that the New Zealand Government had a lot to answer for. New Zealand and World Bank officials had wrote scathing reports on the safety of the Tongan ferries but at the same time have not helped the small island nation by providing the resources required to ensure safety. Our aid to the nation is being spent on upgrading the airport, which will improve tourism, but will do little to help the day to day life of Tongans. They are too poor to travel by air and so are forced onto unsafe transport. It was good to see Phil Goff in support of getting New Zealand aid focused on the issue. Hopefully this story will push the Government to help the Tongans.

Then there was a wonderful story on Tame Iti’s return home. It was so good to see him at home with his family, and especially with his mokopuna. In my opinion, the defaming of the people of Te Urewera as terrorists and the imprisonment of Tame and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara have been some of the greatest injustices in 21^st Century New Zealand. And still Tuhoe and the whānau of Ruātoki haven’t received any kind of an apology for what was a disgusting abuse of state power.

And then we had Mihingarangi Forbes’ interview with David Shearer about his goal to win the back the Māori seats. I was especially pleased to see that Native Affairs were going to do this interview because I had some concerns after David Shearer's reshuffle that he wasn't doing enough to promote Māori talent, and I blogged about it last week. Forbes asked pretty much all the questions that I was eager to hear the answer to. While Shearer said a few good things, he didn't really answer any of the questions directly and he didn't set out any plan or vision for the way forward. He did say that he was looking to get more young Māori and more wāhine Māori selected as candidates, which will be really positive if he can see it through. He mentioned that his housing, health and education policies would be popular with Māori but he didn't announce any particular initiatives aimed at Māori communities. It would have been good to hear what he would do differently to the National/Māori Party Government on job creation, as he mentioned that 25% of young Māori aren't in education or employment  It was positive to hear that he intends to genuinely work with the Mana and Māori parties. Overall, I wasn't convinced by Shearer’s interview, especially with his inability to address that fact that he has only two Māori MPs in his shadow cabinet. But at least he's engaging and it seems that hes looking at strategies for moving forward. 

It would be good to find out in a subsequent interview with Shearer whether he will repeal the Takutai Moana Act. The Act, which was supported by the Māori Party, repeated many of the same injustices of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The inferiority of customary title in relation to freehold title is racism in our law and as it stands the Act constitutes modern day raupatu. Just last week Metiria Turei said on Radio Waatea that she's keen to repeal that Act. If Shearer wants to win back all the Māori seats, then committing to repealing the Takutai Moana Act would be a good place to start.

I really enjoyed Native Affairs last night. There were also good stories on the North Island drought and Te Matatini star Jeff Ruha. With a season premiere like that, we have a lot to look forward to this year. The full show can be viewed on the Native Affairs website or individual stories can be on viewed on their Facebook page. 

I think we would all be doing better if our Māori MPs were more like our Māori journalists!

The Daily Blog, Native Affairs and Rongoa

The Daily Blog

I'm excited to be part of the Daily Blog - a congregation of "weak, stupid, effeminate, erectile dysfunctional, naïve, apologist, namby-pamby, thumb-sucking, lefty pinko fantasy-land moron [sic]". Note that that's meant as a compliment and a sign of affection.

In Bomber's words

TheDailyBlog.co.nz will bring together 30 of the best left-wing bloggers and progressive opinion shapers in NZ all onto one site to critique the news, the media, and politics to provide the other side of the story.

The first challenge is to build a community. The first step in that challenge is easy - bring together a community of bloggers and their readers. The second step is harder - build a community of readers and commenters from outside of the leftwing blogosphere. I'm optimistic about that.

Native Affairs 

I'm sure most of you know, but for those that don't Julian Wilcox (the country's best news and current affairs presenter) is the new head of news and current affairs at Maori TV. His replacement on Native is Mihingarangi Forbes. She's a great addition to the strongest line-up in current affairs. Julian had a hypnotic voice and manner. He could lull guests into a false sense of security and hit them. Mihi is more combative - witness her demolition of Alasdair Thompson. I'm looking forward to it. The show returns March 11 at 8.30pm.


Winston has a go at Rongoa Maori

Winston's back up to his old tricks:

Rongoa Māori is under attack from New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, who says the Health Ministry is shelling out almost $2 million a year supporting traditional healers without any monitoring or accountability.

$2m is peanuts in the context of Vote Health's $14b appropriation. In other words, Rongoa Maori funding accounts for about 0.01% of the Health budget. The Silver Fox isn't really concerned about an unaccountable $2m, it's the idea of unaccountable Maori money. Although, there should be accountability for any and all taxpayer money, but that isn't to diminish the place of Rongoa Maori - even if it were only operating as a placebo.

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.

On Native Affairs tonight

I'll be on Native Affairs tonight. The usual political chat along with Sandra Lee and former National candidate Claudette Hauiti. The show starts at 8.30pm on Maori TV.

Oh, and Tame Noema, Alby Waititi and Jade Louise from The G.C are on as well.

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 on the Urewera "terrorists"

If you didn’t catch Native Affairs on Monday night, drop what you’re doing and view it here. Native Affairs sets the standard for current affairs in New Zealand and on Monday night the show raised the standard – again.

In an unorthodox move, well unorthodox for the MSM, Native Affairs dedicated an entire hour to the Urewera ‘terror’ issue. The show spoke to the Urewera four – Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Urs Signer and Emily Bailey – and then Greg O’Connor. A panel discussion followed with Matt McCarten, Annette Sykes, Stephen Franks and Russell Brown. The quality of discussion was excellent and Julian Wilcox further cements his place as the best television journalist in New Zealand. Although most viewers would have applauded the exclusion of O’Connor and Franks, the fact that the two were included is a testament to the Native Affairs crew and their commitment to balance.

----------

Interview with the Urewera four

The show opened with a discussion with the Urewera four. Julian asked Tame Iti, and quite rightly too, what he and the Urewera suspects were up to in the Urewera. It’s a legitimate question, but one without an adequate answer. Tame responded saying that they were “doing what Tuhoe do”. This is vague, but it suggests nothing sinister. Similar to most Tuhoe, Tame is very guarded about Tuhoe affairs. Although Tame acknowledged that he and others were engaging in “activities”, he disputed the Police interpretation and construction of those events. The activities were, it’s increasingly accepted, innocent in intention.

Emily Bailey described the activities as “wananga” which, to me at least, makes perfect sense. Bravado and silly buggers aside, what the suspects were engaging in is and was common practise in the Ureweras. Bailey also commented on the criminal group charge arguing that it was merely a tool to elevate the gun charges to something more sinister in the minds of the jury.

On the question of proof Kemara made the point that it's incumbent on those making the accusations to “make something of it”. In other words, the burden of proof falls on the Crown and those accused aren’t obligated to negate those allegations. Ultimately, and not unexpectedly, the Crown failed to prove their allegations, other than the relatively minor and strict liability firearms offences. The offences the four remaining defendants were convicted of fell well, well short of the original and outrageous terrorism allegations.

Urs Signer also made a number of insightful comments. Most interestingly for Maori, Signer labelled the terror raids and what followed another step in the colonial project. I read this as meaning it was a step to suppress tino rangatiratanga. As an aside, when will New Zealand accept that tino rangatiratanga is a legitimate and harmless political ideology? Anyway, Signer also claimed that it’s the intention of the Crown to seek a prison sentence despite a report from the probation service recommending community service.

In all, it was an outstanding interview with the four.

----------

Response from Greg O’Connor

Following the four was Police Association President Greg O’Connor. Julians asked whether or not the Police owe Tuhoe, or more specifically the Ruatoki community, an apology. O’Connor didn’t think so, instead he claimed that the Urewera four owe the community an apology. This is silly for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Urewera four were not responsible for Police actions. After all, the Urewera four did not compel the Police to act as they did, for example illegally detaining community members and boarding a school bus. The Police made that decision – the Urewera four didn’t compel them to do that. Secondly, what the Police thought the Urewera suspects were engaging in did not justify nor invite action against the Ruatoki community, merely the suspects themselves. Thirdly, and as I alluded to, the Police acted illegally. Given they will face no judicial consequences, isn’t there a moral obligation for them to apologise?

O’Connor went on to say that the claims that Police acted illegally were “allegations” and not facts. Of course he would say that, it’s his job as the union spokesperson to defend Police actions. However, why would the community lie about the Police actions? There is no reason for the community to do so. In the school bus claim, the bus driver, and the school children for that matter, had no reason to fabricate the claims that Police boarded their school bus. On the other hand, the Police have every reason to deny it.

In another erroneous call, O’Connor stated that the Police acted in accordance with the law citing that fact that the Police had obtained warrants. This, however, goes against the Supreme Courts contention that the Police acted illegally in obtaining evidence. O’Connor pressed on in an attempt to discredit the Supreme Court’s decision citing the fact that it was a split decision and contrary to the decisions of lower courts. This is hardly a convincing argument – some of the most notable judicial decisions are split and the Supreme Court’s decisions are just that, Supreme.

Towards the end of the interview O’Connor seemed to advocate a trial by media. If only New Zealanders were privy to all the evidence gathered he implied. This, as Urs Signer later pointed out, is silly as the Court, and by extension the public, in the Urewera four trial were privy to all the evidence as the Supreme Court had ruled it admissible in that case. Even in the event where all the evidence was available to the Court, the jury still could not decide on the criminal group charge. Given this, what makes O’Connor think the public would reach a different and more serious conclusion? Meaning why would the public find evidence of terrorism when the jury couldn’t even decide on a much lesser criminal group charge.

In a stupid and ill-advised move O’Connor also pulled a Don Brash and held aloft a still from the Police evidence showing some of the suspects in camo gear. It didn’t contribute anything other than to erode O’Connor’s argument. You know you’re in trouble when you need to resort to props to further your arguments.

Ultimately, O’Connor could not refute the fact that the Police allegations came to nothing but a few firearms convictions. A far, far cry from the terrorism absurdities. To be fair, I didn’t agree with anything O’Connor said, but the show was better for having his perspective and kudos for to O’Connor for fronting.

----------

Cross to Parihaka

O’Connor’s interview was followed by a cross back to Urs Signer and Emily Bailey in Parihaka for the right of reply. Both labelled O’Connor an angry man and this is how he came across. Emily closed by saying that it was the Police who did the terrorist acts.

----------

The Panel

Matt McCarten, Annette Sykes, Stephen Franks and Russell Brown joined the panel. A very good mix and all four had useful and insightful contributions.

Stephen Franks opened the discussion commenting that he was shocked with the scale of the, for want of a better term, ring. On the evidence that was supressed Franks believes that the four are terrorists, however this ignores the fact no terrorists acts were committed and in the trial of the four the jury could not even reach a decision on the lesser criminal group charge despite having access to all the evidence. Strangely Franks advocated for a trial by media too, despite his earlier comments indicating he is a man of legal principle. Franks also said the process should have been more open, but this ignores the fact that the suspects deserved to have their privacy and reputations protected until the Police could prove something. Furthermore, Franks claimed that all the evidence should have been heard, but it was in the trial of the Urewera four (as I mentioned how many times).

Matt McCarten’s comments were, as expected, excellent. Enough said there.

Annette Sykes was, true to form, fired up and made the point that the raids were used as a training ground for the SIS. This I agree with. It has been said often that the investigation, raids and so on were merely used to justify the existence of New Zealand’s anti-terror units. Annette also said the law has not been applied fairly to Maori. Again, I agree. Why are groups like the National Front still running around with guns in the South, but Maoris running around with guns in the North are targeted with force?

Russell Brown’s assessment that the Urewera suspects were just “dickheads” is a good assessment. Brown also labelled the media coverage as a mixed bag singling out the Dom Post for their poor coverage and James Ihaka from the Herald for his good coverage. The coverage was, according to Brown, fed by leaks. In this situation the initial coverage was bound to favour the sensational and bolster the Police claims. However, it was also pointed out that the defence had ample time to present their story and they did, for example through Operation 8.

----------

Conclusion

In all, the show was outstanding. Some of the best current affairs I’ve ever seen. Julian Wilcox did brilliantly steering the discussions and, in my opinion, for keeping it together when interviewing O’Connor. The panel was excellent too. The show cemented my belief that the Police allegations were unfounded and unjustified. You can watch the show here if you missed it. The show was also trending on Twitter alongside Desperate Housewives and Game of Thrones. That, I think, is pretty significant and well deserved coverage.

Lastly, just a reminder that I’m on Twitter now. You can follow me here, but don’t expect anything great, unless you want to be disappointed.   

Parata should think of her mana

Hekia Parata isn’t one to back down, it goes against her instincts. She’d be smart, however, to take a step back and reverse the decision to close Moerewa School. The Ministry and the Minister’s Office are losing the PR battle and Hekia’s mana is diminishing. Parata refused to front Native Affairs on Monday, however she gladly took a less stringent interview on Te Karere that day. Other than that interview, Parata has attempted to keep her hands clean, but she’s taken a battering in the media rather than appearing above the fray.

The previous Education Minister, Anne Tolley, ordered the school to close its senior unit. As a brief aside, the government is, I’m told, merging and closing rural schools as a cost saving measure. For example, in the Eastern Bay of Plenty (pop 50,000) two primary schools have closed, a merger between an intermediate and high school is scheduled and one primary school has become a year 1-13 kura. An anecdote, yes, but instructive nonetheless.

Anywho, the Ministry is citing alarmingly low pass rates as a justification for closing the senior unit. However, given there are less than 20 students spread across three different achievement levels, even one person failing will bring down the percentage significantly. Before audit, the pass rates were 93%, 83%, 100% and 100% at level 1, 2, 3 and university entrance (UE) respectively.This is well above the national average for Maori. After audit, however, the pass rates were 11%, 33%, 33% and 100% at level 1, 2, 3 and UE respectively. Strangely, NZQA awarded the students UE, the requisite standard to enter university, but did not award level 3 meaning those students cannot go to university. This is a perverse situation.

Of those students that failed, they only failed by a small number of credits. Usually, if a student fails an internal assessment, they’re given a chance to redo the standard. However, in this case, the students that have failed will not get that chance, a chance that all other NCEA students get.

The most appropriate course of action would be for the Ministry to work with the school to improve marking and moderation and then give the students a chance to gain the small number of credits they need. At level 1 all of the students gained the requisite 80 credits overall to pass, but failed to gain the required numeracy (maths) credits. This is common across all schools and is usually rectified internally, but again those students aren't getting the chance.Instead, the students are been thrown to the dogs as a result of the Ministry’s excuse, and it’s an excuse, to shut the school.

On Monday the Moerewa senior unit will open its doors for term 2. This move has the support of the local community, the local board, the school staff and the students. Many in the community believe Tolley’s, and now Parata’s, directive is punishment for the schools vocal opposition against National Standards. In a letter instructing the school to close its senior unit, Tolley noted the school’s refusal to implement National Standards. 

When a small problem like the above arises in a school the Ministry, or in this case NZQA, would usually work alongside the school to smooth over the problem. However, this hasn’t happened. In fact, the low pass rates excuse was only dreamed up under Parata only two weeks ago. Last year the Ministry weren’t even citing a coherent excuse to shut the school. Now neither the Ministry, NZQA or the Minister's Office will enter dialogue with Moerewa School and the community.

This decision smacks of a politics, not policy. Parata should do what’s right, and retain what’s left of her mana in the eyes of Maori, and keep the school open.

Here's the link to the Native Affairs interview (episode 06/06)

Native Affairs tonight

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

Native Affairs post-election special

If you didn’t watch Native Affairs last night, you should. In their last show for the year, and probably the best of the year, Julian and Annabelle hosted a raft of MPs and a brilliant panel (minus Mike King who was pretty bad).

Julian interviewed Pita Sharples, Winston Peters, Hone Harawira, Shane Jones, Meteria Turei, Rino Tirikatene, Simon Bridges and Louisa Wall. Annabelle discussed the interviews with Sandra Lee, Matt McCarten and Mike King. I don’t want to have a moan about Mike King, but I can’t let it slide that following Meteria’s interview King admitted to having never seen Meteria in action before. Even worse King then proceeded to speak of Meteria as if he’s never seen a sharp Maori women nor ever expected to see one. Prior to that King was salivating all over Winston again, just like he did on Saturday night.

Anyway, Pita Sharples came across as despondent. He found himself having to defend why the Maori Party lost a seat, had their party vote slashed and majorities in their remaining electorates slashed. Pita did have the good sense to admit the party’s relationship with National contributed to, or is still contributing to, the decline of the Maori Party.

Winston was, well he was Winston. Hugely charismatic, likeable in a mischief way and abrasive. Winston touched on good themes, for example poverty and asset sales, but he reverted to attacking the media when it wasn’t justified. He tried to dump Maori TV in the same basket as the mainstream media which was, in my opinion, patently unfair and a great way to burn bridges. After all, the Maori media have given Winston fair and consistent coverage.

Hone, true to form, gave a good interview. He was upfront and he added a dash of humour. Nothing really stood out.

Shane Jones. What a waste. The panel pointed out Shane was the first Labour MP to give an honest account of their loss. He didn’t sugar coat it, he didn’t repeat Labour’s lines, he called it as he saw it. 3 out 4 New Zealanders didn’t vote Labour (discounting the one million who didn’t vote) and that’s a problem they need to address.

Meteria Turei was the best performer of the night. As Mike King found out, Meteria is hugely intelligent, incredibly articulate and she’s pretty charismatic. The best Maori leader in Parliament in my opinion. Every thing was to the point and she didn’t deviate from the script.

Rino was given a soft interview and still seems like the win is yet to sink in. Julian almost caught Rino out when he put the proposition to him that would he support Ngai Tahu if they want to snap up SOEs. Rino seemed surprised and quickly stated Labour’s position.

Simon Bridges and Louisa Wall appeared together. Both MPs won huge majorities in their respective electorates. Louisa is the first Maori woman from Labour to win a general electorate and Simon is one of National’s best, no the best, Maori MP. Yes, better than Hekia Parata. In Mike King’s best call of the night he called Simon on his smugness. Mike correctly identified that NZders hate smug politicians, or smug people in general actually.The panel agreed Simon is a future leader of the National Party and maybe the first Maori Prime Minister. Agreed.

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Tai Tokerau review

I don’t have too much to say about the Tai Tokerau debate on Native Affairs. The three candidates, Hone, Kelvin and Waihoroi Shortland, were pretty even. If forced to pick a winner I’d go with Kelvin. Yes, Kelvin not Hone. Hone was certainly the most authorative, but Kelvin was the most articulate. He focussed firmly on Labour policy without peppering his answers with useless rhetoric. Yes, Hone and Waihoroi were guilty of providing meaningless, read useless, answers. However, I think the criticism that Kelvin is too “wooden” is well placed. This may have something to do with Kelvin remembering his lines too well and he comes across as scripted. I tend to think, or I know from personal experience, that that’s just how Kelvin is. To me it makes no difference.

Having said the above, on a strict points decision the night probably belongs to Hone. Hone speaks well off the cuff and he knows better than anyone how to connect with Maori on a personal level. One thing Hone does well is use colloquialism without taking away from the authority of his message. Maori, well New Zealanders actually, like their politicians to speak like them. That’s part of the appeal of John Key. Where Americans appreciate soaring rhetoric New Zealanders enjoy understated and familiar language. Hone understands this. Many New Zealand politicians are guilty of trying to be like Obama.

Waihoroi was strong in parts and weak in others. He did well to highlight the Maori Party’s role in securing funding for treating rheumatic fever in the north. Waihoroi is much better in te reo than English. He suffers from the problem many fluent Maori speakers suffer from – they speak English like they speak te reo. English is not meant to be spoken in the same manner as te reo. I’m nitpicking here, but one of the problems fluent Maori speakers have is that they can be too verbose. English is about simplicity whereas Maori is often about heavy metaphors, animation and so on. When someone speaks English like they speak te reo the message can be bogged down and lost. This isn’t an attack on Waihoroi, he did well, this is just a general observation.

In fairness, the night was probably too close to call. But I’ll give it Kelvin for focussing on policy. Kelvin provided a template for how political discourse in this country should be run.

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Ikaroa Rawhiti review

There isn’t an awful lot to say about the Native Affairs Ikaroa Rawhiti debate. There were no surprises, no real stand outs or no real disappointments. Business as usual up the coast really. If forced to call it, I’d give it to Parekura (yes, I used to work for Parekura, and yes I want him to win, and yes I think he will win).

It’s a fact though, isn’t it? Parekura’s just bloody good. It doesn’t even matter if he doesn’t address the question – he still sounds bloody good. The man was well versed in Labour talking points and he tied them in well with local themes and concerns. Where I thought he was particularly strong was on Maori trade training. He affirmed Labour’s commitment to reintroducing Maori trade training and he also mentioned the need to modernise the scheme because, quite obviously, the old school model isn’t going to fit so well with Maori in 2011. Parekura was also strong on health focussing on preventing problems rather than responding to them. This linked in with Labour’s children first policy. Policy wise, the highlight for me was Parekura’s speaking on putting money into post settlement governance entities. Post settlement Iwi structures are a real problem in Maori society, think of the problems engulfing Tainui, and Labour appears to be the only party taking note (please correct me if I’m wrong here).

Parekura wasn’t the only man in the room though. Na Raihania was good as well. When Parekura calls it a day I’d put money on Na taking the seat. He’s polite, moves well between te reo and English and knows Maori Party policy/the issues affecting his people. Na spoke well on health touching on Whanau Ora which he termed as “devolving” services to Maori organisations. I always associate “devolving services” with privatisation. Na failed to maintain his trajectory though. In the second half of the show Na came out in support of National Standards. He went as far as to say the Maori Party supports National Standards. Have he and the Maori Party not seen the international evidence against standards? Have he and the Maori Party not heard the warnings from NZ experts against the standards? Have he and the Maori Party not smelt the discontent coming from the education profession? Na said “in the absence of anything better we need to get something on the ground”. Anything better? National Standards are the worst option imaginable. The status quo works better. Anywho, other than that shocking hiccup Na performed very well and came across as a polite, respectful and knowledgeable candidate.

I don’t have much to say about Tawhai Mcclutchie. He was good - but no Hurricane Dearlove that’s for sure. I think he needed to provide more depth and try to keep away from saying Mana so much. He was good though (I won’t be disparaging of people who have taken a leap for something they believe in) and should be commended for doing so well on what is his first campaign and, probably, first time in front on the cameras and a live audience. I was a little shocked though when in response to a question on Maori wards in Gisborne Tawhai said there should be a 60/40 ratio of Maori to Pakeha – talk about radical huh.

On balance, the night belongs to Parekura. Na certainly didn’t harm his chances though and I think he may just be positioning himself for a successful run in 2014.

(The next debate screen Monday from Te Tai Tokerau)

Waiariki debate continued...

My last post (and it was hardly a post – more like a few sentences) generated a passionate response from camp Annette and camp Te Ururoa. The comments fell into three broad categories: 1. Annette smashed Te Ururoa and he is “the one percent iwi elite scumbag”, as one fiery commenter put it 2. Annette is, in the words of the first commenter, a “BMW” (Bitter Maori Woman) with nothing more than a big mouth while Te Ururoa is quietly doing the job. 3. We, as in Maori, need to stop turning on each other.

I’m glad this blog is stimulating debate, but please, please can we keep it civil. Calling someone a “scumbag” or a “BMW” probably doesn’t help anyone.

Anyway, a few words on the debate itself. Annette won, hands down. She controlled the debate. Te Ururoa found himself having to respond to her attacks, or allegations is probably the nicer word here, therefore, he was unable to control the agenda. Annette backed him into a corner and portrayed him in an unfavourable light. It was masterful politics. However, Te Ururoa responded almost as well. He didn’t come out of the corner fighting, instead he steadily moved himself out with careful justifications and a focus on the Maori Party’s achievements. Te Ururoa’s responses detracted from the potency of Annette’s attacks (or allegations) and helped build the picture that he is a respectful person (which I’m sure he is).

Annette is prone to well crafted and well delivered rhetoric, so naturally this is where she stole the show. Te Ururoa built the best image, but Annette spoke the best. Each answer she provided explored Mana policy, at times she digged at her opponents and, most importantly, she linked every answer to themes that will resonate with Maori. For example tino rangatiratanga, anti-capitalism and the effects of colonisation. It was masterful politics.

Te Ururoa also provided in depth and considered answers. But often he found himself having to defend himself or his party rather than going on the front foot like Annette. However, he still managed to paint a good picture of himself as respectful and considered. Louis Te Kani, unfortunately, wasn’t a feature. He found himself relying too heavily on non-specific soundbites. A little depth from him would have gone a long way.

On a similar note the Ikaroa-Rawhiti debate is on tonight at 9pm. I’ll probably write on it tomorrow.  

   

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Te Tai Tonga

New Zealand politics is devoid of genuine charisma. Kiwi politicians have that matey sort of charm or a very casual allure, but nothing in the way of real magnetism, read charisma. Enter Clinton Dearlove. “Hurricane Dearlove” (as he is known now) came storming out of left field in last nights Te Tai Tonga election debate. This from the NZ Herald:

Maori Party MP Rahui Katene started strong but was soon paddling against the tide, and finished the Te Tai Tonga debate looking frazzled and beaten.

Meanwhile Mana candidate Clinton Dearlove was full of beginner nerves, but soon found his feet to deliver a message with emphatic authority, along with an Obama-esque smile.

There is now a palpable sense among Mana supporters that Dearlove can steal the seat. On the basis of his performance last night this is a reasonable expectation, but I doubt it. Instead, I think Dearlove has done enough to snatch a significant number of votes from Rahui Katene and push the seat towards Rino Tirikatene. Rino was, in my opinion, going to win whether Clinton did well or not. I always thought there were enough tribal Labour voters coupled with a large enough reflex backlash against the Maori Party (for supporting, among other things, the MCA Act and the tax switch) to hand the seat to Rino. And, perhaps, Rino is best placed to represent Te Tai Tonga. Rino made the point that Labour, as one of the major parties, is best placed to achieve change for Maori. This is, for the most part, true. Labour will always sanction or lead change for Maori. The minor parties, Mana, Maori and the Greens, will always be subordinate to either National or Labour. Having said that, this doesn’t mean minor parties are irrelevant. The minor parties play a fundamental role in introducing Maori issues onto the agenda and pushing change. However, going back to the main point, Labour, or sometimes National, will always sanction or lead change.

As I said last night every candidate communicated their message well. I think Rino and Rahui were quite nervous, but this is to be expected, after all, all the pressure was on those two. Dora Langsbury and Clinton Dearlove were not weighed down under the pressure of expectation. They had nothing to lose and nothing to prove whereas last night was probably in Rahui and Rinos minds make or break.

Rahui performed well choosing to follow her leaders lines and focus on what the Maori Party has achieved – even though some of her claims were erroneous. Rino was weighed down by expectation, but outperformed everyone on the economy. He had his soundbites at the ready and delivered them with finesse. I was impressed with the pace of his delivery. He adjusted his tone in response to the audience mood as well. Dora Langsbury did well on policy. The Greens are always strong on policy so it is no surprise Dora performed well here. Clinton did well on all fronts. He delivered his message powerfully. He was animated, he concentrated on the message and was not too mindful of the medium (i.e. the cameras), the tone was conversational and the pitch was perfect.

I’m hesitant to name a winner. I think they all performed well in certain areas. In my opinion the debate is going to break Rahui and reward Clinton and, as a result, Rino. Clinton will seep enough votes from Rahui in Wellington, where Mana is strongest in Te Tai Tonga, to award the seat to Rino.

Sexism and Maori

On Monday night Native Affairs ran a panel discussion with Dr Hone Kaa and Matt McCarten. The panel discussed the upcoming election as well as the Maori seats. Julian Wilcox, the host, suggested to Hone Kaa that Waiariki could go either way (to Te Ururoa or Annette), however Dr Kaa disagreed. He held that Waiariki is Te Ururoa’s because it is a “Wahine voice versus a Tane voice”. Dr Kaa then went onto say “given that tribal area (meaning Te Arawa)… how many women do you see speaking on a Marae there?” What he was implying is that Te Arawa is, and I wish there was a less offensive term for this, sexist. Although he did not come out and say so in certain terms, the implications of his statements are clear. 

It's sometimes said that Te Arawa is, to quote a very prominent Maori leader who shall remain nameless, “chauvinist”. Women are accorded a subordinate place on the Marae and the social hierarchy. I think Dr Kaa poses a valid question.

We know that on the arrival of Europeans, or more specifically missionaries, our Tikanga was warped to better reflect Christian notions of the place of women (i.e. as secondary to men) and we have yet to reclaim our original ideas about the role of women and their place in our world. Or, alternatively, we have yet to respond to and incorporate modern notions of the place of women. But is this a justification? Or is this really the case? I don’t really know.

Having said that, I doubt any perceived or real chauvinism on the part of Te Arawa will have much bearing on the result. The tribes of the Mataatua (Ngati Awa, Tuhoe, Whakatohea, Te Whanau a Apanui, Ngai Te Rangi and Ngati Pukenga – as well as Nga Puhi of course) accord women a special place as a result of two tipuna – Wairaka and Muriwai. Depending on whom you ask, Wairaka or Muriwai saved the Mataatua Waka on arrival in Whakatane. As a result of this women have always and continue to occupy a central role in the life of the aforementioned tribes. With this in mind, the perceived or real chauvinism of Te Arawa will not have much, if any, affect on the election as the tribes of the Mataatua Waka outnumber those of the Te Arawa Waka.

(In no way is what I write a slur against Te Arawa. I'm probably woefully wrong).

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.