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

Winston’s up to his old tricks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Golliwog is back (and still racist)

The Golliwog in a minstrel show

It's back. Scandal stalks the Golliwog. Its perpetual return is always greeted with a customary defence and the pattern repeats itself every few years. Today it was Sean Plunket's turn on the stump:

AUDIO: Why are golly dolls offensive? - Audio Player - Audio - RadioLIVE

If you can't stomach it, the short version is this: a series of justifications are offered including "it is a doll", where’s the "injustice" in a doll and "we" live in a "massively" tolerant and colourblind society.

He might be right on the last point, though. But only if "we" means people of the same race and gender as Plunket. It's not right if "we" means people like Plunket and people on the margins too, the same people that the Golliwog is a caricature of.

The Golliwog’s return isn't about people of colour reappropriating a caricature. It's about white adults reclaiming the racism of their childhood. Yet the primary problem isn’t that some New Zealanders are nostalgic for the racism of yonder, but that a new generation will be brought up on the myth that the Golliwog is a cultural artifact and a childhood tradition. Generations of children have been socialised into race-relations off of the back of the Golliwog. But the reality is that the Golliwog is a form of historical and contemporary trauma.

People who want to revive the Golliwog probably don’t want to perpetuate racism. But the two can’t be divorced. The Golliwog is to playtime what blackface is to performance. They’re caricatures that are interwoven with the violent oppression of people of colour. The Golliwog was used to reinforce stereotypes about black appearance and character. The wild eyes and hair spoke to black appearance, but the real message was that blacks were wanton. The big lips represented black appearance too, but the outlandish redness reinforced the stereotype that blacks were hyper-sexualised.

The Golliwog is the politics of oppression manifest. Indoctrinating young people with caricatures of people of colour made justifications for and acts of oppression easier. That's partly why it's a false comparison to compare the Golliwog against GI Joe or caricatures of white peoples (like Plunket did). The context above puts a lie to that comparison. But the fact that some people don't get that means the Golliwog isn’t dead and buried yet.

Post script: for context, there's been comment recently on the prominence of Golliwogs in Canterbury. But what sparked the Plunket interview was the sale of Golliwogs in an Invercargill shop. Golliwogs are still sold in other parts of New Zealand too. I know of a children's store in Hamilton that was selling Golliwogs this year (and probably still does). 

#IdleNoMore

What’s Idle No More? Who is Chief Spence? Why is Stephen Harper tweeting about bacon and should we care?

Idle No More is an indigenous movement calling on the Canadian government to protect the environment, honour First Nations sovereignty and respect the “Nation to Nation” relationship. The movement appeared in response to Bill C-45, an omnibus bill that doesn't recognise aboriginal fishing rights and reduces environmental protection. The Bill, for example, alters the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Act requires environmental assessment for 2.25 million rivers and 32,000 lakes. Under Bill C-45, environmental assessment will only apply to 62 rivers and 97 lakes. First Nations people were not consulted and believe that the changes reduce environmental protection. The movement also opposes a suite of other omnibus bills including the proposed First Nations Private Property Ownership Act and the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. The first act would allow private property ownership within Reserve boundaries*. The second act would impose standards on First Nations governments that far exceed standards for municipal, provincial and federal officials. For example, First Nation‐owned businesses (unlike non-First Nations' businesses) will be required to publicly report income and expenses. The proposed legislation is based on the racist assumption that First Nations’ officials are corrupt. But beyond the racist assumptions and unilateralism is a more sinister motive – the assimilation of First Nations people and the destruction of their culture. A 21st century way of continuing God’s work – well, Duncan Campbell Scott’s work - of eliminating the “Indian problem”.

Although these bills acted as the catalyst, the movement speaks to deeper themes: sustainability, the subjugation of indigenous values, laws and systems, a partnership between the Crown and First Nations that is only respected where it is expedient and… te tino rangatiratanga (self determination). These issues aren't peculiar to Canada, or New Zealand, or anywhere else. They’re part of a global story arising wherever Europe collided with indigenous cultures.

In many respects Canada was years ahead on indigenous rights. Much of the New Zealand case law on Maori rights is developed from reference to the Canadian authorities. In the Muriwhenua case** President Cooke made extensive reference to the Canadian cases and commented that the Canadian common law was, in respect of indigenous rights, “more advanced than our own”. However, Maori have pulled ahead of our First Nations tuakana (seniors). From 1840 onwards Maori have, generally speaking, maintained and exercised a greater degree of political power. As a political body, First Nations people are marginal players. Power in a capitalist democracy is contingent on several factors including numerical strenth and economic power. First Nations have neither, as a result their values, laws and systems have remained subordinate to the Queen in Right of Canada***.

However, Idle No More might represent a permanent shift in Canada’s power dynamics. Stephen Harper has bowed to pressure and agreed to meet with Chief Teresa Spence, an Aboriginal leader whose hunger strike helped inspire the movement, but being a classy Tory Harper first tweeted “mmm… Bacon” while Chief Spence was striking and stood by his flimsy claim that “Canada has no history of colonialism”. These actions have fed further domestic protests, including the disruption of key economic routes, and international solidarity is increasing. Importantly, the Idle No More movement is taking ques from the Occupy Movement, the successful Quebec Student Movement**** and utilising social media to organise near instantaneous demonstrations and spread information. The movement is also maintaining a level of intensity and coordination unfamiliar to Canadians and their government. The Ottawa Citizen compares the movement to an event in 1969:

1969 was the last time the federal government put forward an assimilation plan for First Nations. It was defeated then by fierce native opposition, and it looks like Harper’s aggressive legislative assimilation plan will be met with even fiercer resistance.

It is important to remember that First Nations people were never conquered. The Crown derives its authority through the Treaties they signed with the First Nations people. Although each Treaty is different, the core promise is that a partnership exists between First Nations and the Crown and that the wealth of the land will be shared equally. Relations are conducted on a “Nation to Nation” basis. However, as in other Westminster democracies like New Zealand, the Crown only recognises its own sovereignty*****. First Nations are considered intra-nations with a lesser form of authority devolved from the sovereignty of the Crown. Its legal, political and cultural imperialism at its zenith.

The oppressive and discriminatory conduct of successive governments has meant that only one treaty partner has seen any wealth. While the minerals and other resources from traditional First Nations’ lands have been used to give Canadians one of the highest standards of living in the world, the indigenous people remain at the bottom of every indicator and the needle isn’t moving.

I remain optimistic about Idle No More and the First Nations’ struggle for tino rangatiratanga. Chief Spence’ hunger strike is, I think, somewhat symbolic of what has and will happen to the First Nations people. For every day that Chief Spence did not eat, she withered and weakened like her people have for the past three centuries, but after winning a dialogue with Harper, his government and the Governor-General, Chief Spence gains in strength and mana and so do her people.

Post-script: Big ups to Te Wharepora Hou for their support of Idle No More and props to Te Karere and Te Kaea for covering the movement too. It is also important to note the role of women. Idle No More was created by four women and is led, in spirit, by Chief Spence, a female chief of huge mana. In New Zealand the strongest support has come from Maori women.

*Aboriginal property is held collectively, consistent with their values, legal system and the stated goals of many First Nations. The Act would also open land to non-Aboriginal buyers.

**See Te Runanga o Muriwhenua Inc v Attorney-General (1990)

***The Queen in Right of Canada is used to express the sovereignty of the Crown, or more simply the Parliament.

****The Quebec Student Movement involved thousands of students taking direct action to defeat proposed fee hikes.

*****See the orthodox doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

Funding cuts for Maori TV....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Hone really care about New Zealand?

Hone Harawira is appearing more sensible by the day:

(Hone) says rather than considering environmental issues, the Maori Party believes mining is ok if iwi want to mine.

“We need to put that aside and say is mining in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. When they talk about the iwi, the Maori Party just talk about the iwi leaders but the iwi leaders are not actually the iwi, and iwi are very rarely consulted and you will find in most cases where an iwi are actually consulted in terms of the people who live there, they are 90 percent opposed to such activity,”

“We need to put that aside and say is mining in the best interests of the people of New Zealand”. This quote represents a big shift in Hone’s thinking. Previously, Hone focussed exclusively on what was best for Maori, however following the Maori Party split he has adopted a broader approach. In my opinion a focus on the interests of all of New Zealand, as opposed to just Maori, represents a certain maturity. It is also a signal that Hone realises a new party is only viable if he takes a broader approach incorporating the interests of the country as a whole. Therefore, I think this quote lends further credence to my prediction that Hone will form a left wing party as opposed to an alternative Maori Party.  

Maori Statutory Board refuses to back down

Relations between The Maori Statutory Board and Len Brown, and I guess by extension council, are strained. The board has rejected Len’s offer to negotiate and will instead proceed with Court action. This is unfortunate but understandable.

The council has acted in bad faith. The board engaged an independent consultant and worked alongside council officers in an attempt to formulate a reasonable budget. The budget was then approved by the finance committee. The council, after taking into consideration the political ramifications rather than what is fair and reasonable, then slashed the board’s funding. It is interesting to contrast the behaviour of the council with the good faith in which the Maori Statutory Board acted, up until their budget was savaged of course.

The board will obviously have misgivings about dealing with council again, given the council’s regrettable behaviour. The board will also realise that the council must work within certain political confines. However, the court is not beholden to the uninformed opinions of a few Auckland voters. The council is, for the most part, fixed to the opinions and desires of the majority, whether those opinions and desires are just is less important, comparatively speaking. This is the reality of politics. Given that public opposition to the board’s funding was almost significant, the council will not risk igniting a backlash. With this in mind it is obvious why the board is pushing ahead through the Courts. The Courts will determine the issue according to the facts and the law. No politics. On the other hand the council will take the option likely to cause the least electoral damage.

This should have never been an issue in the first place. The board took adequate steps to ensure their budget was reasonable. The sad reality is that the majority of New Zealanders perceive any Maori empowerment as some sort of unjustified hand out. Privilege if you will. And what is even sadder is that instead of challenging this notion politicians are willing to perpetuate it for political gain.