Fisking the Herald

I like South Park. One of my favourite episodes is “Raising the Bar” where a caricature of James Cameron leads an undersea expedition to, literally, raise the bar. The episode is notable because the show went meta. After Cameron raises the bar from the bottom of the ocean and Michelle Obama beats the shit out of Cartman, Kyle states that maybe South Park is responsible for lowering the bar. It was a nice way for the show’s creators to acknowledge that maybe they’re part of the problem. On a similar note it would be nice for the writer of this editorial to acknowledge his or her part in lowering the standard of editorial writing and argument in New Zealand. Admittedly, the bar couldn’t be set much lower, but it’s comforting to know there is still room before the Herald, the Dom Post and New Zealand’s other dailies hit the ocean floor. Let’s start at the beginning:

The Prime Minister was never more wrong last year than when he declared the Government could ignore a recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal.

In reality, the Prime Minister was perfectly correct. The Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry rather than a Court. Therefore, the Tribunal’s recommendations don’t bind the Crown (with rare exceptions) or any other parties. In contrast, the Courts can make rulings that bind the parties involved. The Tribunal exercises little to no soft power either. More often than not the political consequences of ignoring the Tribunal are positive, think of the foreshore and seabed when the government ignored the Tribunal and won approval from many New Zealanders.

It needs to be remembered that the case is not about who owns water.

No, it’s not. However, later in the piece the writer says that “the recognition (iwi) sought (is) customary ownership of the water”. Make your mind up – “the case is not about who owns water” and the case is about “customary ownership of the water” are two mutually exclusive statements.

It (the case) is about whether the ownership of dams and power stations will make it harder for iwi to be compensated if they ever convince a government they own the water.

No. The issue centred on whether or not the transformation from an SOE to a MOM company would affect the Crown’s ability to provide rights redress and recognition and, as a result, breach either s9 of the SOE Act or s45Q of the Public Finance Amendment Act (the Treaty clauses). It was also at issue whether or not there was a sufficient nexus to justify the Courts intervening*. The ownership of dams and power stations isn’t at issue, it’s the MOM proposal and its effect on rights redress and recognition.

By putting the cart before the horse the case has forced the Crown to assume the water claim has succeeded and to argue that the Government would be able to require a private power company to pay a royalty or some other form of compensation.

No, the case isn’t concerned with private companies. The Crown will retain a majority shareholding in Mighty River Power. Crown Counsel argued that “the transfer and sale of shares does not affect relevant rights in that it does not impair the Crown’s ability to provide redress or rights recognition”. Private companies are irrelevant.

The "shares-plus" arrangement was immediately ruled out by the Government as contrary to commercial law and compromising the main purpose of asset sales: accountability to the share market.

Firstly, the idea of shares-plus was rejected because of perceived impracticalities. Secondly, asset sales had nothing to do with “accountability to the share market”. In the government's own words, asset sales will contribute to:

The Future Investment Fund to reinvest the proceeds of our partial share sales programme. We expect that selling a minority stake in these companies will return $5 billion to $7 billion to the Government. We’ll spend every dollar of this on more assets that New Zealanders need – such as schools and hospitals – without having to borrow more from offshore lenders to fund our infrastructure needs.

The writer continues:

The Maori Council and co-claimants could not convince High Court judge Ronald Young that shares-plus had merit. He reasoned that since Mighty River Power did not own the water that it had been given a right to use, a shareholding in the company would not give the iwi the recognition they sought, customary ownership of the water.

Iwi were not looking for the Court to establish Maori customary ownership of water. At paragrapgh [52] onwards Justice Young sets out the remedies sought and they are 1) an injunction against the partial privatisation of Mighty River Power and 2) a declaration that the Court should take no further action.

Lord Cooke, author of the guiding judgment on the Treaty's application, said it required each party to act "reasonably and in good faith within their respective spheres". Assets that generate hydro or geothermal electricity are unquestionably in the government sphere.

That quote is misattributed. It was Richardson J who delivered this line and the writer misunderstands what is meant by “spheres”. The use of “spheres” does not mean there is a dividing line between things Maori and things British, or things owned and controlled by Maori and things owned and controlled by the Crown. I interpret the quote as meaning that Maori and the Crown will act reasonably and in good faith in their respective roles in the Treaty relationship. Maori will maintain “a duty of loyalty to the Queen, full acceptance of her Government through her responsible Ministers, and reasonable cooperation” and the Crown will maintain the duties of partnership, active protection, redress and so on.

*See paragraph [166] of the judgment. 

Missing the point on water rights

The government is missing the point, or muddying the waters, with their offer to pre-settlement iwi. From RNZ:

65 iwi are to be offered the chance to take shares in state owned enterprises.

The stakes will be available to tribes that have not yet settled their Treaty claims.

The Government says the scheme allows iwi more flexibility about how their settlement money is invested.

They would be able to get the shares up front - ahead of their final Treaty resolution with the Crown.

This is misleading. Iwi, minus a handful of iwi leaders, are not asking for market shares at market prices. Most iwi are asking for 1) the recognition of their water rights and 2) compensation for the use and breach of those rights. Market shares address neither point.

Shares-plus, an idea the government rejected, represented an adequate remedy on the second point. However, any move on the second point is largely pointless when the first point is left moot.

Shares-on-credit are an attempt to co-opt pre-settlement iwi and mitigate the government’s legal risk. From a political perspective, the iwi leaders who support the offer are salivating too early. The overton window keeps shifting. Rewind one year, preferential shares (which are really what shares on credit are) were considered unacceptable, or radical on the overton spectrum. Today, the offer is acceptable on the spectrum. Fast forward six months, say post a court win for the NZMC, shares-plus might be considered sensible on the spectrum – a compromise in exchange for Maori allowing the sales to go ahead. With this in mind, iwi would do well to wait before jumping at the government's half-baked offer.

In any event, the most important thing is that the pre-settlement iwi do not let the offer create a wedge between themselves and Maori seeking the recognition of our rights rather than commercial redress. Even Winston Peters is calling the government’s offer “divide and rule” and pointing out that “it’s designed to try and corrode support for the Maori Council's action”. Wedge politics, essentially.

The most important thing is rights recognition. Commercial redress is a secondary concern. That’s why I support the NZMC’s court action. That’s why iwi should. And all praise to the Maori Party for supporting rights recognition before commercial redress. Oh, and iwi who are willing to let the sales proceed would do well to remember that 88% of Maori oppose, key word oppose, asset sales. Only 8% support the sales. Something to keep in mind.

The three mystic apes

The three mystic apes are a pictorial maxim. Together they embody the maxim “see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil”. In the government’s case the three apes represent “see no Maori rights, hear no Maori rights and speak no Maori rights”. There is sometimes said to be a fourth ape that embodies the principle “do no evil”. In the government’s case the fourth ape represents “do nothing about Maori rights”.

Yesterday, in what was suspicious timing, the Prime Minister announced that:

The Government will not implement the Waitangi Tribunal’s ‘shares plus’ concept, or engage in further negotiations in relation to that concept, before the sale of shares in our energy companies.

The Government will proceed to remove Mighty River Power (MRP) from the State Owned Enterprises Act. We will prepare an Order in Council for Cabinet and Executive Council to consider and approve on Tuesday 23 October.

And there’s the niggle. The Waitangi Tribunal found that Maori “had rights and interests in their water bodies for which the closest English equivalent in 1840 was ownership rights” AND that the partial privatisation of MRP will affect the recognition of those rights and interests and breach the principles of the Treaty. With that in mind the government cannot partially privatise MRP without breaching their own legislation. Section 45(Q)(1) holds that:

Nothing in this Part shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

Assuming the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision is right in law; the government will have to 1) recognise and compensate for the use and breach of Maori water rights and interests or 2) legislate. On the first point, there is room for the government to find a solution other than shares-plus. On the second point, the Prime Minister has backed away from legislating. However, if court action threatens the government’s timetable – and there is every indication that it will – then legislation will be needed to ensure certainty for investors and (most importantly) that the other SOEs can go to market before the 2014 election.

Tomorrow the NZMC will meet with iwi, Kingi Tuheitia and others to plan their way forward. Maanu Paul claimed on Te Kaea (not online yet) that the NZMC will go to Court, whether he had leave to say this I don’t know, but Sir Eddie Durie told RNZ that Court action is his preference.

I’ll continue to follow this issue closely. Assuming something comes of the NZMC meeting tomorrow, I’ll post something tomorrow or later in the week. I really should be getting ready for exams, but this is too important to miss.

Maori Party takes it to National

Tariana Turia is taking issue with the Prime Minister:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia is seeking an urgent meeting with John Key over his "insulting" comments about the Waitangi Tribunal as the Prime Minister yesterday went into damage control.

Speaking to the Herald last night, Mrs Turia made what may be her strongest criticism of Mr Key in their 3-year political partnership.

She suggested his comments on Monday and yesterday that his Government "could choose to ignore" any tribunal recommendation to halt the sale of Mighty River Power while Maori water claims were settled, was a politically motivated sop to New Zealanders hostile to Maori attempts to assert claims.

I find it difficult to take Turia serious. Remembering back, we’ll find Turia and the Maori Party employed similar rhetoric and sentiment during the section 9 controversy. That rhetoric and sentiment came, of course, to nothing.

It’s a little hypocritical for Turia to label the Prime Minister’s comments as “politically motivated”. Her comments are politically motivated too. The Maori Party have to drive a wedge between themselves and the government. They cannot afford to be tainted by association or appear to be passive players. The Maori Party have to align themselves with Maori opinion and that means the party have to position themselves against the government.

It all, to me at least, seems a little overblown which signals politics is at play. The PM was merely making statement of fact, and a fairly innocuous one at that. Although I accept that the comments were unhelpful.

The obvious question becomes, when will the Maori Party walk? Well, it depends on the Tribunal’s findings and the government’s response. A piece or pieces of Mighty River Power will not satisfy the Maori Council. A solution along those lines will satisfy the Iwi Leaders Group, who are still lobbying behind closed doors, however the Maori Council is searching for the power to put an outright stop to asset sales. The Maori Council are not interested in shares – they’re not a commercial body.

The Maori Party will not walk – unless the situation escalates. The Maori Party has too much to lose. If they walk, there is no guarantee Maori will follow them. They would, I predict, be attacked for walking four years too late. Support would more likely consolidate with the Mana Party. Why risk, it must be asked, programs like Whanau Ora too? Whanau Ora is Tariana Turia’s legacy and she will not let that slip so easily. Ultimately, however, the Maori Party believes firmly in the idea of “being at the table” and they will not sacrifice that belief for what is, at the moment, an innocuous comment from the PM.

This is a volatile situation. There is potential for foreshore and seabed 2.0. If the situation is not managed well on both sides, both Maori and non-Maori, we could see racial tension increase to Don Brash levels. Joshua Hitchcock made an excellent point on Twitter last night commenting on:

The Hypocrisy of the Political Right: We believe in property rights, except when they are claimed by indigenous people. We despise collectivism, except when it comes to beaches and waterways which everyone owns

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Marriage equality, privatisation and the Maori Party and the GC

The marriage equality debate isn’t about to die anytime soon with Te Kaea and the Herald picking up on Hone Harawira’s opposition, or failure to take a position. The Maori Party and the Greens are in support while Labour’s Louisa Wall has a bill in the ballot that would legalise same-sex marriage. Despite strong support from these quarters, our male MPs seem to be stubbornly against or, like in Hone’s case, refusing to take a position. It’s a pity because opposition to equality goes against Maori values. It’s also poor form for some Maori MPs to demand equality for Maori, yet refuse to demand equality for other marginalised groups. Step up male MPs. 

 
----------

Although the Maori Party voted against the privatisation bill, they also voted against Labour’s amendments to the bill. Again, this was poor form. Apparently a blanket decision was made to vote against amendments that did not concern Maori or the Treaty. This wasn’t good politics. Voting for the amendments would have indicated the Maori Party’s supposedly strong opposition. Instead, the Maori Party voted with the government thus making their opposition to the substantive bill look very, very hollow.

----------

The GC wrapped up last night and I’m going to change my opinion - again. The show was nothing like Jersey Shore and nothing like a documentary. It was an excellent piece of storytelling in a format that was just right for the demographic. The show was full of fluff, there’s no doubt about that, but it also confronted some interesting questions, for example what does it mean to be Maori in Australia. Arguably we didn’t get a wholesome answer, but we got enough to draw our own conclusions. The show’s worth a second go.

----------

It’s Matariki… Happy Maori New Year.

Images from the Aotearoa is not for sale protest

One of my favs

The head of the march

True to form, the unions are a big part of the protest

One of the protest leaders, Joe Carolan, speaks to Russell Norman

Labour, along with David Shearer, were a big part of the protest

The protest wasn't just about asset sales, with support for tino rangatiratanga coming from an unconventional group

There appear to be more than 3000 people here. The organisers estimated 22,000, the Herald on Sunday estimated 3000, but initial media estimates put the number at 10,000. I tend to agree with the latter estimate.  

Again, Labour is a big part

Treaty won't stop asset sales (updated)

I was in a rush to write this post, so it's not as considered as I'd like. 


Despite Hone Harawira’s enthusiasm, I doubt s9 of the SOE Act can stop asset sales. From TVNZ:

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira is making a bold claim that the Treaty of Waitangi can be used to stop state owned asset sales and is calling on Maori to reject the necessary law change at a series of Government-organised Hui.

The Government has planned a series of hui to consult with Maori on legislative changes it considers necessary in order to float the minority shareholdings of four State Owned Enterprises (SOEs).

"Section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act says that the Crown must not act in a manner inconsistent with the Treaty. And to sell off assets that Maori still have claim over is inconsistent with the Treaty," Harawira told TV ONE's Breakfast.

"The Treaty is stopping the Government from flogging off the nation's assets, so they're gonna throw the Treaty out," claims Harawira.

The Waitangi Tribunal (WT) sets out the following principles: reciprocity and partnership, active protection, equity and options and redress. The Court follows, roughly speaking, the same principles. However, unlike the WT, the Court explicitly recognises the Crown’s right to govern and the duty to consult as stand alone principles.

A Maori claimant could lodge a claim with the WT, but a WT decision would have no binding effect. A claim would have to be filed in the High Court. In my opinion, a case exists, but not a very strong one.

If I were the claimant, I’d argue that the Crown is breaching the principle of active protection. Under this principle the Crown must take active steps to ensure Maori interests are protected. The sale of SOE’s runs contrary to Maori interests as, arguably, the Crown’s ability to offer redress is affected through the loss ongoing revenue and the loss of land that could be included in any settlement. A broader argument is that Maori consumers will be affected through higher power prices and decreased government services in the long run. The late Sir Robin Cooker, NZ’s greatest jurist, held that the Crown’s duty is “not merely passive but extends to active protection of Maori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable”. As you can see, a strong obligation rests on the Crown.

The sale of state power companies will also impact on Maori relationships with their taonga. The WT holds that “The Treaty guarantee of rangatiratanga requires a high priority for Maori interests when proposed works may impact on Maori taonga. If the Crown is ever to be justified in exercising it’s power to govern in a manner which is inconsistent with and overrides the fundamental rights guaranteed to Maori in Article II, it should be only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort in the national interest”. Reducing the deficit is in the national interest, however on any objective measure asset sales are not the option of last resort.

Selling state power companies will also affect the relationship Maori have with their waterways (i.e taonga). Maori will have fewer rights when it comes to determining the status and use of rivers, tributaries, dams and so on.

The debate around what, if any, rights Maori have in relation to water is still not settled. Given the Crown does not know exactly what rights Maori have, or should have, it would be unfair to pass off water rights to private entities. It is incumbent upon the Crown to actively give affect to and protect Maori property rights and management rights, however if water rights are passed onto private interests Maori customary rights will be diminished against private property rights. Clearly, if the government passes on water rights to private interests this will run against the principle of active protection.

These are just some of the arguments that can be made against the government. I have not taken into account previous decisions of the Court that may favour or harm a claim against the government. At the end of the day, the Crown has a right to govern as they see fit. I come back to Sir Cooke who said “the principles of the Treaty do not authorise unreasonable restrictions on the right of a duly elected government to follow its chosen policy. Indeed, to try and shackle the Government unreasonably would itself be inconsistent with those principles”. Hone Harawira can hope that the Treaty will stop asset sales, but if you ask me he’s hoping in vein.

UPDATE: I should add that it makes perfect commercial sense to exempt a treaty clause, meaning a s9 type clause, from the new legislation needed to sell shares in the SOEs. A treaty clause would add some uncertainty around the assets and drive the share price down. However, refusing to insert a treaty clause in the new legislation is probably a breach of the principles.

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.

Maori electorates, Kereama Pene and Asset sales

I want to say so much more with these topics, but I don't have the time:

Rawiri Taonui nails it in this column:

Mana whenua will therefore dictate the outcomes in at least six electorates, this time supporting the candidates they think best represent their interests, regardless of which party they come from.

Tribes will also back their own among those who fought out the Mana-Maori Party split. Both factors should see the sitting MPs - Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Tariana Turia, Te Ururoa Flavell and Harawira - return to Parliament.

As I’ve always said the vote in the Maori electorates is a personality vote, but also, and this is the first time I’ve put this forward, a loyalty vote. Loyalty includes tribal loyalty and loyalty built up over the years of the MPs service to the electorate.    

The wild card is that the Digipoll survey has preceded the announcing of several Mana candidates. Maori voters prefer names and faces. Expect some figures to change as candidates are confirmed.

Correct. The Marae Poll was shit and I’ll briefly explore why tomorrow. 

Mana's Annette Sykes faces an uphill battle overhauling a 40-point gap to Flavell sitting on 59.3 per cent in Waiariki.

Sykes is highly intelligent and hugely experienced in litigation and Waitangi Tribunal proceedings. Iwi politics may be against her.

She is also assertive, which conservative traditionalists might rail against.

Sykes would have been a better selection in Auckland. Sharples has significant support; however, there is potential volatility.

Urban Maori make up 80 per cent of the population so mana whenua will be less influential. Sykes would also be a point of difference against two high-profile male candidates and would pull in more Maori women votes.

The right Mana candidate will throw Auckland wide open.

While, Mana haven’t put forward the right candidate, they’ve put forward…

----------

Kereama Pene cannot foot it with Dr Pita Sharples and Harvard graduate Shane Jones – those guys will eat him for breakfast. Pene’s selection is manna from heaven for Pita Sharples though. Chris Trotter discusses the appointment here.

----------

Mana may have got it wrong in selecting Pene, but the party does get it right in calling for the voting age to be lowered to 16. The best way to engage young people in the political process is to include them. Say you’re an employed sixteen year old and contributing to the economy, shouldn’t you have a say in how the economy is managed? I think so. For a nice summary on the pro’s of lowering the age see this post at Political Dumpground.    

----------

In an attempt to distance herself from the Nat’s Tariana Turia has come out against asset sales. This will annoy her Iwi backers who have vigorously supported asset sales, but placate her disgruntled left-wing supporters and serve as a point of difference between her party and the Nat’s. I wonder if the Iwi Leaders will be thinking twice about opening their pockets to the Maori Party.

Iwi and Social Housing

When the government looks to shrink the state they always pass the ball to Iwi. From RNZ:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says iwi organisations would do a better job than Housing New Zealand, when it comes to social housing.

Housing New Zealand is now limiting the work staff have done in the past to help tenants with other needs, saying its role is purely that of landlord.

Mrs Turia says the Government is looking at divesting itself of social housing, or much of it, and iwi should step in.

Iwi are not social services agencies, having said that Iwi do have social obligations to their people. The question is how far do those obligations extend and, in the absence of money and know how, do those obligations still stand? In my opinion, Iwi are obligated to provide the basics. Things like social housing, food banks and traditional education (think tikanga courses etc). Iwi are not, in my opinion, obligated to provide what is traditionally thought of as state support (think the unemployment benefit, DPB etc). I always get annoyed when the government seeks to devolve their responsibilities - it's a remission and, to be honest, a bloody cop out.

Iwi should not be providing services at their own expense – the government should fund Iwi services – rather Iwi should deliver services. However, this is problematic. Firstly, Iwi lack the economies of scale to provide what, for example, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can. Iwi also lack experience in social service delivery, some Iwi lack proven policy models and Iwi lack access to external agencies (for example MSD can coalesce with the Ministry of Education if need be – it is far more difficult for Iwi to do this). Some Iwi also seem reluctant to launch into social service delivery with many Iwi, most notably Tainui, focussing on growing their asset base. Although there are some exceptions, most notably Ngati Awa.

Privatisation is a great way to shrink the state, but a shit way to achieve positive outcomes. Profit motive should never be allowed to permeate the delivery of social services. The focus shifts from achieving positive outcomes to achieving positive earnings. In any society housing is an essential utility and when housing is, for one reason or another, unattainable, the government should provide a safety net. The private sector is not bound or influenced by any social imperative, unless you consider profit motive a social imperative, and must consider profit above all else. This conflict between social imperative and profit suggests that the private sector is unsuited to providing housing for those who cannot pay market price. This is why I am suspicious of the devolution of government responsibility (i.e. privatisation). However, Iwi are not exactly private sector companies, they are tribal organisations with concrete cultural obligations to their people. This is why I think Iwi will make a good go of it, or at least I hope they will. 

The Budget and what it means for Maori

The Government delivered the budget yesterday. New Zealanders expected Bill English to deliver a strict budget, but yesterday’s dose of austerity went beyond reason. To be fair, the government is attempting to reduce the deficit and return to surplus within the next few years. However, the prescription the Nats put forward is damaging and visionless. Most New Zealanders will be worse off under this budget. Bill English has taken the knife to Working For Families, KiwiSaver, education (including student loans) and health. But what does it all mean for Maori?

Firstly, the Budget is not all bad news. Funding for community law centres will be increased and Whanau Ora will be boosted by $30m. Iwi will also have the opportunity to invest in State Assets (whether this will benefit Maori is open to debate) and there is $20m in new funding for Maori education. There is $25m in new funding for social services as well and $2m to support Maori engagement with the constitutional review.

Having said that, this is peanuts. Take Whanau Ora, one cannot deliver a high quality nationwide system with only $30m. $30m will deliver a half-caste shitty version in a couple of centres, but $30m will not deliver a nationwide revolutionary approach to social services. Take the funding for Maori education as well. The funding is spread across four years and will not address the causes of Maori underachievement. The funding is targeted at language initiatives and transport assistance. Nice to haves really. The funding should be addressing the structural causes of Maori underachievement, like whether or not Maori are suited to the learning environment adopted in most schools.

The big win for Maori, or more accurately iwi, is asset sales. The iwi leaders have made no secret of their intention to snap up shares in our SOE’s when the companies are floated. I personally think that there is more benefit for Maori in having SOE’s remain in government hands. However, I am aware that some would mount a compelling argument otherwise. The government intends to partially privatise Air New Zealand and four energy companies. Maori are big players in the energy sector, especially geothermal power, and I am sure iwi will not miss the chance to solidify their place at the top of the sector. Tainui has also, in the past at least, shown interest in Auckland Airport and Air New Zealand – two of New Zealand’s most important strategic assets. Tuku Morgan must be frothing at the mouth at the thought of the opportunity to get his hands on a small part of Air New Zealand.

In this post I also want to outline some of the big changes that will affect Maori. I’ll start with Working For Families:      

Working For Families

Working For Families cuts are not confined to high income earners. Middle and low income earners will be affected as well through a combination of lower thresholds, higher abatements and payment freezes. The changes will be phased in over seven years. A middle income family on $70,000 will be $20 worse off per week. The government provides a number of examples that show an increase in payments for low income families, however the figures do not take into account inflation. Families are actually facing a decrease in WFF payments in real terms. A large number of Maori whanau access WFF so any changes will adversely affect the standard of living for Maori. With the rising cost of living many Maori fail to balance the budget each week. With WFF cuts balancing the budget just got harder.  

Education and Health

Education and health are the big winners in today’s budget. Both will receive sub-inflation increases in funding, so in real terms both sectors are facing cuts. Yup, in this budget a sub-inflation increase counts as a win. Cuts to education and health will affect all New Zealanders, but especially Maori. Maori underachievement needs to be addressed, but there is little room in the budget to work towards improving education outcomes for Maori. Essentially, there is little in the budget beyond funding for operational costs. The PPTA claims schools will have to recover the cut in funding through an increase in fees and donations. This means low decile schools, i.e. schools with a significant Maori roll, will suffer as low income parents are less likely to pay donations or meet compulsory fees.

Maori access health care at a higher rate than other New Zealanders. Therefore, a deterioration in services will affect Maori disproportionately. DHB’s will be under further pressure to find areas to cut. I would speculate that some of the first areas to come under the knife will be health initiatives targeted at Maori. Why? Because Maori are not going to fight back.

Student Loans

Students who are in default for more than one year will have their access to student loans restricted. For example, Maori living overseas who, for practical reasons, are not servicing their student loans will not be able to return and access the student loan scheme. Furthermore, access to student loans for those over 55 will be restricted to course fees only and part-time students will no longer be able to access course related costs. This is discriminatory and unfair. Maori will be further discouraged from pursuing higher education. Thanks, National.  

KiwiSaver

The government intends to halve their contribution to your KiwiSaver account and tax employer contributions. The compulsory employee and employer contribution will also rise to 3%. This will deter many low and middle income earners who are feeling the pressure of the rising cost of living. Again, this will disproportionately affect Maori who tend to be low-income earners.

Public Service

The government has signalled an intention to trim almost $1b from the public service. Job insecurity permeates the public service at the moment and today’s budget will add further pressure to cut, cut, cut. Maori make up a significant proportion of the public sector and further job cuts will affect the Maori unemployment rate.

Overall though, Maori will be worse off under this budget. Maori will find it harder to access education, under WFF cuts Maori families will struggle to keep up with the rising cost of living and Maori will find it harder to access decent healthcare. Private debt among Maori will also increase as the KiwiSaver changes begin to take effect. Predictably, there is nothing in the budget to offset this.

Yesterday’s budget would have been the perfect time for the Maori Party to walk away from the supply and confidence agreement and send a message to the Maori electorate. The Maori Party desperately needs to steal the narrative from Hone. The Maori Party MUST steal Hone’s thunder. The party is becoming increasingly irrelevant and will remain so unless they do something in line with Maori interests. Voting for cuts, cuts and more cuts to government spending is not consistent with Maori interests. Should loyalty to the Nats come before what is good for Maori? Fuck no. But the Maori Party seem to think so. I am sick of this bullshit “best to be in government” fantasy that the Maori Party deploy whenever they do something dumb or something counter to what is good for MOST Maori. There is no harm in making a statement in an election year. There is nothing the Maori Party will achieve within the next six months as the Nats are suffering an unacceptable decline in redneck support. The Nats will not feed the perception that they are caving to the Maori Party. If the Maori Party voted against the budget they would have taken one step towards recovering the principled brand they once possessed. But no. The Maori Party have only themselves to blame. They destroyed their brand and seem resolute in not wanting to rebuild it.

If you’re Maori, book a ticket to Australia. Things just got a lot worse here. If things continue the way they are in New Zealand, then I’m out of here once I graduate. There is no future in New Zealand unless you’re Tuku Morgan or Graeme Hart.   

Brief thoughts on the Native Affairs' poll

Monday’s episode of Native Affairs was incredibly interesting. The show commissioned a poll that surveyed Maori on a number of issues including the Maori Party/National Party coalition and Hone Harawira. In this post I want to give my brief thoughts on the results of some of the questions the poll posed.  

Interestingly, support for Labour remains strong at 37%. This is encouraging for the party considering the invisibility of many of their Maori MP’s. I think this reflects Labour’s core support. Remember that Labour polled at around 50% on election night, therefore it is probably safe to assume that many Maori voters have swung towards National (22%) and New Zealand First (5%). The Maori Party is sitting on 32% which, in light of the Hone Harawira saga, is encouraging for them. I find it hard to explain why the Nat’s are polling so high among Maori. I would suggest though that telephone polls tend to reach middle class voters who do not work shifts and with phone connections, obviously. It is safe to assume support for the Nats is highest among middle income Maori. Furthermore, the relationship between the Maori Party and the Nats lends them some credibility with Maori. New Zealand First has always done well among Maori and I am not surprised to see that Winston, or should I say New Zealand First, is polling at a respectable 5%. Winston’s, for lack of a better term, Maori boy charisma is fairly attractive and his nationalist rhetoric goes down well with many working class Maori. Sadly, the Greens are polling at a mere 3%. This is utterly perplexing. The Greens are the only party with any credibility on Maori issues and Green policy is, in my strongly held opinion, best for Maori. Meteria Turei, a wahine Maori of some mana, is also the party’s leader. I really wish Maori would swing behind the Greens rather than slave away supporting Labour when Labour is offering nothing.

Hone does not register in the above question, however when respondents were asked whether they would support a Hone Harawira led party 32% said yes while 52% said no. This is extremely significant. As stated the Maori Party is currently sitting on 32% support. How much of that 32% represents the 32% that would vote for a Hone Harawira led party? Most I would say. If Harawira could translate that support into votes on election day then he could well bring in a number of MP’s. The Maori Party, and National for that matter, should be very worried. On these numbers Hone could split the Maori vote and theoretically annihilate the Maori Party. For me, this is all the confirmation I need that Hone will form a new party. Furthermore, in an interview during the show Hone claims to have financial backers in place. Finance was the last hurdle for Hone. The machinery is in place, thanks to the Unite Union, the rank and file is prepared, the advisors are in place, the staffers that left the Maori Party have joined Hone and now, according to Hone, the financial backers have been found. Brilliant.

The poll also asked respondents what their main areas of concern were. 71% said unemployment was a major concern, no surprises given the stratospheric Maori unemployment rate. 66% said the cost of living, this is also not surprising given the astronomical rise in petrol prices and food prices and the CPI as a whole. 62% said GST was a major concern, some items have almost doubled in price following the rise in GST so, again, no surprise. Interestingly 59% said privatisation was a major concern, this will give Labour hope that their message is resonating. 53% cited tax cuts for the rich as a major area of concern too. These are issues that the Labour Party and indeed Hone Harawira can run hard on. On the other hand the Maori Party can not because they are implicated in all of this by virtue of their association with the Nats and in some cases their endorsement of the above concerns, for example GST. The two bottom issues were treaty settlements and the foreshore and seabed. This is unsurprising but pertinent. This indicates that the election will focus on bread and butter issues (cost of living etc). The foreshore and seabed and treaty issues can be relegated without consequence – or with little consequence. This is good for Labour given that the party has no credibility on the foreshore and seabed issue yet a huge amount of credibility on unemployment.

Now I just want to address two points unrelated to the poll. Firstly, Hekia Parata is an arrogant and angry person. She is truly toxic when it comes to debate. She lacks civility and any sense of reason. I was particularly pissed off when she claimed that it is merely a “perception” that people are worse off under National rather than a tangible reality. It takes an arrogant person to disregard and belittle the feelings of a great number of people. Secondly, Hone was wearing jandals in his interview. I liked that.

So I encourage you to watch the program for yourself. It was one of the most informative political broadcasts of the year.   

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.

Reread

The herald reports;

Two big iwi leaders met with Prime Minister John Key to discuss state assets sales today.

I can't be bothered restating my already well documented views, therefore I think it we should revisit the following posts:

• The Iwi Elite
• Assets Sales, Iwi and Maori
• “It will benefit Maori”
• Annette Sykes, Maori Elite and Neoliberalism 

This should give new readers a fair idea of where I am coming from on this issue.

Assets sales, iwi and Maori

Iwi, through the Iwi Leaders Group, exercise considerable influence over aspects of government and Maori Party policy. What iwi lack is economic clout to, for lack of a better term, legitimise their power. A degree of control over  strategic assets, and I use the word strategic in its loosest sense, such as Air New Zealand and various power companies would grant iwi a solid power base. Certainly if iwi controlled a large enough share they could exert some political influence over decision making.

Maori, rightfully, control huge tracts of forestry land, some important national resources such as geothermal steam, lake beds and some of NZ’s most profitable tourism ventures. Why not add to that list Air New Zealand and a collection of electricity companies. The more involved iwi become in the New Zealand economy the more power they have. Hypothetically, if iwi were to gain control over our state owned electricity companies, and thus become a monopoly power, they could determine the terms on which New Zealanders shall have access to electricity. This is power that only government should have but it is power iwi want. I am not implying iwi would, if they suddenly aquired such power, use it against the interest of New Zealanders. I think it is just a good example of the degree of power iwi are seeking.

But what would assets sales mean for Maori? Profit (in the medium to long term of course). But will that profit flow back to the people? I doubt it. Many iwi authorities adopt a top down approach when distributing wealth. Tertiary students, kaumatua and kuia, Marae, researchers and employees usually receive generous support. However the unemployed, the desperate and the dysfunctional or in other words those most in need tend to receive very little, or nothing. So profit becomes meaningless for those at the bottom. Privatisation also means social obligation to those less able to pay is lost. Therefore, social obligation too many Maori is lost.  

As far as I am aware the only iwi with the means to participate in assets sales are Ngai Tahu and Tainui. So what we will see is a concentration of wealth in two of our largest iwi. The small players will be left to dabble in little tourism ventures and land rentals. Such an inequitable situation cannot be good.

As I said in previous post assets sales will most likely lead to a decrease in government services. Iwi, as major proponents of asset sales, have an obligation, albeit a small one, to step in and attempt to negate the affects on Maori as a result of decreased services. The problem is iwi lack the economies of scale required to deliver what government once did.

With all of the above in mind assets sales seem like a dumb idea. I’m sure more competent commentators are aware of many, many more reasons why iwi support for asset sales is stupid. My biggest concern is iwi comfort with National Party policy will greatly influence the Maori Party's choice of coalition partner. Make no mistake, a second term National government is the biggest threat to Maori wellbeing since Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.

"It will benefit Maori"

So Tariana Turia supports asset sales – it’s hard to see why. To rationalise her stance Turia claims asset sales could, key word here is could, benefit Maori. Iwi, particularly Mark Solomon, Tuku Morgan and FOMA, are also salivating over the possibility of getting their corporate hands all over our, key word here is our, national assets.

Turia operates under the notion that what is good for iwi is by definition good for Maori. This is not strictly true - especially in this case. The government is essentially selling future profit for short term gain.  We are told the immediate windfall from asset sales will be used to pay down debt. With this in mind it is safe to assume we will see a decrease in government services in the long run. Now the big question is will iwi step in and negate the decrease? Probably not. I doubt iwi have any desire to do so, and fair enough, but surely there is an obligation to do so. This is all about the people right? Surely if iwi were to engage in a rational cost/benefit analysis it would show Maori receive more value with the assets in government hands rather than iwi hands.   

Realistically, iwi will have a minority stake only. Even iwi katoa lack the capital to become major shareholders. So why bother when you will have no control over the direction of the company – especially decisions regarding price rises etc? In a previous post I wrote;

Iwi are now seeking neo liberal ends such as the right to exploit natural resources and the commodification of land and taonga. They also want to play a part in the privatisation agenda of the current government (e.g.private prisons, PPP etc...). It appears to me that iwi authorities have rationalised such goals by adopting the ‘trickle down’ philosophy. They seem to reason that Maori participation in the neo liberal experiment will result in indirect ‘trickle down’ benefits for ordinary Maori despite the trickle down theory been rather discredited.

This is all about iwi’s new found corporate agenda.

Turia is a great example of an indigenous corporatist so no surprises that she supports assets sales (along with private prisons). I’m not holding my breath but I do hope that she justifies her position. I’m sick of the Maori Party, and iwi for that matter, supporting something which is clearly fucking stupid without any reason besides “it will benefit Maori”. How? Why? When? Get your act together.

Briefly

I will not have much time for blogging over the next week or two so I will post my brief thoughts on some issues affecting Maori;

Hone Harawira:

Hone has the Maori Party on the ropes and they know it. Public opinion, both Maori and non-Maori, is building in Hone’s favour. You know your position is righteous when, amongst the usual sympathetic commentators, the likes of Garth George and Fran O’Sullivan come out in support of you.

When attacked Hone responds aggressively. In the past he has responded in a manner that arguably worsens the situation, however this time around he appears to be making all the right noises. The leadership is beginning to look increasingly weak and out of touch as a result of the sustained pressure Hone is applying. With opinion set firmly against the leadership the party elite need to realise that their end game (Hones expulsion) will be self destructive. Hone will without doubt take the integrity, mana and base of the party with him whilst those Maori at the flaxroots will return to Labour and/or the Greens.

Maori and supercity council committees:

Some Maori (John Tamihere in particular) have shamelessly claimed this as a victory for Maori. It is not. Victory will only come in the form of dedicated, and by definition legitimate, Maori seats. The current arrangements are anathema to democracy and an insult to Maori voters. Why can we not elect our own representatives?

I suppose self interest plays a large part in John Tamihere’s position. As a member of the Maori advisory board, and no doubt now member of many council committees, he has a tangible interest in the suppression of democracy and the continuation of the current autocratic situation.  

Shane Jones:

  

I am no fan of Shane Jones but he has not put a foot wrong in his response to the MP schism and unelected Maori sitting on council committees. As Pita’s name is tarnished further by the day Shane’s chances of snatching Tamaki Makaurau increase.

Privatisation:

Corporate cheerleader and profiteer Mark Solomon has, inevitably, come out in support of the government’s plans to partially privatise some state assets. Typically, Mark has only profit in mind as opposed to the well being of all his people and iwi katoa.  

Ratana:

It is interesting to see many church members questioning the wisdom of their move away from Labour towards the MP. This sentiment certainly reflects what a lot of Maori are thinking. The MP has morphed into something utterly foreign and inconsistent with its founding principles.

I guess it was no coincidence that John Key was welcomed on with his Maori Party chums. It appears John Key and Pita Sharples share a close working and personal relationship. This makes me wonder whether or not the MP’s current closeness with the Nats is a result of personal feelings rather than pragmatic or ideological reasons.

(P.S. You may have noticed I am no longer blogging under a pseudonym)