Dame Susan Devoy: race relations "not complicated"

Anyone who thinks Aotearoa’s race-relations culture isn’t complicated is by definition not equipped for the job of guiding and guarding it. Not only is our new Race Relations Commissioner ashamed of our national day, but as far as she’s concerned it’s just another ism — revealing how little she must know about disability, employment or gender issues into the bargain. 

That’s from Lew, and he’s nailed it. He was referring to the appointment of Dame Susan Devoy – the new Race Relations Commissioner. Lew, Tim Selwyn, Bomber and No Right Turn have covered why the appointment stinks, but the commentary has missed a few key points.

The world is embracing different forms of bicultural and multicultural pluralism. Witness Canada and the developing “Nation to Nation” relationship with indigenous people, notice positive constitutional recognition in Australia for Aboriginal people and turn towards the United Nations and their endorsement of and advocacy for indigenous “self-determination”. New Zealand is no different. We’re no longer a cultural and political monolith. Tuhoe is inching closer and closer to mana motuhake*, the government is devolving power to ethnic authorities** and the Maori, Asian and Pasifika populations are projected to increase significantly. That’s going to push against our social fabric. The Race Relations Conciliator – and I’m deliberately using that term – is becoming more important, not less. Devoy has neither the weight nor the depth to deal with issues at this level.

Of course, this is an outstanding appointment from the government’s point of view:

Dame Susan has little or no high-level experience in the field, and I suppose the thinking is that she brings a clean slate to the role or, to put it another way, her thinking and the degree of her engegement with the issues will be more easily influenced by the prevailing governmental culture. [link]

That’s right, but I think it’s worth mentioning that New Zealand doesn’t have a strong human rights tradition. In many respects, it’s part of our colonial hangover. We’ve inherited the English suspicion of human rights and the idea that the protection of any rights – should they exist at all – lay with “representative and responsible government” and not the Courts or legislation.*** That’d seem to brush against Kiwi egalitarianism, but it’s worth remembering that our egalitarian tradition has and is suspicious of rights available to some and not all. Human rights, let alone indigenous rights, are not sewn in our social fabric. Contrast that with, say, the United States and their furious veneration for First Amendment rights. I wouldn’t be surprised if Collins knew she could get away with a patsy, pro-forma and pathetic appointment.

And it’s pathetic. I’m not going to dance around it. The primary role of the Race Relations Conciliator is, essentially, to protect minorities. All evidence suggests that Devoy is incapable of that. After all, this is a person who finds Burqa “disconcerting” and thinks that Waitangi Day should be scrapped because it is a day of “political shenanigans” and not one of “true celebration and pride”.**** I can’t trust her to protect me or anyone like me from discrimination, the tyranny of the majority or anything else. This is a person who doesn’t understand – even at the lowest level – what it means to be Maori or a minority. A brain of feathers, as they say.

With that in mind, I support Annette Sykes call for Devoy to resign.

Post script: I recommend reading Catherine Delahunty's piece on the sham appointment too.

* If you missed it, it’s worth watching Guyon Espiner’s story on Tuhoe plans – and apparent government acquiescence – for mana motuhake. 

**Whanau Ora is the most prominent example, but there are Pacific providers as well. It’s also worth considering the role of iwi in their provincial economies and the New Zealand economy as a whole. Power, if only a little, is shifting. 

***See The New Zealand Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2003) by Paul Rishworth .

****Anyone that doesn't understand Waitangi Day in its historical, political and social context should be immediately disqualified from going anywhere near race relations. Waitangi Day is a fundamental part of our racial politic and social fabric. Anything less than full understanding of that is unacceptable. 

The Kingitanga hui and what it means for NZ

Well, I never would have picked it, but I’m glad to see it: Kingi Tuheitia is fulfilling the promise of the Kingitanga. That promise is the promise of unity.

Over 1000 Maori responded to the Kingitanga’s call for a national hui on water rights. Attendees included the Iwi Leaders Group, the Maori Council, the Federation of Maori Authorities, representatives from all major iwi (both post and pre-settlement iwi), hapu representatives, the Maori Women’s Welfare League and religious representatives.


What did the hui decided?

The hui passed several resolutions including a directive for all iwi to withhold from negotiating with the government only or until the government negotiate for a national solution. The King, Tumu Te Heu Heu, Eddie Durie and others will select the negotiation team. If that fails there is an obligation on iwi and those Maori groups in attendance, including the Iwi Leaders Group, to fall behind and support the Maori Council in litigation.

Speaker after speaker clearly articulated one thing: Maori always have had and retain rights and interests in water. However, there was no consensus on whether or not those rights amounted to ownership. Sir Tumu Te Heu Heu and Mark Solomon, the most powerful iwi leaders, refused to endorse the view that Maori own water. Sir Eddie Durie, Moana Jackson and others endorsed the view, implicitly and explicitly, that Maori own water. Although there was no outright consensus on ownership, opinion was heavily weighted towards holding that Maori do own water.


What does this mean for Maori water rights?

The government is cornered. Maori have explicitly rejected the iwi by iwi approach.

Maori can now take a united position to the government and challenge them to accept, negotiate or rebut. The tables have turned and, I would argue at least, Maori hold the dominant bargaining position. After all, Maori have leverage. We can invite the government to negotiate, and if they refuse, we take our fall-back position – Court action. While the issue is before the Courts an injunction would operate preventing the sale of any assets until the issue is resolved. An injunction, in contrast to negotiation, would spell the death of asset sales.

Of course, negotiation does not mean Maori will get all that the hui had hoped for. Ownership is anathema to non-Maori New Zealanders, and even some Maori, and would be a bridge too far in negotiations. If Maori push ownership, that will force the government to play their trump card – legislation. The Iwi Leaders Group know this, hence their emphasis on rights (e.g. allocations rights) and interests (e.g. kaitiaki/guardianship interests).

Assuming negotiation goes ahead, we are in a strong position to push for the creation of a national framework for recognising Maori rights and interests in water and compensating for the use and/or breach of those rights. The key, and what deft negotiators like Tamati Kruger will tell you, is not to push Pakeha patience too far. 

So, in effect, we will achieve clarity over our rights in one of three ways. 1) through negotiation 2) through the Courts or 3) through legislation. 

The first option gives Maori the most room to achieve resolution. The second option favours the Maori position, but the Courts rule on narrow legal issues. Considering the aim is for the broad recognition of Maori rights, the Courts and a legalistic approach appears unsuitable. The third option will destroy our rights, in other words the government will legislate over any rights we have. This is the worst outcome - obviously.


How will the government respond?

Again, the government is cornered. They can stand by the iwi by iwi approach, but that is an open invite for Court action. The government’s chances of winning are now less than even. Legislation is an option, but that is messy. Maori are united on this issue and will respond violently (figuratively speaking) to any legislation. Fool me once, shame on me (the Foreshore and Seabed Act), fool me twice, shame on you (the MCA Act), fool me three times, you are a dead man (figuratively speaking and in reference to water rights legislation).

Negotiation is the cleanest option and, like I discussed in a previous post, it is in the Prime Minister’s nature. He is a deal-maker.

Negotiation will shut down Maori opposition. If progress is made and seen to be made Maori can be co-opted on this issue.

The government has shown a remarkable lack of foresight. They had the chance to co-opt iwi when they first floated the idea of asset sales. Mark Solomon met with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister early in the government’s first term. The three discussed asset sales, what it would mean for Maori and how Maori would be involved. Obviously, the talks came to nothing. The Prime Minister has continually ruled out any preferential treatment for iwi. In light of recent events, this was incredibly stupid and short-sighted move.

Considering all of the options, I think the government will take their chances in a fight. Their legitimacy as a government that can govern is at stake. And, of course, New Zealanders will unite against the Maoris and their pesky rights and demands.


What will be the end result?

Too hard to call. I hope for negotiation. Although I believe Maori ownership was never extinguished, the best move is for our people to compromise and settle for the recognition of certain rights and interests. It would stupid to push the government too far. After all, Treaty partners compromise – and that cuts both ways. I do not want to see race relations “set back 100 years”. And that will be the result if Maori hold a gun to the government’s head (figuratively speaking).

Holmes: morally repugnant and deeply racist

I don’t read Paul Holmes – the man has no credibility, little sense and somehow, god knows how, his arrogance jumps off the page and strangles anyone in sight. With that in mind, I wasn’t going to give this piece the time of day, but someone needs to call Holmes on his racism.

In the vilest column I’ve ever seen, Holmes comes out swinging against Maori. The column is undeniably racist. At several points Holmes slurs the entire Maori race. For example, Holmes taints Maori as “loony” and “irrational”. The offensive and unfair language he deploys and the overall message of the piece encourages discrimination. Take this, my favourite passage in which Holmes asserts the following:

“No, if Maori want Waitangi Day for themselves, let them have it. Let them go and raid a bit more kai moana than they need for the big, and feed themselves silly, speak of the injustices heaped upon them by the greedy Pakeha and work out new ways of bamboozling the Pakeha to come up with a few more millions”.

Initially, I was furious with this. Well, I was furious with the whole piece actually, but this paragraph really rarked me up for some reason. After stewing on it, I just found it sad. Sad that someone would say something so nasty, hate filled and utterly unfair. This would go unnoticed in private, but this was published in New Zealand’s leading daily – the Herald. It was totally irresponsible for the Herald to publish Holmes’ hate speech. And that’s what it is, hate speech. Holmes, in the most blatant terms I’ve ever seen, disparages and vilifies Maori, thus encouraging prejudice against Maori. That satisfies the definition of hate speech for me.

Sadly, Holmes doesn’t distinguish between individuals and Maori as a race. Although Holmes’ bases his hate on the actions of a few individuals, he taints the entire Maori race. It’s unfair and it’s racist. What also annoys me is that Holmes is furthering highly offensive and unfair stereotypes.

There is no place for racism in the media. Of course, some people are going to rush to Holmes defence. This is the saddest part. No doubt some people will prasie Holmes for ‘telling it like it is’, but he isn’t telling like it is. Holmes is basing his claims on spurious grounds. He isn’t taking into account the deeper meaning of Waitangi day, he isn’t taking into account the socio-political context and, quite simply, he is misinterpreting the actions of Maori at Waitangi. Waitangi protest needs to be interpreted taking into account the history of the day, the history of Crown-Maori relations and the contemporary political situation. You can’t boil it down to lunacy or irrationality. I guess it goes to show that Holmes mind operates on a very, very shallow level.

Others will defend Holmes right to free speech. A right he undeniably has. However, free speech does not extend to hate speech. The line is drawn when ones speech incites prejudice or disparages another. There is international consensus that hate speech is irrelevant to free speech. Importantly, hate speech is also illegal under both domestic and international law.

Unsurprisingly, Holmes also makes a number of factual errors. For example, he speaks of the “never defined principles of the Treaty”. This is a ridiculous claim. The principles of the Treaty are well defined and are, to quote a legal expert, not vague and unknowable. After over two decades of judicial refinement, the principles are unambiguous.

Holmes then takes aim at breast feeding advocates. This part of the column was just as nauseating as the beginning. No mean feat may I add. Holmes then tops it off with a crude and simplistic reading on the situation in Syria.

He must be in a bad place, old Paul Holmes. I tend to think his column was an attempt to comfort and confirm his own self righteousness. Pretty sad really. If the Herald had any sense (or dignity), they’d sack Holmes. The rubbish he produces is unbecoming of our major daily. You can make comparisons with Michael Laws, but Laws knows where to draw the line – and at least he’s literate. I suspect Holmes is not. He must go.

Over the next few days I’ll be laying a complaint with the Editor of the Herald, Tim Murphy, I’ll also be laying a complaint with the Race Relations Commissioner. Lastly, I’ll be boycotting the Herald as long as Holmes remains. I encourage you to do the same. Send the message that there’s no place for Holmes and his hate in our public discourse.

As an aside, it's interesting to compare the contrast between Holmes piece and this from John Roughan. Where Holmes is offensive, ill considered and rude, Roughan is sober, analytical and fair (even though I don't really agree with what he says, but that's for a post on Monday).

(You can, I think, complain to Tim Murphy at tim.murphy@nzherald.co.nz)

(You can also lodge a complaint with the Human Rights Commission here)

(For another perspective see this at Reading the Maps, this from TW.com and Danyl writes here)