Why I am standing for Te Tai Hauāuru - Jack McDonald

Ko Taranaki te Maunga
Ko Taranaki te Tangata
Ko Taranaki te Iwi
Ko te puna i heke mai ai te tangata
E kore e pau te ika unahi nui

The threads of my whakapapa from across the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate weave together to bind my identity – my Māoritanga. A product of Te Tai Hauāuru, I am ready to stand up for our whānau and our whenua. I am ready to provide a new generation of political leadership.

I pay tribute to Whaea Tariana Turia, who has served our electorate with a power and distinction that is rarely seen in the political world. She has been our MP for 12 years, and has for that time been at the forefront of the fight for mana motuhake and has set a benchmark for Māori political representation in Parliament.

No one can replace Whaea Tariana's leadership, but her retirement offers Te Tai Hauāuru a rare opportunity; the opportunity to force a generational shift in our leadership and to chart a distinct course based on new ideas and a fresh outlook.

While attending the Rātana celebrations on the 24th of January I announced that I will be seeking the Green Party candidacy for Te Tai Hauāuru and standing for the Greens’ list.

~

As an uri of Taranaki Iwi and Te Āti Awa, many of my tupuna embarked on the heke that travelled from one end of the electorate to the other; from Taranaki maunga to the coastlines of Kāpiti and Mana. I have lived all my life in the small coastal town of Paekākāriki and I currently serve my community as the Chair of our Community Board and as our representative at the Kāpiti Coast council table.

Green representatives at Rātana Pā 2014

I stood in this electorate for the Greens in the 2011 general elections. It was the first time the Greens had stood a candidate in this electorate, so I had some very clear objectives in mind; spreading the Green kaupapa across the rohe and strengthening the position of the Greens in Māori communities. We were successful in our objectives; tripling the Greens party vote in Te Tai Hauāuru and securing third place in the electorate vote.

I have always believed that the Greens' values are remarkably similar to our values as Māori. And because a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a core part of our party's charter, the Greens are the strongest and most principled advocates in Parliament for honouring Te Tiriti and building a strong Treaty partnership.

~

It’s never been more important that we have strong Green representation in Te Tai Hauāuru. With both National and Labour supporting risky deep sea oil drilling off the Taranaki coast, it’s vital we send a message that we can’t risk destroying the environment which sustains our economy and our well-being. I stand in solidarity with hapū, iwi and community groups that are standing up to the drilling interests.

The extractive industries produce few jobs, while our two biggest industries, primary production and tourism, both rely on our clean, green brand. We also know that continued reliance on a fossil-fuel based economy will lead to increased carbon emissions and a more unstable climate.

There is an unique opportunity for iwi heading into the post-settlement era to be at the forefront of innovation and the transition to a sustainable economy. Greens propose a fairer Treaty settlement process, support for Māori small business and a massive investment in research and development and clean energy.

A strong Green Party will be able to hold both major parties to account. We have proven that we can make change from across Parliament, without compromising our values and our convictions. A party vote for the Greens will ensure there is a social and environmental conscience at the heart of a new progressive government.

Winning in Te Tai Hauauru

The Maori Party has revealed that six candidates will contest the nomination for Te Tai Hauauru. From the party website:

Hundreds of Maori Party members from throughout the electorate gathered at Whangaehu Marae south of Whanganui yesterday to hear from the six nominees and cast their vote... The nominees are: 

• Frana Chase; 

• Rahui Katene; 

• James Makowharemahihi; 

• Christopher McKenzie; 

• Amokura Panoho; 

• Pakake Winiata.

With the exception of Rahui Katene, these aren't big names. Or put it this way: there isn't a Julian Wilcox. But the party doesn't need a name candidate. Tariana Turia's endorsement and support could be enough to keep the electorate in Maori Party hands. It'd be reckless - and more than unfair - to underestimate the respect and support Tariana has earnt and enjoys. Ken Mair makes an important point, though - "we aren’t looking for a candidate to fill Tariana’s shoes. We are looking for a candidate to carve a new path".

The Maori Party needs to rebuild its identity. The Maori renaissance is over and the post-settlement era is beginning. Tariana and Pita Sharples were - and to some extent still are - central figures from the Maori renaissance. New hands are needed to redevelop what a Maori party looks like in 2013. Being loosely pro-Maori doesn't cut it when three other parties can credibly claim the same rationale (Greens, Labour, Mana).

There's increasing political choice in the Maori electorates. Labour's monopoly is over and the two-way battles of 2005 and 2008 were short lived. Four parties can credibly claim that they're contenders. In an environment where each seat is contested vigorously the Maori Party needs to have something more. New blood is better positioned to redefine the contract between the Maori Party and Maori society than the old hands. That's why the decision in Te Tai Hauauru might be the most important decision the party makes. Good luck to them.

The ethics of a walk out

Youth Parliament sat last week. In response to a speech from one of the Youth MPs, 30 others staged a walk out. Tariana Turia weighs in:

Māori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says youth MPs were wrong to walk out on a speech by one of the Māori Party’s representatives to last week’s youth parliament.

[Redacted], who was Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell’s selection for the event, spoke against the marriage equality law.

She said her elders had never told her gay marriage or being gay was OK.
Mrs Turia says [redacted] is entitled to an opinion.

Two points: firstly, the speech was delivered in Parliament. Parliament is the heart of our democracy. Opinions - however odious - have a right to be aired. Parliament wouldn’t function if MPs staged a walk out in response to odious opinions. The Youth MP was entitled to an opinion and a platform. A Parliament that censor the views of its members is no Parliament.


However – and this is the second point – odious views don’t have an absolute right to be heard and taken seriously. MPs and Youth MPs aren't entitled to a captive audience. The walk out represented a powerful condemnation of homophobia. Too often homophobia is minimised as 'an opinion'. Cloaking the offensive behaviour as 'an opinion' compounds the hurt. Homophobia is homophobia, racism is racism, sexism is sexism, ableism is ableism and so on.*

The Youth MP wasn't articulating the Maori position, but imposing a personal prejudice over that position. That can't stand. 

Post script: I think naming the Youth MP adds a level of stigma that's unacceptable. Hence I'm not linking to the article or the speech itself.

*A quick note: I’m always disappointed when members of one marginalised group, like Maori, don’t stand in solidarity with other marginalised groups, like the LGBT community. I think it’s a duty and it hurts to see it broken.

In defence (well, sort of) of Whanau Ora

Tariana Turia has announced significant changes to the Whanau Ora model. Kate Shuttleworth reports:

Whanau Ora will be governed by a new Crown-iwi partnership group and three non-government organisations will be set up as part of the process, the Government has announced. The new partnership group will be made up of senior ministers, iwi leaders and experts.

A cynics’ view (or a leftist view): the government’s devolving power to the private sector. An advocates’ view: communities are best placed to determine community needs. I subscribe to the latter view.

The top down model – read the status quo – doesn’t work. It’s paternalistic. The system is responsive rather than preventative. Whanau Ora is a bottom up model. Firstly a preventative model, secondly a responsive model. Whanau Ora is designed to provide whanau with the skills and tools they need to resolve issues internally. The rationale is that the state should be divorced from the process – whanau are best equipped to deal with issues within the whanau. Paula Bennett has adopted this thinking, though with a focus on communities rather than whanau, in the social sector trials. Anecdotally, Whanau Ora and the social sector trials have worked.

Whanau Ora isn’t without flaws, though. The programme must be covered under the OIA. Public money demands public accountability. The argument for devolution is that the private sector – or in this case the community sector – is more efficient (and effective), but efficiency doesn’t negate accountability. There are also competency issues around delivery and monitoring. Proven providers appear to be the exception, not the rule. This appears to be a teething issues, though, rather than a structural issue.

A budget primer

I won’t be doing the usual budget run down this year. I haven’t got the time. Instead, here’s a budget primer:

• The government’s economic credibility is staked on their claim to a forecast surplus in the 2014/2015 financial year – view everything in that context. With droughts declared across most of the North Island, government revenue will (probably) be below forecast and expenditure will (probably) be above. The pressure to cut, cut, cut is increased. 

• Maori funding is an easy target. However, the Maori Party should insulate Vote Maori Affairs and Maori allocations in health, education, welfare and so on against an overall decrease. There will be cuts here and redirects there (as you’d expect), but the proper measure is whether or not there is an overall increase or decrease in funding. 

• In previous years the Maori Party has secured modest increases. That’s a win. Well, a win considering that they’re operating in an environment of cuts. In the context of $90b worth of government expenditure, a (say) $50m increase is not much of a win. A matter of perspective, I guess. 

• Tariana Turia has announced $34.5m in new funding this year. Again, a win considering the government is under pressure to meet their surplus target. On the other hand, not so much of a win considering that $34.5 represents a toe nail worth of government expenditure. 

• Much of the increase will go towards combating rheumatic fever. Good. The rest will go towards papakainga development (good) and Marae/community hubs (good). It is easy to quibble with the figure, but the funding destinations are very good.

3 leaders but no one to lead

From Newstalk ZB:

The Maori Party may end up with no parliamentary leader at all.

Following debate earlier this year over the current leadership and potential succession plans, the Party's looking at a model that would see its three MPs take leadership in areas of their respective strengths.

Co-leader Tariana Turia says it wouldn't be a three way co-leadership and maintains it's the people that lead the Party.

This is the compromise option. The party is in a straitjacket. The Constitution demands a consensus on the leadership question.* That means that, in practice, a hostile leadership takeover can't succeed. The incumbent's supporters and electorate branch will block any attempt at a takeover. Without winning the incumbent's supporters and electorate branch a prospective leader can't reach the required consensus. A model approach in theory, but needing consensus makes it hard - if not impossible - to clean out deadwood.

I'm not saying Pita Sharples is deadwood. He and Tariana anchor Maori Party support and the party's political identity is tied to their reputations and mana. Having said that - and I've made this clear in the past - the party needs to usher in generational change. The Maori electorate is overwhelmingly young and electing Te Ururoa Flavell is the first step in acknowledging shifting demographics.

There's no use in having three leaders but no one to lead. The party can't afford to relitigate this issue every couple of months. If Te Ururoa can't and won't make leader, what's the point in sticking around? Were he to leave - and I think that becomes more and more likely with each rejection - the Maori Party lose continuity post-Turia/Sharples. It would be the Maori Party's death certificate. Waiariki would fall to Annette Sykes or a strong Labour candidate.

Post script: I've covered this issue at length before. See Sharples v Flavell: the leadership edition and Trouble in the Maori Party: Act 1 for more (better) comment. 

*Tuku Morgan explained it very well on Native Affairs.  

The Kāpiti Expressway: An attack on community values and tangata whenua rights

I live in Paekākāriki on the Kāpiti Coast. I have lived here all my life, with the exception of last year. In my very biased opinion Kāpiti is one of the most stunning parts of the country. Young families love to bring up children here and senior citizens love to retire here. Also, many artists, writers and musicians live here and draw inspiration from the natural heritage that surrounds us. The beautiful natural environment is complimented by a vibrant community spirit. Te Waewae Kāpiti a Tara rāua ko Rangitane, more commonly known as Kāpiti Island, stands firm as a kaitiaki on our horizon.

I was deeply saddened, although not very surprised to learn earlier this week that the so called Environmental Protection Agency gave the green light to the National Government’s plans to ram a four-lane motorway through the very heart of our coastal community. The Agency is in the business of rubber stamping Government infrastructure programmes. However if it purports to be about protecting the environment then it should have rejected the Government’s proposals. The proposed MacKays to Peka Peka motorway will severely affect our local environment, by literally bulldozing sand dunes and wetlands and by increasing air and noise pollution. Indeed the motorway will cause health problems in the region; for example it will increase the chance of respiratory illness, particularly among the young and the old, groups that make up a large part of our community. In these ways, and many more, the motorway is a direct attack on what makes our Kāpiti community so wonderful and such a great place to live. This autobahn will be built alongside two primary schools! How can the Government justify the disruption that this will cause for the education and health of so many young people in Kāpiti?

These plans are also an attack on tangata whenua rights and te tino rangatiratanga o ngā iwi o Kāpiti. The proposed route of the motorway goes right through the centre of some of the only remaining unspoiled wāhi tapu in the Kāpiti region. Situated in Waikanae, the wāhi tapu land is in the ownership of the Takamore Trust and they have long protected it and cared for it as kaitiaki and tangata whenua. The land is very tapu and includes sites of significance in relation to the living and the deceased. The road will also affect other wāhi tapu of Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai in the wider Kāpiti region.

The struggle for Takamore to protect their wāhi tapu has been a long one. Indeed Takamore Trust chair Ben Ngaia has said that their relations with NZTA have been amicable and constructive in comparison to the tactics employed by the Kāpiti Coast District Council in the past. Before Steven Joyce moved in with his Roads of National Significance (RONS) projects, the KCDC and the previous Labour Government had devised the Western Link Road, which was to be a two-lane local road for the purposes of community connectivity. This plan, while positive in many ways for the wider community, was an even worse option for Takamore than the four-lane expressway.

Yet the current plans still require the desecration of significant wāhi tapu. The four-lane autobahn will be bulldozed right through the centre of two separate burial sites. It will be constructed only ‘5 metres’ away from one of these urupa. Other sites, such as birthing springs will also be adversely affected.

Ben Ngaia gave an informative interview with Dale Husband on Radio Waatea about the issue. Ben said in that interview, ‘our standards will never be met, because we are foremost opposed to a road destroying our wāhi tapu, despite every effort made by NZTA to try and alleviate the concerns, at the end of the day a road is still going through our wāhi tapu and our people feel aggrieved as a result.’

This decision making comes from the very top. Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee are responsible and will still be responsible if these plans go ahead. This saga is a testament to the fact that the highest echelons of our Government are hostile to the cultural, social and spiritual well-being and rights of Māori. It is a disgrace that we face this level of hostility, ignorance and lack of cultural redress in 21st Century New Zealand.

I want to know why Tariana Turia and the Māori Party aren't doing more to protect the interests of tangata whenua in regard to this project. These RONS projects are allocated funding in the Government’s annual budgets, which of the course the Māori Party routinely vote for. Turia should be using her influence as a Government minister to advocate for her constituents. Kāpiti is part of her Te Tai Hauāuru electorate and it is her duty to stand up for local hapū and iwi. If she does not, then it can only represent another failing on the part of the Māori Party and will be a sad indictment on their time in government.

The economics of this project don’t even stack up. It has an extremely low cost-benefit ratio of only 0.2. That means we only get 20 cents of possible return for every dollar we spend! And the justification National use for the project are its economic benefits to the region!

And the reality is that this is simply not needed. A shortened version of the Western Link Road, including a second bridge over the Waikanae River, will solve much of the congestion problems. It will take local traffic off SH1. Where as an expressway would only lead to an increase in car use.

This is an issue very close to my heart. The announcement of these plans in 2009 was a key reason that I first got involved in politics. I gave my first political speech on this issue in Paraparaumu, when I spoke of how the plans were anathema to the younger generations in Kāpiti. I also used my time in 2010’s Youth Parliament to try and express our communities concerns to the Government. Our politicians in all parties must not lose sight of the fundamental community and iwi values that are being directly attacked by the Government’s RONS projects.

Reflections on Waitangi Day

I think of Waitangi Day (WD) as a metaphor for the national mood and the health of the bicultural partnership. For an illustration, compare and contrast WD 2009 and 2012.


WD 2009:

Significant for its sense of optimism, WD 2009 came off of the back of National’s election win and their partnership with the Maori Party. The optimism of that win and the symbolism of that bicultural partnership defined WD 2009. For Maori, the day represented a break from the foreshore and seabed era and a realisation of an old Maori ambition – a kaupapa Maori party in but not of the government. For non-Maori New Zealanders, what defined the day was the (vacant) optimism that the Prime Minister’s election win created. Early indications suggested that John Key was not cut from the same cloth as Helen Clark, Jenny Shipley, Jim Bolger or any other Prime Minister since Sir Keith Holyoake. Key represented a break from the radicalism of the fourth and fifth Labour and National governments respectively and a swing against the perceived nanny stateism of the fifth Labour government.

As a result of these factors, nothing much happened and no remembers the day. Well, other than the Popata brothers having a crack at the Prime Minister, but their actions were an outlier. Brent Edwards told RNZ that, compared to the past four years, WD 2009 was “much more peaceful” and “much more of a celebration”.* Pita Sharples encapsulated the mood when he spoke of the “covenant” between Maori and Pakeha and the “hope” he had for the future.**


WD 2012

WD 2012 is best remembered, rightly or wrongly, for the Popata brothers (again) and the late Sir Paul Holmes (and a few thousand off-their-tits Kiwis in London). The day came off of the back of significant tension between the Maori Party, Mana and Labour and antipathy towards the National government, including their support for off-shore oil drilling. Add to that the perception that the Maori Party had betrayed the optimism and faith of 2009, well, the conditions for vicious protest were set. Maori Party MPs were labelled “John Key’s niggers”, speakers were drowned out under protest and marches were held. Sir Paul Holmes captured the non-Maori mood that year: frustration with what was perceived as unjustified protest. After all, the Maori Party were in government. Add to that a stagnant economy, worsening unemployment and a series of disasters in 2011. It’s probably no surprise that the national mood wasn’t, for want of a better word, tolerant.

The irony was that the Maori Party in government is partly what fueled the protests. Maori felt that the party had over compromised in government (thus betraying the optimism and faith of 2009). Include a Maori unemployment rate that was worsening, static Maori education statistics and negligible improvement in Maori crime and, well, protest becomes almost inevitable.

(It’s a sort of interesting to note that, almost prophetically, Holmes' piece set the tone for what was a turbulent political year)

WD 2013

Treaty settlements are continuing apace, the flame war between the Maori and Mana parties is smouldering rather than burning and the constitutional review is beginning. On the other hand, asset sales and wai rights top the agenda. With that in mind, the conditions are present (although absent a catalyst for action on the day). The national mood is, I think, also in flux. The conditions are present, think wai rights and a perceived pro-Maori constitutional review, but a catalyst is absent. Having said that, John Ansell is planning on an appearance. Then again, he is hardly an explosive catalyst in the way that, say, a Supreme Court judgment that awarded significant wai rights to Maori. Anyway, I think these factor do not define WD alone. Hundreds of events are held across the country. Events that, I think, better catch the potential of WD better than much of what happens at Te Tii.

*Radio NZ has a collection of audio from WD 2009. Listening to the pieces gives you a sense that it was, like Brent said, a more peaceful and celebratory day than in previous years.

**That speech was, I think, Pita Sharples at his best - a conciliator and a cross-cultural statesman. It’s a pity that at many times he has failed to live up to that potential.

Trouble in the Maori Party: Act I

I don’t even know where to start with this (from 3 News):

A fight for the Maori Party’s leadership has begun at Ratana today, with MP Te Ururoa Flavell officially challenging incumbent co-leader Pita Sharples.

Former Te Tai Tonga MP Rahui Katene has also thrown her hat in the ring to replace Tariana Turia as both co-leader and Te Tai Hauāuru MP.

The challenges are the latest in an ongoing spat about who will lead the party into the next election, and what direction the party should take.

Ms Turia announced she will stand down before the next election to let new blood take over the party – and urged Dr Sharples to do the same.

But last week, Dr Sharples unveiled he had no plans to stand down, saying he’d continue to co-lead the party after next year’s election.

Today, as the Ratana Church celebrates its birthday, Mr Flavell confirmed he would launch a challenge against Dr Sharples and Ms Katene confirmed she wanted Ms Turia’s job.

Maori Party president Pem Bird says Mr Flavell’s challenge will be discussed this afternoon and the party’s constitution will be reviewed to see what now happens.

I said last week that the party’s troubles are symptomatic of deep dysfunction within the parliamentary and party wings. I was too optimistic; the troubles are symptomatic of an anaemic caucus and a debilitated membership.

After shedding two seats and halving the party vote, it became obvious that the formula wasn’t right. The issue for the party appeared to be a matter of ingredients. Was there a leadership problem, a policy problem, a procedural problem or some combination of those factors and others?

As per last week, I think Te Ururoa represents a generational change and a break from the political period that Turia and Sharples embody. However, the party’s problems run deeper than leadership and political symbolism. The party itself, including the party leadership, haven’t figured out where they fit in a fragmented political landscape. A permanent Mana Party, a resurgent Labour Party and a rising Green Party have changed the way Maori politics is played. The Maori Party can either reclaim ground lost on the left, drift in the centre, or acknowledge their role on the right. They cannot maintain the idea that a pan-Maori party is possible. The party must choose a political identity – one that caters to a realistic market. In a post-Marine and Coastal Areas Act world, the party must find its mojo again.

With that in mind, dumping Pita could be problematic. He and Tariana anchor the Maori Party’s support. It would be interpreted as a swipe against Pita’s supporters if he was forced out of the job on Te Ururoa’s terms. Adding Rahui Katene to the recipe isn’t a magic play either. Katene was rejected in 2011 and it's arguable whether or not she appreciates the real issues that the Maori Party faces. The issues are not cosmetic and cannot and will not be resolved with a change in leadership.

As for Hone, well, this is an opportunity squeeze blood from the corpse. The Mana Party is stable, comfortable in its own ideology and untainted by government. The Maori Party is unstable, unsure of its own ideology and tainted by the decisions of government and factional fighting. The choice, if Hone were to draw the dichotomy, is an easy one.


UPDATE: last night the party released a statement saying that Pita will remain at the helm - for now. That's a good move. It's probably not the best look to wash your dirty laundry at Ratana (in front of nearly every political journalist in the country). As we know, though, it's delaying the inevitable hand-over.
.

Post-script: Pita is increasingly isolated from Tariana, Te Ururoa and some in the wider party. It would be cleaner for him to step down, but after his long service to Maori and the party his supporters argue that that is undignified (and he still retains support in the wider party) . The driving faction is made up of Te Ururoa, Pem Bird (the party president) and their supporters in the Waiariki electorate. Rahui Katene, as far as factional politics goes, is an uncertainty. However, in Parliament she was often associated with Tariana. 

Sharples vs Flavell: the leadership edition

Some comments on Pita Sharples confirming that he will contest the 2014 election - as co-leader.

• This is a missed opportunity to implement generational change. The Maori electorate remains young (the media age for the Maori population is 23 compared with 37 for the NZ population as a whole) and the Maori Party should move to reflect this. 
• Sharples is a product of the Maori renaissance of the 70s, 80s and 90s. He embodies the ideas and ideals of that (fading) political period. Flavell, on the other hand, is a clean break from the period and a better representation of Maori post-foreshore and seabed.
• Having said that, as far as reaching across the racial and political divide goes, Sharples is the most effective Maori Party MP. But at some point Te Ururoa will have to become the party leader. With that in mind Sharples should step aside to give Te Ururoa time to bed in before the election. 
• From an operational point of view it makes sense to have Te Ururoa deal with party issues while Turia and Sharples deal with ministerial issues. Flavell needs sustained political coverage if he is to hold his seat against Annette Sykes.
• Given his service to the party and Maori, Sharples deserves to stand down on his own terms. However, that doesn't mean he should have an indefinite lease on the leadership. 
• This episode speaks to deep dysfunction in the party. One co-leaders calls for the other to step down, that co-leader refuses while the leader of preference refuses to, or is forbidden from, fronting on the issue. 
• Thoughts?

Post-Script: it's also worth remembering Flavell and Pem Bird's failed attempt to mount a leadership coup last year. The plan was leaked to One News and Flavell and Bird had to abort. 

On Tariana Turia's retirement

A few comments on Tariana Turia’s decision to retire:

• Te Tai Hauauru isn't wide open - yet. Turia retains a loyal following and has, I think, the mana to anoint a successor. On the other hand, 2017 will be anyone's election. Unless Turia’s successor solidifies her base, boundary changes and a strong field might weaken the Maori Party hold on the seat. It’s worth remembering that their share of the party vote has declined from 31% in 2005 to 21% in 2011. Assuming that 2014 will be a four-way contest in the Maori seats (Lab v Green v Mana v Maori), the downward trend will continue. 

• Rahui Katene now has an opening. Rahui is based in Porirua (one of the electorate’s major population areas) and has campaigning experience and an experienced campaign team. As much as Katene wants Te Tai Tonga, that electorate’s staying red for the foreseeable future. Katene will also fulfill the constitutional requirement that there be both a male and female leader. 

• Turia’s legacy is not whanau ora. The program, in its current form, will not survive a change of government. Turia’s legacy is the Maori Party itself and the normalisation of kaupapa Maori politics. The Maori Party are not and never were a radical party. Their approach to governing, rather than looking to overthrow or remould the system, was to insert Maori into the governing and business classes. The party achieved that. The Iwi Leaders Group are now a power structure in NZ society, government has and is devolving some power to iwi (think Whanau Ora and Charter Schools) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People lends international recognition to tangata whenua. 

• On the other hand, Maori unemployment is double the national rate, wages are stagnant, schools are not “demonstrating sufficient commitment to ensuring the progress and achievement of Māori students” and Maori spend $5b more than we earn. On the issues that matter to most Maori, the needle hasn't moved. 

• Not to take anything away from Tariana Turia and her achievements. She deserves an enjoyable and prosperous retirement.

Why National Standards won't help Maori

With respect, I think Tariana Turia is plain wrong on National Standards. From Waatea:

Associate Education Minister Tariana Turia is backing the release of national standards data as a way to improve the education of Maori children.

Mrs Turia says it’s time for educators and families to step up so the next generation of Maori don’t face a future of unemployment or low-paid work.

“I think Hekia Parata is doing a really good job. People may not like what she’s saying and they may not like what she’s doing but it’s all research-informed, it is taken from research that has been carried out over a number of years, she’s saying ‘we want that for Maori kids too, and we’re going to have it,’” Mrs Turia says.

Well, that’s the thing: the release of National Stadards data will not improve the education of Maori children. The data is meaningless. Firstly, National Standards are neither moderated nor standardised. This renders comparisons between schools largely meaningless.

Secondly, a different set of standards apply to Kura Kaupapa. So when Mum’s deciding to whether to send little Hemi to the local primary or the local Kura, National Standards are a useless guide. To use a tired phrase, you’re comparing apples with oranges. Keri Milne-Ihimaera comments that standards for Kura reflect “a Maori worldview and are quite different”.

Thirdly, National Standards (as they are) tell us nothing we don’t already know. Maori kids are failing. Am I supposed to be surprised by that?

It’s also worth remembering that National Standards are not an innovative new approach to teaching, nor do they encourage new approaches. National Standards represent a yardstick. All we’re doing is measuring Maori kids against where the government thinks those kids should be. Ka Hikitia, Te Kotahitanga, Whakahau Whakamana Whakahihi; these are innovative approaches to teaching. Pity the government is underfunding them.

So, National Standards are about measurement and communication. Apparently parents want to know “in plain English” how well or not so well their child is doing. Well, what happens when the child is branded a failure and the parents are told? Nothing. National Standards, as they are, end there. The $60m spent determining who is below the arbitrary National Standards line would have been better spent on actually helping the underachievers rather than telling them they’re underachieving. Isn’t that just common sense?

Best and Worst Maori MPs for August

As usual, here are the best and worst performing Maori politicans for August.

The Best


Louisa Wall

12 months ago few people could name the MP for Manurewa. Today, it’s hard not to know the MP for Manurewa. Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill has guaranteed her a Cabinet position in the next Labour government – I’ll put money on that call.

Louisa has demonstrated how you should sell a bill. It helps that she is on the right side of history, but that aside she crafted the superior argument and narrative. Google News returns over 2000 results for Louisa Wall which, to me and I know it’s unscientific, demonstrates that she has actively sold the bill. It’s easy to allow an issue like this to take on a life of its own, but Louisa has kept control of the issue.

The true test, assuming the marriage equality bill passes, will be maintaining momentum. I’ve no doubt Louisa has the ability to front issues, but the sport and recreation and community and voluntary sector portfolios are not conducive to media coverage or ground breaking policy. A portfolio reshuffle is due and Labour could do worse than award Louisa with a weighty portfolio.



Nanaia Mahuta

Nanaia is often written off, but I can assure you she’s no lightweight. It’s difficult to court media attention, even with the most controversial issues. Take, as one example, the class sizes debacle. Nanaia took an active role in sticking it to the government, but with issues that lead the news the party leader will take, well, the lead. Therefore, David Shearer fronted the big media while Nanaia was assigned the back seat. Scanning Scoop and Voxy reveals Nanaia produces more press releases than her Maori caucus colleagues; surely she deserves credit for productivity even if that does not translate to exposure. Anyway, since when was media coverage the only gauge of performance.

 
Tariana Turia

Like Nanaia, Tariana produces more press releases than her colleagues. She is also the most capable. Over the past month Tariana has sold the plain packaging idea well. After Whanau Ora, reducing the harm smoking causes will be Tariana’s legacy.

 
Hone Harawira

Last term Hone was the most consistent performer. However, this year he is hot and cold. He had a terrible month when he refused to budge on marriage equality, on the other hand he had a blazing month when the government planned to scrap s9 in the MOM Act. In August, however, Hone has found his form. He voted Aye for the marriage equality bill and has taken it to the government over child poverty, asset sales, Maori water rights, Afghanistan, drug testing beneficiaries and the proposed bill to ban gang patches. No other opposition MP covers more issues. For a one man band supported by a comparatively small office Hone does exceedingly well. Compare, for example, Hone’s coverage with David Shearer, a man supported by a research unit, several press secretaries and communications staff and MPs who he can delegate to.

 
Moana Mackey

A quiet achiever this year. Last term Moana did, to be honest, nothing of note. However, this year has been marked by good work, albeit work that has gone relatively unnoticed. Moana’s work on the Exclusive Economic Zone bill has been excellent. She has carried Labour on this issue and made a number of excellent speeches in the House. Moana has also ensured climate change remains a live issue in the party and in the House and, as local example, she has fought for the reopening/repair of the Gisborne rail link.


The Worst

 
Brendan Horan

I couple of months ago Brendan participated in a political debate on Native Affairs. He was horrendous. I thought he should be cut a bit of slack, he’s a new MP after all, but over the last two months he has not improved – not one iota. He can give a soundbite now, and a good one at that, but in longform he is very bad. Strays off point and usually has little grasp of the topic.


Hekia Parata

Hekia Parata is no fool, nor is she stupid. But she speaks in empty platitudes and everyone sees through them. The class sizes debacle revealed her tendency to speak in slogans, this tendency was widely criticised, but she has still made no effort to speak in substance. Hekia does, however, receive marks for keeping controversy to a minimum, even with charter schools and national standards coming under attack from teacher unions and the opposition. 


The Green’s Maori Caucus

Unusually quiet this month, nearly non-existent.


Parekura Horomia

I like Parekura and having worked for him I can assure you he is an outstanding electorate MP. Hence he has the largest majority of any Maori electorate MP. However, his activity level in the Maori Affairs portfolio leaves much to be desired.

The problem with Whanau Ora

In another Whanau Ora controversy, Winston Peters has revealed a Palmerston North based provider owes $75,000 to IRD in overdue GST and PAYE tax. The provider, a branch of the Women’s Refuge, also overpaid annual leave. Following an audit report funding was frozen.

This controversy, in conjunction with the others, illustrates serious competency issues in the delivery and monitoring of Whanau Ora. The problems can be attributed to teething issues, but I think that explanation is too simplistic.

Whanau Ora outsources social service funding and delivery. More often than not the government outsources to organisations that do not have a proven track record in delivering and monitoring social services. The Women’s Refuge, for example, is a proven provider when it comes to providing accomodation and support for battered women. However, beyond that service, the Women’s Refuge is untested and inexperienced. I think it is fair to assume no one in the Women’s Refuge has the institutional, administrative and business experience to competently deliver social services beyond what they specialise in.

This was always going to be the gamble with Whanau Ora. There were never enough organisations with the capacity and experience to deliver what the government does or did. There are exceptions, the Waipereira trust is probably the most prominent example, but they are the exception not the rule.

It is an indictment on Te Puni Kokiri that these controversies keep occurring. TPK was, after all, restructured in an attempt to put more focus on Whanau Ora.

I support Whanau Ora in principle. The idea that communities should deliver social services makes sense. The idea that social service delivery should be centralised is also smart. However, the ideas do not seem to be working well in practice. This, I think, can be rectified over time. The government needs to take a more active role in building capability among providers. Any approach otherwise is just negligent.

Turia and Sharples reconsider retirement

Audrey Young reports:

Maori Party co-leaders Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples have revealed they are reconsidering retiring from politics next election - just as a new poll shows them potentially holding the balance of power.

Mrs Turia and Dr Sharples had indicated that the 2011 election would be their last.

But they are reconsidering after being asked repeatedly by supporters, a party official said.

This is the party’s only option. Te Ururoa Flavell’s majority in Waiariki is soft and will weaken in the face of a strong candidate and campaign. If Tauranga or Tuwharetoa fall towards Annette Sykes, or the Labour candidate evenly splits the area, then a win in Rotorua will not be enough to carry Flavell.

The same is roughly true of Pita Sharples. John Tamihere is considering a run at the 2014 election and Mana will stand a strong candidate, potentially Nga Puhi man Clinton Dearlove. Sharples came within a whisker of defeat in 2011 and that, quite worryingly for the Maori Party, was against a Shane Jones whose mind was on his personal life and a Mana candidate who entered late. Hypothetically Sharples will be up against the strongest candidate Labour can field, read Tamihere, and one of the strongest Mana can field, read Dearlove.

Tamihere, along with his likely campaign manager Willie Jackson, are probably the best Maori campaigners in Auckland. Labour also has access to the likes of Shane Phillips and Kelvin Davis. The Maori Party, on the other hand, don’t appear to have access to like campaigners.

Having said that, Pita Sharples unseated in Tamihere in 2005. However, the Sharples of today is nothing on the Sharples of seven years ago. Sharples is tired and not cutting it well, I think at least, as a Minister at the moment. He is slow and does not appear as intellectually capable as he once was. In contrast, Tamihere has, minus one or two minor controversies, rebuilt his reputation and continues his good work with the Waipereira Trust.

As for Tariana Turia, she’ll win no matter who runs against her. Turia knows, perhaps better than her colleagues, that without her and Sharples – the party’s anchors – the Maori Party will fall. The tide is going out on the Maori Party and rising on the Mana Party. For that reason, she knows that she needs to stay. Such a move, however, only seems to prolong the inevitable. Without an ideological shift and tangible wins for Maori, the Maori Party is paddling against the current.

The best and worst Maori MPs for May

Well, it doesn’t take long for the tables to turn. Last month I named Hekia Parata one of the best performing Maori MPs - this month she is one of the worst. Tariana Turia and Te Ururoa Flavell didn’t even rate a mention, but this month they occupy the top positions. Rino Tirikatene wasn’t on the radar, but his push for Maori seats on the Nelson City Council and across New Zealand pushes him to the top list. True to form Hone Harawira rated as one of the best performing MPs last month, yet a dismal performance – by his own high standards – sees him fall off the radar this month. 

For the full list and explanation click here or on the tab at the top of the page.

Foreshore and seabed claims rolling in

I think it’s a non-story, but reaction will be strong in the usual quarters:

Inquiries by 3 News show Maori are now claiming customary title to more than 20 beaches, and three Maori groups are making claims on one small island - Motiti Island, in the Bay of Plenty.

The three different groups are competing against each other for effective ownership - customary title of the coast.

The Motiti claims are among 21 different areas of coastline now under 24 claims for title under the Marine and Coastal Area Bill.

Well, this isn’t surprising is it? The intention of the act is to “provide for” and “recognise” customary interests. In other words, the act invites applications. The bigger question is, I think, how many of these claims are going to be successful. Scanning the various claims I would argue very few.

There are claims lodged with the court and claims lodged with the government. A claimant can apply for, or negotiate which may be the more appropriate word, for a recognition agreement with the government or apply for a recognition order from the court. In my opinion, applying for a recognition agreement with the government offers the higher chance of success. The court must follow what is, and authorities agree, a rigid legal test. On the other hand the government avenue offers more flexibility. The government is not constrained by precedent, legal principles and so on. The government is, it should be noted, constrained by politics though. Politics may, you can argue, be more restrictive than the law. On balance, however, politics is more flexible than the law and, as a result, offers a greater chance of success.

There are 12 claims lodged with the Court and 12 lodged with the government. Most of the latter have transferred from applications under the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Of those claims before the court, the only ones I can see succeeding are in the Eastern Bay of Plenty where Whakatohea and Te Whanau-a-Apanui exercise undisturbed rangatiratanga and wrapping around the coast where Ngati Porou are in a similar position. In other words their rangatiratanga has – arguably of course – never been extinguished. It can also be argued isolated parts of the Northland and Stewart Island remain under Maori control.

However, applications from the Taranaki and Hawkes Bay will face significant hurdles as will applications in the Bay of Plenty from Ohope tracking north through to the Coromandel. In these areas the non-Maori population is significant and, as a result, Maori rangatiratanga has probably been extinguished in the eyes of the court and the government. Having mentioned the Bay of Plenty I should note that, as mentioned, claims in the Eastern Bay of Plenty (east of Tirohanga) are strong as are the claims to Motiti Island. Motiti remains an almost exclusive Maori community.

It’s interesting to note that there are applications from whanau and hapu as well as iwi. In the case of Motiti Island there are three competing claims.

Interestingly Patrick Gower also notes that:

But it is not just more of the coast under claim, it is now the delicacy on your plate too - the great Kiwi pastime whitebaiting.

Under the claims lodged, three groups want customary rights to whitebaiting in southern Taranaki near Hawera.

But the Government says other law overrides the new foreshore law and they will not get it.

“If they wanted to claim for whitebait under the Marine and Coastal Area Bill they would literally be pushing whitebait up a river,” says Chris Finlayson.

Tariana Turia disagrees and thinks the claim may have some substance. She may be right. Although whitebaiting is a customary right, it occurs outside of the area considered part of the common marine and coastal area. However, it can be argued that whitebaiting falls within s62 – rights conferred by customary marine title. But - to point out the bleeding obvious - Chris Finlayson has already denied the claim (see the above quote). The chances of Finlayson going against the above statement and approving the claim are, I think it is fair to assume, minimal.

Essentially, these are questions for the court or the government to decide; whatever way they fall there will be political consequences, but that's not going to worry Maori and the more success we have the better.

Praise for the Maori Party

Sometimes I’m accused of wanting to destroy the Maori Party; with that in mind it gives me some satisfaction to praise the party when they get right.

For the first time this year the Maori Party is leading on issues. For the first four months of this year the Maori Party found itself having to respond to issues. Take, as a few examples, the cuts at Te Puni Kokiri, attacks on Whanau Ora and cuts to Whanau Ora providers and the s9 debacle. In these situations the Maori Party was found wanting, especially from a communications point of view, as Mana, Labour and the Greens launched their attacks and fed the narrative that the Maori Party is failing Maori. As a result the debate wasn’t focussed on, for example, whether or not cuts at TPK were justified, but whether or not the Maori Party was selling out their own.

However, the last week has signaled a change in tone. The Maori Party is selecting issues and running with them. Tariana Turia has selected smoking as an issue and played her hand well. Over the past week Turia has covered the story from different angles, as a result ensuring the story provided a week of headlines. For example, Turia first muted plain packaging, this was followed with a call to increase excise tax, some time later she called for a ban on smoking in cars and  then an outright ban. Covering a different angle each day ensured that the media had a new angle each day, as opposed to all recycling the same press release on the same day. It should be added, I think, that the smoking issue isn't just about ensuring the Maori Party has policy change and media coverage on the go - this is going to be Tariana Turia's legacy (along with Whanau Ora) so there's extra pressure to play it well.

Special mention must also go to Te Ururoa Flavell who, finally I think, seems to be leading on something. Flavell is leading calls for Maori seats on the Rotorua District Council and, more significantly, leading the Maori Party against the government’s plans for student loan payback and allowances. Again, this signals a change in tone. Flavell has remained silent following his botched attempt to secure the leadership. In my opinion, Flavell’s done his time in the sin bin.

The Maori Party’s activity is especially significant because it’s coinciding with uncharacteristic silence from Hone Harawira who, for the most part, leads on all Maori issues. It is, for the Maori Party, crucial that they remain active and formulate a strategy to counter the perception that they have sold Maori down the drain. Legislative wins coupled with supporting rhetoric is crucial, but it’s something that has been in short supply over the last four years.

As an aside, according to the latest Roy Morgan poll the Maori Party would hold the balance of power.

Rahui Katene to stand in 2014 (updated)

As I think I predicted last year, former MP Rahui Katene has put her hand up to lead the Maori Party:

Former Maori Party MP Rahui Katene has indicated she wants to lead the party when the current co-leaders step down.

Ms Katene lost her southern Maori seat of Te Tai Tonga at the last election, but plans to stand again in 2014.

She says three years in Parliament was not long enough for her vision for Te Tai Tonga to be put into place.

The lawyer says she would stand again as an MP for the Maori Party - and be leader - if that is what the people want.

She says she is making herself available and she would love to advocate on voters' behalf.

Ms Katene says she would seek re-election in Te Tai Tonga because that is where she is from and where her iwi is.

First of all, let me declare my conflict of interest here. I’m doing a little bit of work for Rino Tirikatene, the current MP for Te Tai Tonga.

Anywho, Rahui will not win in 2014, bar an extraordinary and unforeseen event. Te Tai Tonga has never been, and probably never will be, a natural electorate for the Maori Party to target. Te Tai Tonga is far different in character from the other six Maori electorates, mainly in that tino rangatiratanga is not the dominant ideology among Maori in the electorate.

If Rahui is serious about winning back the seat, basing herself in Wellington is not the best decision. When Rahui won the seat in 2008, she did so off of the back of Wellington. With that in mind, she should be targeting areas in the south where she is weak and where voter support is soft. Christchurch is, arguably, the centre of the electorate and the prize, so naturally it should be her base.

Profile is important in any electorate, but that is one area where Rahui failed. She did not build a solid support base before and leading into election year, which meant her hold on Te Tai Tonga was always going to be tenuous. From a strategic point of view, Rahui failed to carry her support in Wellington – her stronghold in 2008 - and did not solidify the young vote (where she did well in 2008).  

If Rahui wants to win, Tariana Turia should anoint her as the successor in Te Tai Hauauru. However, even then, without tribal links to and knowledge of the electorate Rahui’s chances would be marginal. Tamaki Makaurau is an electorate where tribal links are not as important, so that could be a possibility. However, Rahui has no profile in the electorate.

Under the Maori Party constitution, there must be a male and female leader. At the moment, the leader in waiting is Te Ururoa Flavell – who isn’t guaranteed a win so long as Annette Sykes stands again. I think, come 2014, the Maori Party is finished. The narrative that the Maori Party are sell-outs is set and the party has failed to counter it. Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples are, perhaps, the only genuinely pan-Maori leaders in Parliament. Te Ururoa and Rahui don’t have the pan-Maori appeal of the current leaders. Unless the Maori Party defines a base, for example conservative Maori, the party will fail with Te Ururoa and Rahui who are not pan-Maori leaders.

Turia scores smoking victory

Credit where credits due, Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia has scored a significant victory:

Associate Health Minister Tariana Turia said yesterday that the Cabinet had agreed to introduce plain packaging alongside Australia – but only after public consultation.

It is the next step in the Government's drive to make New Zealand smokefree by 2025. From July, a ban will come into force on the open display of cigarette and tobacco packs in all shops.

So far this term, this is the Maori Party’s signature win. Last term the party secured a select committee inquiry into smoking. The inquiry resulted in, among other things, a tax hike on cigarettes – not insignificant securing a tax rise under a National government. After Whanau Ora, the Maori Party’s efforts for a smokefree New Zealand by 2025 have resulted in the most tangible benefits for Maori. The Maori smoking rate is trending down and the rate among Maori girls, a notorious smoking group, is dropping dramatically.

Plain packaging isn’t guaranteed, however, with British American Tobacco saying that they’ll “take every action necessary to protect its intellectual property rights”. Australia, the first country to introduce plain packaging, is currently facing a legal challenge from British American Tobacco. Public consultation will also occur.