Controlling Maori reproduction (updated)

The government’s welfare plans are out and some aspects are deeply disturbing:

Women on benefits - including teenagers and the daughters of beneficiaries - will be offered free long-term contraception as part of a $287.5 million Budget package for the Government's welfare reforms.

In other words, quoting Deborah Russell, “you and your slapper daughters better not breed any more of your type.”

On grounds of principle, having the government involved in such an intensely personal matter is inappropriate. There is a persuasive argument that the government should only regulate or interfere in matters that present a risk to the individual or society. A purist would read this as meaning the government should keep its nose out of our personal affairs, unless those affairs are criminal, negligent or so on. Reproduction is a human right and, on the above principle, not an area where the government has any business – even if the person in question is reliant on government support. This, it’s fair to say, gives the government no right to influence our personal choices.

The contraception plan is not compulsory of course. The plan as it is represents the most a government can do to control reproduction without attracting credible claims of eugenics. Arguing that the voluntary aspect negates the argument that the plan infringes on personal choice is, at best, naïve. PeterCresswell puts it well:

Rest assured that those employed by the state will be offering “incentives” to beneficiaries  to cooperate with the plan—and when bureaucrats begin “strongly suggesting” to beneficiaries they should take up an “offer,” they expect their “suggestions” to be obeyed. (As former minister Marian Hobbs once explained the state’s view of “encouraging” behaviour the stale likes, “we start with encouraging, but there’s always the big stick.)

Sue Bradford makes a similar point when she points out that there is a power imbalance between beneficiaries and case managers.

Paula Bennett is doing a good job selling the plan. However, you can couch the plan in sellable terms, but that doesn’t change the fact that the government is selecting a certain group to influence (or control which is the more appropriate term in my opinion). If the government was offering free contraception to all New Zealanders, including men, then claims that the government was choosing who they wanted to breed and who they didn’t could be negated. However, this isn’t the case and to borrow a phrase from biology: the government is selecting against beneficiaries. That, it can be argued, amounts to eugenics.

Quoting Deborah Russell again, the government’s plan has significant consequences for Maori:

I’m also catching a whiff of racism about this move, I think. Via Tallulah, in response to a comment I made at TLG, we know that 43% of DPB recipients are Maori, and 10% are Pacific Islanders. So over half of DPB recipients have brown skins. I think it’s not just about making the slappers keep the legs together. It’s also about stopping those brown people from breeding.

So, in effect, the government’s plan will substantially interfere with the reproductive freedom of Maori. I’m waiting, hopefully not in vain, for the Maori Party and the Mana Party to take an official position. When Maori will be so heavily affected, the two kaupapa Maori parties are obligated to take a position. I note that Metiria Turei has been leading opposition and, I think, quite competently. It’s contrary to Maori values to have the government interfere in matters of the whanau. The whanau, as the Maori Party often says, is an autonomous unit and, on my understanding of the values of our people, should be free from undue interference and influence from outsiders – read the government. Also, and more importantly, issues of over-fertility are not viewed as a problem in Te Ao Maori - its welcomed. Lastly, it   

I hope more Maori come out against, or in support if they’re that way inclined, because I can’t help but feel that I’m not the most appropriate Maori to comment on this. If there are any wahine out who want to comment, please feel free to leave a comment.   

UPDATE: Tariana Turia, continuing her strong form on the issues, has come out strongly:

The initiative drew fire from National's ally - Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, who is also the associate social development minister. She said it was insulting to tell somebody how many children they should have. 

"I've always supported the growing of our population, the growing of our hapu and iwi and so I'm certainly not one who's ever believed that we should be controlling people's fertility."

Sort it out, Labour

David Farrar makes an interesting point;

What is interesting is that Labour may have relatively few Maori MPs after the next election, unless they do some recruitment into high list placings. It is rumoured that Horomia may retire also, and Mahuta is staying on but concentrating mainly on family for the next few years.

On top of Mahuta, you’ve got Shane Jones, Kelvin Davis and Moana Mackey. Only four Maori MPs would be historically quite low for Labour. Labour may give high list rankings to some of their Maori seat candidates – but then of course that may help the Maori Party keep those seats.

I do not like this. In my opinion Labour has always taken the Maori vote for granted. The party establishment treats Maori support as a given, almost a right. If Labour continues to treat Maori support with casual disregard then the electoral consequences will be severe.

Traditionally, Maori voted Labour because Labour was the best of a bad bunch. However, in 2010, Maori have genuine political alternatives. National has shown that, under the right circumstances, they can accept some aspects of tino rangatiratanga and advance Maori aspirations. The Greens worldview is in most respects comparable with Te Ao Maori and NZ First offers a creed of nationalism that appeals to many Maori. And of course there is The Maori Party. Unlike in the past Maori can easily shift their vote to other Parliamentary parties.  

In such a crowded political market place Labour needs to do more. Labour appears to be operating under a mindset stuck in 1984 where the Maori vote only determined the outcome in four safe Maori seats. As such Labour could easily disregard the Maori vote without suffering electoral consequences. However, this is 2010, the political landscape is wildly different. Maori are a growing demographic and consequently a growing electoral power. One would think, in the interests of longevity, that Labour would be making a concerted effort to solidify the Maori vote. In 2008 women and to a lesser extent the working class ditched Labour. If Labour continues to disrespect Maori support then Maori may follow suit.    

Labour needs to rebuild trust among Maori. Following the foreshore and seabed controversy and more recently Phil Goff’s Nationhood speech Maori trust in Labour has dwindled. Having only four Maori MP’s feeds the perception that Labour just does not care about the Maori vote. National has really stolen the initiative in terms of the Maori vote. By entering into an agreement with the Maori Party the Nats have created the perception that they are willing to enter into a good faith relationship with, at first glance, ideological foes for the good of the country. Over the past two years the Nats have continuously offered the Maori Party small concessions thus reinforcing the perception that the party is no longer hostile towards Maori aspirations.

Labour needs to get it together. The party is incompetent in every respect. Without the Maori vote Labour cannot hope to ever occupy the Treasury benches. Women love John Key, urban liberals are few and far between and the working class by and large no longer identify with Labour. If Labour does not change tact add they can surely add Maori to the list of disaffected supporters.