On the role of criticism: Te Matatini

So this happened. Via Te Manu Korihi:

“The Tainui group, Te Iti Kahurangi, took to the national Te Matatini kapa haka stage last week and performed a haka which challenged the way [Māori Television] covered Maori issues.

After the performance, its kaitataki tane Kingi Kiriona, [a former Te Karere reporter], questioned how Māori Television covered stories.

He suggested that the station should be doing more uplifting stories about tangata whenua rather than negative stories about them”.

There is a very basic problem here: Kiriona and Te Iti Kahurangi are confusing negativity with accountability. Māori Television – and Native Affairs in particular – do the latter. The investigations into the Kōhanga Reo National Trust were not designed to undermine Māori, but to expose wrongdoing. We could have left it at that, but then this happened:

“Waikato-Tainui said an initial decision by Māori Television to not show the haka performance was censorship.

Te Arataura o Waikato-Tainui Chairman Rahui Papa said the matter served as a reminder to protect not only the right to freedom of speech but also the age-old Māori customary practice to openly discuss and debate issues.

He said the censoring of Te Iti Kahurangi not only impinged freedom of speech but did not align with an important tikanga that had been practised for years”.

There is another basic problem here: Te Iti Kahurangi is arguing for a double standard. While they made the case for their own freedom of speech, their haka simultaneously made the case against Native Affair’s freedom of speech. That is not to say Māori Television’s decision to edit the haka was right, but neither was the substance of Te Iti Kahurangi’s criticism.

If this were merely a question of form then no problem arises. Te Matatini is a proper forum for voicing criticism, as Mihi Forbes acknowledged on Waatea. Yet it is equally true that Native Affairs is a proper forum for criticism and, more importantly, accountability. To suggest, like Te Iti Kahurangi did, that criticism must take a particular form - especially a form which is not accessible to all Māori - is a kind of cultural elitism.

There seems to be some resistance to the idea that Māori Television is, well, Māori. As if Māori cannot take modernity and repurpose it. It is a rigid view which takes things Māori to mean things historical. The irony is that such a view is, in fact, ahistorical. Māori in colonial and postcolonial New Zealand have always borrowed Western systems, technology and aesthetics and then repurposed them.

This is an issue of power, as Leonie Pihama suggests. Yet the power does not lie with Native Affairs – the primary target of the haka – but with those who the haka sought to defend. Native Affairs is a show run by a team of young women with little institutional support from Maori Television (or anyone else). Who holds the power here?

The outsiders on Native Affairs or the establishment figures who they hold to account…

Native Affairs continues its ground-breaking journalism

I was really looking forward to Native Affairs’ season premiere last night, and it didn't disappoint. In comparison to the mainstream current affairs shows – it was exceptional. It was always going to be interesting to see Native Affairs post Julian Wilcox as presenter. But if last night’s show was anything to go by then they made an excellent decision to appoint Mihingarangi Forbes as the presenter of New Zealand’s best current affairs show. Even with her significant experience and talent it was going to be a big task to match up to Julian Wilcox. But in her first political interview for the show she did just that. She continued Wilcox’s practice of asking the hard questions while being respectful and she naturally brought her own style to the show.

The show began with an informative and lengthy story on Tonga’s maritime transport. It is a significant issue that I knew very little about, but as viewers we were given all sides of the story (although Foreign Affairs Minister Murry McCully didn't agree to being interviewed). There were interviews with the Tongan Minister of Infrastructure, concerned locals, the owners of the ferry companies. It became clear that the New Zealand Government had a lot to answer for. New Zealand and World Bank officials had wrote scathing reports on the safety of the Tongan ferries but at the same time have not helped the small island nation by providing the resources required to ensure safety. Our aid to the nation is being spent on upgrading the airport, which will improve tourism, but will do little to help the day to day life of Tongans. They are too poor to travel by air and so are forced onto unsafe transport. It was good to see Phil Goff in support of getting New Zealand aid focused on the issue. Hopefully this story will push the Government to help the Tongans.

Then there was a wonderful story on Tame Iti’s return home. It was so good to see him at home with his family, and especially with his mokopuna. In my opinion, the defaming of the people of Te Urewera as terrorists and the imprisonment of Tame and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara have been some of the greatest injustices in 21^st Century New Zealand. And still Tuhoe and the whānau of Ruātoki haven’t received any kind of an apology for what was a disgusting abuse of state power.

And then we had Mihingarangi Forbes’ interview with David Shearer about his goal to win the back the Māori seats. I was especially pleased to see that Native Affairs were going to do this interview because I had some concerns after David Shearer's reshuffle that he wasn't doing enough to promote Māori talent, and I blogged about it last week. Forbes asked pretty much all the questions that I was eager to hear the answer to. While Shearer said a few good things, he didn't really answer any of the questions directly and he didn't set out any plan or vision for the way forward. He did say that he was looking to get more young Māori and more wāhine Māori selected as candidates, which will be really positive if he can see it through. He mentioned that his housing, health and education policies would be popular with Māori but he didn't announce any particular initiatives aimed at Māori communities. It would have been good to hear what he would do differently to the National/Māori Party Government on job creation, as he mentioned that 25% of young Māori aren't in education or employment  It was positive to hear that he intends to genuinely work with the Mana and Māori parties. Overall, I wasn't convinced by Shearer’s interview, especially with his inability to address that fact that he has only two Māori MPs in his shadow cabinet. But at least he's engaging and it seems that hes looking at strategies for moving forward. 

It would be good to find out in a subsequent interview with Shearer whether he will repeal the Takutai Moana Act. The Act, which was supported by the Māori Party, repeated many of the same injustices of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The inferiority of customary title in relation to freehold title is racism in our law and as it stands the Act constitutes modern day raupatu. Just last week Metiria Turei said on Radio Waatea that she's keen to repeal that Act. If Shearer wants to win back all the Māori seats, then committing to repealing the Takutai Moana Act would be a good place to start.

I really enjoyed Native Affairs last night. There were also good stories on the North Island drought and Te Matatini star Jeff Ruha. With a season premiere like that, we have a lot to look forward to this year. The full show can be viewed on the Native Affairs website or individual stories can be on viewed on their Facebook page. 

I think we would all be doing better if our Māori MPs were more like our Māori journalists!