The politics of the level playing field: why Colin Craig is wrong

Sensing a theme in the Conservative Party's campaign literature. pic.twitter.com/R4LQRtyjDz
— Toby Manhire (@toby_etc) July 19, 2014

Pretty much this. Via Te Ururoa Flavell:

“Māori Party Co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell says the Conservative Party’s policies to get rid of the Māori seats, shut down the Waitangi Tribunal and implement ‘one law for all’ are ignorant, dangerous, and are not welcome in our political system or our country… 

The old assimilation policy is hidden behind a few new terms and slogans, such as One Law for All, but the intention is the same and we know all about it. In this day and age there is no place for political leaders who know nothing about our history and know nothing about us”.

Craig and his Conservatives aren’t here to restore “unity”. They’re the exhausted rear guard of New Zealand racism. Armed, it seems, with very little but a slogan and a cheque book. 

The intent is clear: Craig is trying – failing - to tap the reservoir of racism. It’s not “one law for all” but “one law to rule us all”. The latter sounds more chauvinist than the former, quite a feat, yet doomed to fail. What Brash had with one law for all and Craig doesn’t with one law to rule us all is institutional acceptance. The veneer of respectability. As Brash was fond of saying, he was for “mainstream New Zealand”. Craig is merely the perfectly pitched 5 percent politician. 

Mihingarangi Forbes revealed as much in her interview with Craig on Native Affairs. Best described as extended torture, Craig can’t muster a coherent explanation for, firstly, his apparent support for Māori Television and, second, his opposition to division “based on race”. The same for te reo Māori. Craig supports government funding, yet can’t reconcile it with his “one law to rule us all” position. He is left to grasp at artificial distinctions. 

But even in the face of such impressive incompetence, it’d be negligent to ignore Craig. His message is still insidious because it’s pitched at the progressive – yes, irony - desire for equality in liberal democracy. 

That is, the idea all people are created equal and any deviation from that principle constitutes the real injustice. It’s the myth of the level playing field. There’s room to recognise the Treaty and historic injustice, yet Craig and his Conservatives seem to be claiming that – at some unspecified point in time - modern democracy created a nation of equals. It didn’t, but that’s a foundational myth in New Zealand. The idea that a neat line separates the bad Old Days and the more enlightened Good Days. 

So if the level playing field is true - it isn't - then you’re poor, dumb and incarcerated because you deserve to be. Where the injustice is not the fact that you are poor, dumb and incarcerated, but that you need and receive targeted rights because of it. The reasoning is absurd: catering for substantive inequality is actually creating legal inequality. On Planet Conservative, the latter is the real crime. 

But it’s a very attractive argument – especially among the selfish. If disadvantage is a matter of personal responsibility then it requires no response from the advantaged. The demand that Māori accept “equal rights” – so no legal distinctions between different people – is really a plea for assimilation. Craig is really asking Maori to accept their disadvantages quietly. Well, no thanks. 

Replace “Māori” with any other category of difference in New Zealand society. Now try to argue that this category of difference must be abandoned for the sake of “unity”. It doesn’t really work unless there is some manifest harm, yeah? Te Ururoa is right. Craig is merely resurrecting “the old assimilation policy”, but “hidden behind a few new terms and slogans”. Now that “is not welcome”.

Our double reality: on being Maori and being political

Well, they haven’t done anything wrong. In holding a lucrative fundraiser at the exclusive Northern Club, the Maori Party neither broke the law nor transgressed some moral jurisdiction. But the grievous hypocrisy is unmistakable. Consider this:

mana Dotcom is actually Dotcom mana. it's all about the money, money. Unbelievable using Maori seat to draw in members from other party
— Te Ururoa Flavell (@TeUruroaFlavell) April 12, 2014

Dotcom’s dollars are off limits, but money from privileged Auckland isn’t?

Donations arrive attached with expectations of reciprocity. The Prime Minister will expect a return in loyalty. The donors will expect their interests to be represented in Cabinet. To think otherwise is deliberate ignorance. Donations are made on the basis of self-interest and shared identity. But does the Maori Party want to be the party of privileged Auckland?

The Maori Party doesn’t just suffer at the hands of racists, but at the hands of Maori leftists and separatists too. At times it seems like the party is fielding unjust criticism from all sides. But this isn’t one of those times. The party has played into the central criticisms others make: that it's drifted away from the people.

Sure, a fundraising dinner at the exclusive and prestigious Northern Club is far removed from the lived experience of most Maori. But the real story is how political fundraising compromises political independence and political values. Politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. How you practice it- and, importantly, who you practice it with - is loaded with meaning.

Maori Party President Naida Glavish on Native Affairs

I’m not accusing the Maori Party of selling out. That’s too easy and it tells us nothing about the complexity of their situation. What I’m accusing the party of is saying one thing while doing another. There’s the hypocrisy levelled at Hone Harawira, but there’s also a deeper contradiction.

The Maori Party argues it's neither left nor right - it’s Maori. Pita Sharples is no social democrat and Tariana Turia isn’t a classical liberal, sure, but that doesn’t mean they can retreat from the political spectrum. They are part of politics as usual. Not as a matter of ideology, but circumstance and practice.

You can’t claim to be separated from mainstream politics when you sit in Parliament with a ministerial warrant. You can’t claim to be above mainstream politics when – as Patrick Gower put it – you’ve adopted the National Party fundraising model.

This speaks to the unsteady, unsure ground Maori politics exist on. Maori experience a sort of double reality. We experience politics as both New Zealanders and Maori. This dual reality causes angst and havoc in Maori politics. Where does the border begin and end? How do political parties naviagte two competing worlds? Is it even appropriate to distinguish instead of integrate?

The trick is to acknowledge that and be very clear – for the sake of your own integrity – when and why you’re moving between the Maori political world and the world of rightwing wealth. Especially when the world you’re emigrating to is so far removed from the reality for most Maori.

The Maori Party is based on an appeal to our collective purpose. Yet it works so hard to undermine it. They can enjoy nice food and cavort with whoever they like. After all, the Maori Party is about establishing kaupapa Maori politics. It can help establish new social norms if it likes too. But it should recognise the consequences.

A democracy is a country of competing interests and competing powers. Maori are no longer content to be the weakest. The Maori Party is testament to that. But their approach to progress has been ineffective and - as of yesterday - quite stupid. They didn't do anything wrong, but they're not doing much right either. 

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.

Labour and National tag team on the MASC

I’m disappointed. RNZ reports:

The Maori Party is staggered at Labour and National's decision to put a stop to a proposed inquiry into how the 2007 Urewera raids affected local communities. 

Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell says the parties gave no explanation about why they don't want an inquiry into the aftermath of Operation Eight.

Shane Jones offered an explanation to Waatea:

Labour’s Māori Affairs spokesperson, Shane Jones, says getting the commissioner of police in front of the Māori Affairs Select Committee will be more useful than an all out inquiry into the Operation Eight Urewera raids.

A Maori Affairs Select Committee inquiry would reflect poorly on the last Labour government (and taint the current Labour opposition). An inquiry would reveal the human cost of the raids and the trials. Labour has to oppose the inquiry out of self-interest.

National’s motives aren't noble either. An inquiry is an opportunity to “terrorise [their] political opponents”, but an inquiry that revealed the extent of the suffering and injustice would strengthen the moral and legal claim to compensation. Compensation – if it happens – must be given on the government’s terms.

Te Ururoa has taken a principled stand. Credit where it’s due. Labour’s solution - an interrogation of the Police Commissioner - is not the same as investigating the effects the raids and trials had on the affected communities. It's a weak excuse. The Independent Police Conduct Authority released a damning report into the legality of the raids, but if the Police are to be held properly accountable against their actions the extend of the human suffering must be revealed.

Maori politics: crises, opportunities and the Greens

I was born in 1991. In 1991 Pita Sharples was working across the public service and he was a visiting professor at Auckland University. In 1991 Pita Sharples was working with and for Maori. In the decades before 1991, Pita Sharples was working with and for Maori. He’s still working with and for Maori. For that, he has my deepest respect.

Though service is the rent we pay for living. Pita Sharples’ record of service is long and it's his time to step down.

Crisis versus opportunity

There are two views on Pita’s resignation: that it represents a crisis in the Maori Party or that it presents an opportunity for political renewal.

Well, political crisis’s trigger resignations, but vacancies come with opportunities.

Generational change will create a break from the political period that Turia and Sharples embody. The post-settlement era is close and the Maori renaissance era is closing. The Maori Party must use the leadership change (and the ideological and personnel openings that that change creates) to renegotiate the contract between their party and the Maori electorate.

That means recreating the Maori Party’s political identity. The party was founded in opposition to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and based on the premise that the party wasn’t left or right – it was Maori. 

In other words, the Maori Party was a pan-Maori political party. That has failed. The Maori political landscape has fragmented (Mana has split to the left, Labour might be “rising” and the Greens are emerging). The Maori Party doesn’t have to accept the left/right dichotomy, but it must carve a coherent position (e.g. tino rangatiratanga for the post-settlement era). There is space for a kaupapa Maori party – that is independent (and is seen to be). The Maori Party, in its current arrangements at least, is not (and is not seen to be). A leader who doesn’t hold a ministerial warrant (e.g. Te Ururoa) is better positioned to reclaim the party’s independence.

However, the great barriers are that the Maori Party is accountable against its record and Pita Sharples helps anchor the Maori Party’s remaining support. He’s Papa Pita – one of the most trusted Maori MPs. Pita has to leave on his own terms. If his resignation is seen to be forced that will compromise the mana of the man and the party. In that sense, the resignation poses its consequences.

Who deserved the blame?

It’s unfair that Pita has shouldered the blame. Na Raihania’s poor placing in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti byelection was not solely a reaction against the leadership battles in the Maori Party. The party’s troubles are more deep rooted.

If you view politics as a horse race it’s tempting to identify leadership battles, disunity and the back-and-forth of the political process as reasons for the poor showing of party X or politician Y. Reality is more complicated.

Doubts developed in the Maori Party’s first term. The party entered government on a high. Te Tai Tonga elected a new Maori Party MP and a “mana-enhancing” deal was reached with the Prime Minister and the National Party. After the conflict of the previous four years, 2008 felt positively peaceful.

When in Rome, do as the Romans. When in government, don't always do as the government. From 2008 to 2011 the fatal narrative crept in and solidified: that the Maori Party wins had been more symbolic than substantive and that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National. Colin James encapsulated it well in arguing that the Maori Party is and was seen as National’s “proxy” in the Maori seats.

The party swallowed its defeats, but its wins weren’t seen to neutralise the eroding trust that the defeats had triggered. The debacle over the Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights, a defeat for Maori seats on the Auckland Council and bad faith in the Tuhoe settlement negotiations contributed to the idea that the Maori Party was part of a mana-diminishing deal. The party also voted for unpopular pieces of legislation (e.g. the ETS) and (consistent with their supply and confidence agreement) a budget that Maori opposed. The Maori Party’s strength is that it’s independent and accountable to Maori (c.f. Labour). But its independence was beginning to be questioned.

In 2010 the negative narratives started developing and the consensus within the party begun unravelling. Hone Harawira tried to cross the floor against budget 2010 and he appeared increasingly isolated. In early 2011 the consensus broke when Hone – after taking a swipe against the Maori Party in the Sunday Star Times – was expelled. The Maori Party split right and Hone (soon to become the Mana Party) split left with prominent Maori Party members (including Annette Sykes, Angeline Greensill and Mereana Pitman) too. The narrative that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National solidified and Maori politics divided along class lines. Mana carved a position for the Maori working class and (mostly by omission) the Maori Party was seen to be the party for iwi and the Maori middle class.

Accepting a deal with the National Party was always a risk. Although Labour’s vote had been trending downwards, the Maori electorates remained overwhelmingly left. There was little affection for National, but a grudging acceptance that Maori should operate across the political acceptance. Tough circumstances (e.g. high Maori unemployment) took that acceptance to its limits and in 2011 it broke. With this in mind, the decline of the Maori Party is best traced to 2011 – when the narratives solidified, Hone steered half of the party left and broke Maori politics along class lines - rather than contemporary leadership trouble.

Te Ururoa is the heir apparent

Te Ururoa Flavell is the ideal leader for the contemporary Maori Party: pragmatic and respected across the left and right. He also offers continuity post-Turia/Sharples and a generational change.

However, the party must consider whether their interests are better represented by an external leader. A leader who isn’t tainted by the debacles in 2011 or the leadership disunity in 2012 and 2013. Rawiri Taonui has identified Naida Glavish as a potential leader. If she were elected that would be a platform for her to succeed Pita in Tamaki Makaurau.

Alternatively, a co-leadership arrangement. Glavish as the female leader and Te Ururoa as the male leader. That gives Te Ururoa the position he has been seeking for (literally) years and Glavish represents a break from the toxic period 2008-2011. Rahui Katene has indicated that she is interested in co-leading the party too. However, Rahui wasn't reelected as the MP for Te Tai Tonga in 2011. She does not represent the clean break that Glavish does. Glavish is the clean break, Te Ururoa is the continuity.

Tamaki Makaurau has fallen

Unless the Mana and the Maori Party come to a deal, say the Maori Party runs Glavish and Mana runs a party vote campaign, then Tamaki Makaurau will fall to Labour.

In 2008 Pita won a 7000 vote majority and the Maori Party secured 28% of the party vote. In 2011 Shane Jones came within 1000 votes of unseating Pita and the Maori Party secured 14% of the party vote. The Mana Party secured (literally) half of the Maori Party’s 2008 vote.

The new Maori Party candidate is not guaranteed to inherit Pita’s vote. The vote will fragment further and the Labour candidate (Shane Jones isn’t guaranteed) will storm through the middle. If Mana and the Maori Party want Tamaki Makaurau to remain with a kaupapa Maori Party then they must come to an arrangement.

Te Tai Hauauru might not fall
Ken Mair has been named as a potential replacement. I think he can win. He has the name recognition and the reputation (he is a respected activist and isn’t tainted by association with the National Party).

Of course, it all depends on how strong the field is. A stronger Mana candidate might cannabilise the Maori Party vote and Jack Tautokai McDonald (assuming he stands again) is well placed to increase his share of the vote. It’s too early to call, but I think Te Tai Hauauru remains winnable for the Maori Party.

The Greens are rising?

The beneficiary might not be Mana or Labour, but the Greens. Mana could be perceived as too close (and partly responsible for) the toxicity in Maori politics. Labour is stable, but associated with the foreshore and seabed era. The same is not true of the Greens.

The Greens are now an accepted part of Maori political discourse. The Treaty is at the heart of the party and its policy is aimed at equality. After 173 years of inequality, Maori are hungry for structural change and the equality that the Greens promote.

The party affirmed its commitment to Maori in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti belection and Metiria Turei has been a consistent and prominent voice on Maori issues. If Maori voters are shopping around for a replacement, the Greens are the best alternative. The Greens are rising? 

Rights come with remedies: on the Urewera raids

Police acted ‘unlawfully, unjustifiably and unreasonably”. Translating the bureaucratic-speak: the Police fucked up.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has released a critical report into Police actions during the Urewera raids. Sir David Curruthers found that, although action itself was reasonable and justified, many aspects of the raids were “unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable”. Curruthers recommends that the Police “re-engage with Tuhoe”.

Fat chance. The report is welcome – if small – vindication. The Police were in the wrong. The hurt isn’t easily mended, though. Re-engagement must happen on Tuhoe terms and a remedy must be given.

The corollary of a right is that it comes with a remedy. In the Urewera raids the Police illegally stopped, searched and detained drivers and their vehicles. Personal information was requested and collected. School buses were stopped and, according to Tuhoe, searched with children on board. The Police illegally detained women and children in their homes – in some cases for hours. The Ruatoki Valley was left humiliated, wounded and intimidated.

The vicious symbolism of setting up road blocks on the historic confiscation line was lost on no one. Militarising the Ruatoki Valley was not only unreasonable and disproportionate, it invoked the ghosts of history. The parallel to armed raids of Maungapohatu was lost on no one too.

But where to from here? The Police actions don’t appear to be criminal (in a legal sense at least, whether their actions were morally criminal is another question). A further problem is that there are several statutory bars preventing claims against the Crown or the Police in tort. The Limitation Act might also be relevant too.

However, a Bill of Rights claim is open. The victims can sue the Crown directly for public law damages. Depending on the circumstances of the claimant s18, s21, s22 and s23 could be relied on. Compensation isn’t the primary focus of public law remedies, but in this situation compensation is necessary to vindicate the rights that were breached, deter the Police and express society's disapproval. Punishment needs to happen too.

Rights must come with remedies. Here, there were clear breaches. The report acknowledges as much (if not in those words). It’s banana republic stuff. Bainimarama stuff. New Zealand has serious issues of Police (and intelligence community) competence. The Police not only regularly disregard the law, but evidence continues to suggest that they have a base disrespect for Maori. They shut down, degrade and intimidate a Maori community. A community with a deep history of Police oppression. They prosecute Maori at a rate wholly disproportionate to other ethnic groups. Don’t start on the anecdotes about Police harassment of Maori who look dodgy. The Police must be held accountable.

Post script: Full credit to Te Ururoa Flavell who has been strong on this from the day of the raids to today. His latest press release is here. I've been critical of his electorate work in the past, but not here. Good stuff. 

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.  

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. 

Quick comments on a Mana Maori Party

The Northern Advocate reports:

Some Tai Tokerau supporters of the Maori Party worried about leadership wrangles would like Hone Harawira back.

And Mr Harawira - who split from the Maori Party in 2011 to form the Mana Party which he leads - would be interested in a Mana-Maori coalition with him at the helm.

The Maori Party is now working its way through a leadership succession process with co-leader Tariana Turia not standing in the general election next year.

She expected co-leader Pita Sharples to also retire, clearing the way for Te Ururoa Flavell to take control.

But a spokesperson for Dr Sharples said the Maori Affairs Minister's electorate wanted him to contest the election and seek party leadership as it was considered a staged succession would help party stability.

Any union between Mana and the Maori Party wouldn’t work. The Maori Party is innately conservative. The party’s term in government is characterised by incremental change. Some of that change is structural, think Whanau Ora and the constitutional review, but it is change within the confines of capitalist democracy. The party’s overarching goal, captured in their “at the table” metaphor, is to insert Maori and Maori values into NZ power structures. The consequence of this is the normalisation of kaupapa Maori politics.

On the other hand, Mana is inherently socialist. The financial transactions tax, 20,000 new state homes and “abandon(ing) the market-based provision of essential services” sit uneasily with the Maori Party’s approach in government. Mana advocates a systematic overhaul – they want to remake the table. Mana aims to empower the working class rather than insert Maori (mainly from the political and economic establishment) into NZ power structures.

Esoteric things aside, musing on a merger is a convenient way for Hone and Pita to goad Te Ururoa. In his quest for the leadership he and Pem Bird have driven Hone out of the party and, according to Patrick Gower, are attempting to mount another leadership challenge against Pita. The change needs to happen, but on Pita’s terms. Te Ururoa’s reckless ambition already led to the creation of the Mana Party, he must be careful not to let it lead to a death warrant for the Maori Party.

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. 

The best of 2012, Maori need not apply and Rangatahi Courts

A few thoughts:

The best (and worst) of 2012 

I know I’m late to it, but here are my picks

Best Maori MP: Louisa Wall – for services to equality and old school lobbying.

Best Maori Minister: Paula Bennett – a competent manager, good communicator and is overseeing some innovative programmes.

Best Maori electorate MP: Parekura Horomia – for what he lacks on the national stage, he makes up for on the ground. His majority (the largest in the Maori electorates) wasn’t a mistake.

Most improved: Te Ururoa Flavell – after a shocking 2011 and despite a fail on education in 2012, Flavell has made up ground with his strong support for Tuhoe, competent debate performances and electorate work.

Most consistent: Metiria Turei – points for tireless advocacy for Maori, women and beneficiaries. Always takes a consistent and articulate line. Stand out performer in the Native Affairs debates.

Must do better: Pita Sharples – boxed in to a corner over cuts at TPK, the section 9 controversy and dismantling the Maori Policy Unit at MFAT. Choice: improve in 2013 or make way for Flavell and retire in 2014.

Could have been better: Shane Jones – said to the point of redundancy, but the man has potential. Skilled communicator and an intellect, but he has a blindspot for consequences.



Non-Maori need not apply

RNZ reports:

Te Aitanga a Hauiti claim the tribe is considering hiring candidates who are not Maori and not from Ngati Porou.

In protest, the people representing the marae have pulled their support for the annual Pa Wars - a major sports event that's due to be held on the third of January in Tolaga Bay.

The best person should get the job. More often the not, the best candidate is going to be someone from Ngati Porou. An ideal candidate will have knowledge of the iwi, their tikanga, language and so on. However, having the wrong whakapapa should not be a barrier. Insular recruitment practices are, in my opinion, holding iwi back. The Maori business, management and public service communities are small and can be difficult to source talent from.

Rangatahi Courts
RNZ reports that the first report on Maori Youth Courts has been released and the findings are positive. I’m not surprised. In my experience, young Maori often express a sense of pride and belonging in their membership of a gang, criminal clique or troubled social group. One of the best mechanisms to combat this is to replace that pride and belonging to a gang, criminal clique or troubled social group with a sense of pride in their taha Maori and a sense of belonging to their iwi and hapu. Judge Andrew Beacroft, former Chief Judge of the Youth Court, highlights that the most effective programmes for Maori offenders take a holistic approach (incorporate tikanga, whanau and the like), enhance pride in the offenders’ taha Maori and whakapapa and are tailored to the individual. Maori Youth Courts, for the most part, do this.

PS: it was pointed out in the comments that Pita Sharples ("must do better") started running Rangatahi Courts out of Hoani Waititi Marae back in the day. 

Upholding the Treaty

Who would’ve thunk that swearing an oath to uphold the central document in our constitution would be “controversial” and “another bid by the Maori party to take New Zealand down the road of racial separatism”. In line with their populist and racist roots National, Act, United Future and NZ First voted down Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill that would allow MPs to swear an oath to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. The current oath reads:

“I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 11, her heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.”

Yuck. It’s easy to imagine this oath in pre-Magna Carta England, but New Zealand in 2012?

One of the basic tenents of the rule of law is that governments and citizens are held to the agreements they freely negotiate. The Treaty of Waitangi is not an exception, operative words being not an exception – it’s the central tenant of our constitution after all. With that in mind, shouldn’t we expect MPs to swear an oath to uphold it? Federal representatives in the US swear an oath to uphold their constitution, the nearest equivalent in NZ would be to swear an oath to uphold the Treaty.

In reality, there is no argument against voting the bill down. All Winston Peters could muster were empty platitudes about separatism. Weak. The National Party hasn't, as far as I'm aware, offered a justification. Weaker. What the rednecks forget is that the Treaty doesn't just confer rights on Maori and obligations on the Crown, the Treaty gives the Crown the right to govern.Wouldn't MPs want to swear to uphold the document that they source their legitimacy from?


NB: normal blogging will resume from about the 19th of November (after my exams).

Best and worst performing Maori MPs for June

I've updated the best and worst performing Maori MPs list. Te Ururoa Flavell remains in the best performing list while Catherine Delahunty -yes, a Pakeha - also wins a spot. Wellington City Councillor, and the most effective councillor according to the Wellingtonian, Paul Eagle is also included.

Rounding out the bottom half is Hone Harawira for his stubborn position on marriage equality. Tau Henare also finds himself on the worst performing list thanks to his poor form on Wikipedia.

Again, this these are my own subjective opinions are they're open to criticism.

Fail: Why the Maori Party's wrong on education

As former education professionals, you would expect Te Ururoa Flavell and Pem Bird to know a thing or two about education. However, on charter schools, performance pay and league tables Flavell and Bird have got it wrong.

From Waatea:

Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell is backing Education Minister Hekia Parata's reforms.

"I think we've got to look at new ideas so for example I haven't got a problem with looking at charter schools. If it doesn't work, so it doesn't work. We've got to look at things like pay performance because that might encourage our teachers to lift performance even better, particularly around dealing with Maori students. Let's look at it. We shouldn't be precious about staying with what we've got because clearly it isn't delivering what we want," Mr Flavell says.

While Pem Bird informs RNZ that:

The Iwi Education Authority says league tables would make schools more accountable for performance and more responsible for achieving results.

Authority chairman Pem Bird says any ranking system would make schools work harder, because results would be explicit and transparent.

He says if his annual results weren't good, he wouldn't despair - it would be a challenge for him improve the following year's performance.

These are incredibly simplistic views. “If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work” is a terrible approach to policy making. Charter schools, performance pay and league tables are not abstract concepts that will have no tangible effect on learning. They are concrete policy initiatives that will affect the lives of all Maori children. With that in mind, it is reckless to endorse policy just because it quote “might” work.

Flavell, having based his views of performance pay on the idea that it provides an incentive, is misguided. Performance pay provides an incentive, but an incentive to narrow outcomes. All of a sudden schooling becomes about test scores rather than broader goals, for example equipping students with reasoning skills, ideas of social responsibility and so on. 

In other words, performance pay encourages teachers to teach to the test. Such an approach fell out of fashion long ago. What we need from out students isn’t the ability to rote learn, which is what performance pay and its bastard teaching to the test encourages, but the ability to reason, innovate and so on. 

As for charter schools, well, I can see the attraction. The idea conforms with ideas of tino rangatiratanga. Charter schools put Maori in charge of Maori. Iwi, for example, could deliver the curriculum and revive our culture. Rongoa Maori could be offered as a subject.

The pitfall, however, is that iwi have no experience in delivering education. Add to this the shortage of Maori teachers, especially te reo Maori teachers, and the fact that there are precious few models to draw on.

On league tables, Bird’s conception is shallow. League tables “might” encourage schools to work harder, or alternatively encourage schools to skew results, purge and refuse to accept weaker students, teach to the test and so on. I tend to think the latter is more likely.

Furthermore, National Standards aren’t standardised thus rendering the comparisons (i.e. league tables) almost meaningless. A different set of standards also apply to Kura, therefore any comparison between Kura and mainstream schools is utterly pointless. So for Maori parents wanting to compare whether Kura or mainstream schools are better for Maori children, league tables will offer no guidance. With that in mind, what the fuck’s the point?

I’m constantly amazed at how disappointing the Maori Party can be. Is anybody doing their homework in the party? Or are they just going off intuition? I don’t know what’s going on, but they’re doing Maori a disservice when they endorse the government’s plans for education.

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.

The Urewera sentence and the reaction from Maori

The end was swift and vicious. In a face saving move, the establishment has extracted its pound of flesh.

Last Thursday Justice Rodney Hansen sentenced Tame Iti and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara to two and a half years in prison. Iti and Kemara were found guilty of six firearms charges and not guilty of four. The jury could not decide on whether or not the pair were guilty on the criminal group charge.

The response from Maori was rapid and universal – it was a bullshit sentence. In a break from the orthodox, Maori MPs slammed the decision. Hone Harawira pointed out that:

The judge simply picked the worst bits out of 67,000 pages of evidence to justify the most extreme interpretation of events.

It's a waste of time having a jury trial if the judge can retry the case at sentencing ... by vindicating the actions of the police the state has made political prisoners out of them both.

Te Ururoa Flavell expressed a similar sentiment:

This was never just about the charges or the offences.

This was about Tuhoe and the mess caused in the lead-up to this sentencing.

Mr Flavell says the harsh sentence was intended to cover up the botched case.

And David Clendon from the Greens had this to say:

The sentences handed down to Mr Iti and Mr Kemara are at the steep end of the scale.

New Zealand already has an expanded prison population and I fail to see what will be achieved by incarcerating Mr Iti and Mr Kemara.

By convention, politicians don’t criticise judicial decision. So, with that in mind, it’s significant that Justice Hansen’s decision has met universal public criticism from Maori MPs. To me, the political response is indicative of the anger many Maori feel against the decision.

Annette Sykes thinks it’s a case of history repeating itself and, I think, that’s hard to argue against:

The decision today is a case of history repeating itself. In 1916 Tuhoe Prophet Rua Kenana was found not guilty for treason by a jury. Despite the verdict, the judge concerned found him guilty of resisting arrest and sentenced him to one year hard labour, followed by 18 months imprisonment. The jury were so incensed over the harshness of the sentence, they submitted a petition and had the sentence reduced.

Tame and Te Rangikaiwhiria, much like their tipuna Rua Kenana, have been wrongfully imprisoned and their sentence will be subject to a number of appeals.

Leonie Pihama calls Iti and Kemara “political prisoners”. Support is also coming from iwi, including Ngati Awa.

Personally, I’m gutted with the sentence. Justice Hansen didn’t, in my opinion, give enough regard to the mitigating factors and he appears, implicitly at the very least, to have endorsed the Crown’s construction of events even though the jury did not on four firearms charges and the criminal group charge. Justice Hansen also imputed an intention from a few selective pieces of evidence. Evidence that he did not give regard to considering the whole circumstances. Also, in another erroneous move, Justice Hansen lists the political views of a person not charged as an aggravating factor.

The learned Judge also takes it upon himself to declare that the defendants were establishing a private militia. Something the jury could not decide on. If they had, then the jury would have convicted the four on the criminal group charge. It is unjust, if you ask me, that the Judge can do this. The jury expressed no opinion on the charge so the Judge should not proceed as if the jury found that the defendants were participating in a criminal group.

The sentences will no doubt be appealed. Whether the sentence is reduced is a moot point. What is not in contention is that this is another slap in the face against Maori, tino rangatiratanga and Tuhoe. A result any less than that which was given would reduce the Crown and undermine the power of the system. A result any less than that which was given would elevate the legitimacy of Maori nationalism and that, for the Crown, is not acceptable.

For further discussion see this from Marty Mars and this very good discussion from Maia at The Hand Mirror and here are some of my thoughts from a few weeks back.  

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.

Flavell to roll Sharples

The Maori Party are neither left nor right. Or so they say. The Maori Party, apparently, do things the Maori way. In light of this, what do we make of these claims?

There could be a new face at the top of the Maori Party as early as next week.

ONE News has been told Te Ururoa Flavell is poised to take over from Pita Sharples as co-leader.

Flavell and Maori Party president Pem Bird flew into Wellington together today from Rotorua.

Bird said the plan to make the Wairakei MP co-leader "is an open secret".

"The issue is around when and how so," Bird said, but it is believed the idea is to have a new leader in place around the same time a deal is struck with National.

"That would be the goal," Bird said.

This is a leadership coup, no two ways about. But is a leadership coup the Maori way of doing things? Surely, after decades of service to Maori and more recently the Maori Party, Pita deserves to stand aside on his own terms? I don’t think Pita should have his mana trampled over in a brutal leadership coup. All power to Te Ururoa if he wants to stamp his mana, but some thought should be given to Pita’s dignity. The party owe him as much.

There’s no question that Te Ururoa should assume a leadership position in time. Both Tariana and Pita have indicated their intention to call it quits in 2014 and Te Ururoa is the only remaining MP. He is, according to many, the Maori Party’s most capable MP as well. With a number of bills in the ballot box and one bill, the Gambling Harm Reduction bill, due to come before the House this term Te Ururoa was, legislatively speaking, the most active Maori Party MP (leaving aside the two Ministers Pita and Tariana).

But is it wise to throw Te Ururoa in the mix now? I doubt it. In my opinion, it’s safer to have Te Ururoa take Tariana’s position when she steps down before the next election. A bloody coup will exacerbate the swing against the Maori Party in Tamaki Makaurau, opening the seat for all parties in 2014, and contribute to the perception that the Maori Party is a sinking ship. The Maori Party need unity, or at least a semblance of unity, too. Voters punish political parties for a lack of unity. Look no further than the Australian Labor Party, or even our own Labour Party.

I don’t know what is driving Te Ururoa and his supporters. With age Pita is losing much of his intellectual ability, that much is clear, but is he a liability? Of all of the Maori Party MPs Pita was and is the most effective MP when it comes to reaching across the racial and political divide. I doubt Te Ururoa, and also Tariana for that matter, possess the same skills.

This reminds me of the Hone Harawira expulsion drama. Te Ururoa and Pem Bird were leading the charge to eliminate Hone. They wanted Hone gone. There was no other option for them. The same is true here. Pita must go with no option two. With such an aggressive and uncompromising approach to politics one wonders whether Te Ururoa and Pem suit the Maori Party. The Maori Party is about careful compromise, but Te Ururoa and Pem don’t seem to know how to compromise. I wish them luck when they hopelessly deploy their bully boy tactics against National.