Māori wards and the struggle to narrate Māori rights

The New Plymouth District, soon-to-be-home of the newest Māori ward.

The Treaty means whatever you want it to mean, as long as you’re against it. The popular account seems to consist of two jointly asserted and mutually exclusive "facts". Under the first account the Treaty is a rat-eaten relic, a kind of curiosity stored somewhere in Archives New Zealand. It has no application in modern New Zealand. Yet the second account declares that we must dutifully comply with the terms of the English language version. Māori surrendered their sovereignty in exchange for the rights and privileges of British subjects. The Treaty is relevant only as a transaction. 

Which account you prefer depends on whether you want to deny or attack Māori rights. If it’s the former then the claim must be that the Treaty creates no rights – it means nothing – if you prefer the latter then the claim must be that the Treaty creates some rights – it means something – just not what Māori and their guilt-ridden allies think. The truth – or the best interpretation – doesn’t sit somewhere in the middle, nor is it even adjacent, it’s entirely removed from the popular accounts.

Yet you should prepare for a thumping from the popular accounts. In October the New Plymouth District Council voted to approve a Māori ward for the next local government election. The tenacious mayor, Andrew Judd, went a little further in the media and suggested a “reasonable interpretation” of the Treaty demands fifty-fifty representation. Oh, the outrage! Gareth Morgan thinks the decision is an instruction manual for a “divided society”. The New Zealand Centre of Political Research reminds us that the good people of Nelson voted down a Māori ward and so can you. 

Which is a tenuous position. Should Māori rights be subject to the very majority we are seeking protection against? Whatever the answer, democracy is more nuanced than simple majority rule. Democracy must guarantee majority rule, sure, but it’s equally clear it must also guarantee the majority will not abuse its power and violate the basic and pre-existing rights of the minority. Democracy, then, is a careful balance between majority rule and minority rights. This position is as true for John Hart Ely as it was for John Stuart Mill. 

But is it right to think in such rigid – even positivist – Euro-centric terms? We need to recognise the trap. It’s tempting to narrate Māori perspectives in Euro-centric frames, but the claim to Māori wards has little to do with minority rights. I suspect many Māori readers have been flinching at “minority rights” because we understand the argument for Māori wards is based on tangata whenua rights.

Thus our claim to representation is based on the rights we inherit from our tipuna – our rights as Indigenous people – the same rights promised in the Māori version of the Treaty. While the rangatira who signed surrendered governorship over British subjects – "kāwanatanga" - they understood that they retained their unfettered chieftainship – "tino rangatiratanga". The Treaty created a partnership – it was the Treaty of Waitangi, not the Proclamation of Waitangi – and that should be honoured. Fair representation is an integral part of doing so. 

And of course this is causing angst. Gareth Morgan urges New Zealanders to "wake up". Grave changes are occurring, he warns. Yet the push for fair representation along Māori terms has been happening for 174 years, it’s just Pākehā society only seems to pay attention when they fear they have something to lose. Only then are they confronted with the possibility that some injustice may exist - that Māori and their tipuna have been denied their inherent rights. Some Pākehā retreat to their ideological armoury – no racial separatism! – while others confront the past and the place of tangata whenua. I hope there are more of the second than the first.


Note: there was a very poor phrase in here that has been edited out. I won't repeat it, but I do apologise for being thoughtless. 

The real impediment to a Mana-Maori merger (and it's not National)

Mana Party President and tino rangatiratanga advocate Annette Sykes

Claire Trevett reports:

The Maori Party and the Mana Party have reached a truce of sorts after a meeting between the parties' hierarchy last night. 

Mana President Annette Sykes met the Maori Party's co-vice president Ken Mair last night and the two parties agreed to work framework setting out areas of policy on which they would work together. That is due to be launched in early 2014 and it likely to include areas such as Maori unemployment, poor housing, and child poverty.

Yesterday I ran through the archives of this blog. I was disappointed with the tone (and some of the substance). It was angry. But it was a reflection of Maori politics at the time.

The seeds of tension emerged in 2008. The Maori Party had traveled the country to secure the membership's consent to a supply and confidence arrangement with National. By most accounts, the party leadership won an overwhelming mandate and there was optimism in most circles. But time eroded the consensus. Difficult policy choices started to build. The party misstepped when it supported the ETS and pressure was applied on its MPs to pull their support for Budget 2010 and the GST rise.

Come 2011 the tensions had swelled and the understanding between the Maori Party's radicals and the conservatives – meaning the idea that a Maori political movement is strongest when its united - came crashing down. The rest is history. Hone Harawira broke away with half of the Maori Party and Mana was born. Political parties reap what they sow.

But a relationship accord between Mana and the Maori Party (hopefully) signals that the tide is going out on that conflict. There’s an increasing acceptance that Maori are better off because of the Maori Party’s relationship with National. It hasn't been progress, but the Maori Party has acted as a buffer against decline.

Yet one impediment remains - and it's not necessarily National. The conflict is between Mana and the Maori Party’s conception of politics. Mana is ideological, but the Maori Party acts as post-ideological.

Working "at the table" is the Maori Party's ideology. Party policy is dictated by what can be achieved at the table and what is necessary to remain at the table. There's a pragmatic logic in that, sure, but the consequence is that Maori politics is confined to what's palatable to the ninth floor. There's also an element of circular reasoning when being at the table is both the means and the end.

So if being at the table is the Maori Party's raison d'être then there's little room for Mana - a party that values external change and leftwing ideologies. After all, Hone Harawira threatened the Maori Party's place at the table and he was removed. 

Yet maybe the Maori Party is on the right side of history. The trajectory of Maori politics hasn’t been towards revolution or wholesale structural change. Leaders of the later stages of the Maori renaissance and now the Maori Party, Iwi Leaders and many others prefer integration into New Zealand power structures. The attraction among battle-weary activists and heroes of the movement is clear. But it’s not an approach that attracts Mana. And that’s the real impediment to a merger – not National.

Shane Jones: the wedge politics edition

Jonesy

I'm stuck in a half way house. Somewhere between the progressive left and the tino rangatiratanga movement. Shane Jones has put me there and I'm afraid to move.

Jones' bid for the Labour leadership has opened a divide between the left and the tino rangatiratanga movement. Maori politics exists apart from the left-right divide, apparently. But I don't think that's true. Maori politics exists beneath the left-right divide.

Maori political history isn't rich with choice. Asking or telling us to wait for a more "progressive" candidate is deeply offensive. Maori have waited - and with relative patience - for the opportunity to elect a Maori prime minister for more than a century. The Maori renaissance and (more recently) the emergence of the Maori Party and the Mana Movement signals that Maori political patience has built to its limits. Carrie was right when she wrote that "the insistent hating [of Jones] overshadows a potentially major historical moment in NZ".

The Maori approach to power is changing and Jones is the most recent personification of that approach. When the left denies Jones, its denying Maori political power. It's uncomfortable. In some respects it smacks of the politics of the 20th century. When Maori stepped outside of the political role that society had created for them - as mihi men, singing women and glorified lapdogs - they were shut out. See Matiu Rata and Tariana Turia about that.

I remain ambivalent about Jones - partly for, partly against. The self aggrandising attacks against feminism grate. The struggle for gender equality shouldn't and can't be divorced from the struggle for ethnic equality. Attacking feminism doesn't empower the tino rangatiratanga movement, but weakens it. Solidarity works best when it's solidarity with all marginalised groups - whether it's women, the disabled, the LGBT community or other Polynesians - and equality works best when it's equality for the whole and not the parts.

What I'm getting at is this: I tautoko Jones because of what he represents - Maori political empowerment. But his approach to empowerment, well, not so much.  

Tangata takahi manuhiri, he marae puehu - a person who mistreats guests has a dusty Marae. The saying captures the idea of manaakitanga. It captures the approach the tino rangatiratanga movement - and by extension Jones - should take towards friends in the left. But that works in reverse too: the left should keep in mind why Jones' run is important to our movement.

Post script: According to the latest Te Karere poll Maori prefer Jones by a large margin. And again for transparency: I endorsed DC earlier in the race.  

ENROL!

If you do one thing this year, enrol or switch to the Maori roll. I can’t stress it enough – enrol on or switch to the Maori roll. Do it. Do it now.

In 1975 the then Labour government introduced the Maori electoral option. The option lets Maori choose between enrolling on the general roll or – as every patriotic Maori should – enrolling on the Maori roll. The option is held in census’ years and determines whether or not there will be an increase or decrease in the number of Maori seats.  

Along with the Treaty of Waitangi, the Maori seats lend Maori a special constitutional status.* This is the unintended consequence of the seats creation. For 129 years the Maori seats were capped at four – despite explosive growth in the Maori population and the extension of the franchise – thus limiting Maori political power. Until 1951 elections for the Maori seats were held separately and until 1975 only “half-castes” could elect to vote on either the European roll (as it was then called) or the Maori roll. It wasn’t until 1993 that the number of Maori seats was tied to the Maori electoral population.**

The Maori seats give our people, for want of better metaphors, a foot in the door and a seat at the table. They anchor Maori political power. Without them, Maori political progress is wholly dependent on the acquiescence of non-Maori parties. It will be a perverse situation if we, rather than external actors, are responsible for limiting our own political power.

If we enrol in numbers the smart money is on an eighth Maori seat, probably in South Auckland. I’m picking that’ll mean Te Tai Tokerau, Tamaki Makaurau and Hauraki-Waikato will have to be reconfigured.

It’s so, so important that we enrol on or switch to the Maori roll. I can’t emphasise that enough. Unlike the provisions of the Electoral Act regulating the general electorate seats, the provisions around Maori representation are not entrenched. In other words, the Maori seats are subject to abolition by simple majority.

It’s also worth considering the timing of the electoral option (i.e. five-yearly). The practical effect of the five-yearly option is, I think, to discourage Maori from switching rolls. There may be a constitutional rationale for the restriction, but as the Electoral Commission notes one of the main concerns among Maori is that they cannot switch rolls at or between elections. The Commission recommended that Maori should have option of switching rolls between elections. The compromise option appears to be limiting enrolment several months before or after elections rather than anytime between.

The Maori seats don’t lend Maori more electoral power than non-Maori. Maori roll voters can only vote in one electorate and cast one party vote. The Maori seats do, however, ensure that kaupapa Maori issues will not be – or at the least don’t have to be – subsumed into the body politic.*** That's something we have to preserve. Now enrol.


Post script: for a good backgrounder on the Maori seats have a look at this research paper - The Origins of the Maori Seats - by the Parliamentary Library.
 
*See the Waitangi Tribunal report linked to above.
**For an accessible discussion citing those facts see this piece at Te Ara.
***That should probably read “subsumed into mainstream political discourse”. However, I like the words body politic and the metaphor it represents.

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.

Taking the heat out of the Maori radical movement? (and Putahi)

You can take a look at my first post for the Daily Blog here. I couldn't spend nearly as much time crafting the post as I'd have liked (it's the first week of uni and other stuff is getting in the way), but the overall point remains. Are Court decisions taking the heat out of the Maori radical movement? Debate here.

----------

On a side note, Putahi is screening on Maori TV. Hosted by Precious Clark, Putahi is a panel show exploring and debating issues important to Maori. The show screens every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday until the end of April. I featured on an episode discussing political engagement among Maori. It airs next week. It was, I think, one of the most interesting panel discussion I've had. The other panelists were Helen Te Hira and Jeremy Lambert. Speaking about TV, I've also filmed two episodes with Think Tank. Think Tank screens on TV3 and is hosted by John Tamihere. I featured on a customary rights episode and a Maori politics episode. Again, two of the more interesting panel discussions I've had. Think Tank screens later this year.

Idle No More: missing the point and lessons from New Zealand

Perspective projection distortion is the misrepresentation of a three-dimensional space when drawn or projected onto a two-dimensional surface. In photography and cinematography, perspective distortion is where an object and its surroundings differ from what they would otherwise look like with a normal focal length. Sometimes, the same principles apply in politics and society. Distance and detachment alter perspectives.

As a non-Canadian, I’m suspicious of and slightly confused with the Canadian media’s portrayal of Idle No More. More often than not, the media have ignored or misunderstood the movement. The Walrus, largely considered one of Canada’s leading current affairs magazines, is silent on the issue. The Toronto Sun appears uninterested in the movement itself, instead focussing on Chief Spence, reporting protests and discussing political consequences for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Financial Post is scathing, shoving the blame on “native leaders” and their “resistance… to changes”.

Now, I’m in no position to argue against the Canadian media’s understanding of their politics and society, but I do think that they’re missing the real issues. Idle No More isn’t about hunger strikes, mismanagement on reserves or politicking: the movement is about respect for and recognition of First Nations’ sovereignty.
Calls for indigenous sovereignty (and decolonisation) have been periodic. What sets Idle No More apart from previous events, like the Oka crisis, is that the movement is overt push back against the Harper government’s assimilation plans. Dr Pamela Palmater, an indigenous scholar, claims that the government intends to assimilate First Nations’ people “We always knew action would be required at some point, but the legislation posed an imminent threat and required immediate mobilisation. That is how a movement was born”.

The government’s assimilation plans are not, however, confined to one or two pieces of legislation. Several bills, including two omnibus bills, will legislate against or undermine indigenous values and several policy measures will come into force. For example, First Nations regional and national political organisations will have their funding cut and capped making it harder for them to advocate on behalf of indigenous people.

The First Nations’ Strategic Bulletin says that the bills intend to end “First Nations pre-existing sovereign status through federal coercion of First Nations into Land Claims and Self-Government Final Agreements that convert First Nations into municipalities, their reserves into fee simple lands and extinguishment of their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights”. The Harper government dubbed this approach a “modern legislative framework” which is code for “white man’s values”. For example, the First Nations’ Private Ownership Act will introduce private property ownership in reserves. With the imposition of western notions of property, collective ownership and aboriginal title are undermined.

Assimilation plans first emerged, at least prominently, in 1969 with the release of a white paper. The paper proposed a five year timetable, but the Trudeau government was, in 1970, forced to back down against fierce opposition. However, it is suspected that the timetable wasn’t dumped, but extended. In 1985 Cabinet documents were leaked to the media detailing the conservative government’s assimilation plans. However, in 1990 the plans were derailed thanks to the Oka crisis, increased awareness of indigenous issues and favourable decisions from the Courts. The perception is, rightly or wrongly, that the Harper government intends to continue the assimilation programme.

It’s with these concerns in mind that Idle No More has grown and calls for indigenous sovereignty have been sustained and intense. These are deep issues that play in to questions about the innate character of colonial governments (are they always imperialist?), the struggle for tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) and effectiveness of movement politics. Questions, I think, that many Canadians haven’t grappled with. Questions where the Maori experience may be instructive too.

The success of the Maori protest movement was, in many ways, a result of the political turbulence it created. Sustained action across the 70s, 80s and (to a lesser extent) the 90s helped reveal the oppressive and dishonest foundations on which the New Zealand state was built. The movement deployed a variety of political/protest strategies, involved a cross-section of Maori society and forged alliances with other sections of society, for example unions (It also helped that Maori had a political power base in the Maori seats and a long standing relationship with the Labour Party). From this, the Idle No More movement can take that a successful movement must be sustained (decades long if need be), diverse (in people and strategy) and connected to other power structures in society (unions, universities, political organisations etc). For the most part, these elements are already present. So, with distance and detachment from the issue, I remain optimistic of its success. 

Why I'm not besotted with the Tuhoe settlement

We’ve seen some big claims over the past few days. Words like “elegant” and "monumental” have been thrown around to describe Tuhoe’s settlement with the Crown. Significant, yes, practical, yes, but I think the deal falls short of elegance and monumentality.

The deal includes a cash settlement worth $170m; this figure includes the $62m the tribe received from the Treelords deal. Adjusted for inflation $170m in 1996 dollars would buy roughly $221m today. In other words, Tuhoe have received a smaller cash settlement than Tainui and Ngai Tahu despite suffering comparable grievances. You can argue otherwise, but I don’t buy it. You can also argue Tainui and Ngai Tahu are larger, but I don’t buy that argument either. The main factor in determining the price of any settlement should be the degree or degrees of grievance.

The settlement also includes ‘mana motuhake’, or a watered down version of mana motuhake. Tuhoe will be given control of social services in their rohe, but other government responsibilities will remain with the Crown. In effect, mana motuhake is another way of saying Whanau Ora, or the devolution of social services.

Having said that, both sides acknowledge that mana motuhake might, or in Tuhoe’s view will, open possibilities to develop full autonomy and this, I think, is thoroughly appropriate. Tuhoe have always maintained that they are an independent nation. In 1896 Parliament acknowledged, or partially acknowledged, Tuhoe independence with the passage of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act. The Act provided for Tuhoe self-governance.

The third significant aspect of the settlement is Te Urewera. The government has opted for their favourite solution to Maori ownership problems – claiming no one owns it. What is now Te Urewera National Park will be vested in a new legal identity and managed by an equal number of Tuhoe representatives and Crown representatives. Positively, and in accordance with Tikanga Maori, decisions will have to be reached by consensus meaning both sides will have the power to veto.

Unfortunately, this is where Tuhoe have been forced to compromise most significantly. Full ownership has always been a bottom line. Full ownership would mean the full restoration of Tuhoe’s mana over their tribal lands. After all, Tuhoe is Te Urewera and Te Urewera is Tuhoe.

Taken as a whole, the deal is less than what many hoped for and less than I expected. The cash aspect falls short, mana motuhake appears to be another name for Whanau Ora and the “no one owns it” approach to the Ureweras does not properly acknowledge Tuhoe’s mana.

None of this detracts from the outstanding work of Tuhoe, especially Tamati Kruger who Yvonne Tahana rightly praises. Tim Selwyn points out that:

All the chips and all the cards in this game are held by the NZ government and they can deal out however many they want to whoever they want and follow whatever rules they themselves make up, so when they say "negotiation" that's not really as wholesome as it would first appear. And when the NZ government says they drove a hard bargain - as Helen Clark used to remind people - all they are saying is that from their position of overwhelming power they have screwed the Iwi over.

Viewed in this light, the deal Tuhoe have managed to drive is arguably a good one.

In the end it’s up for Tuhoe to decide whether or not this is a good bargain. I whakapapa to Tuhoe and I think the deal should and could have been better, but from what I’ve seen most Tuhoe are pleased with the deal and are optimistic. This is a new chapter for Tuhoe and many believe the first step towards their autonomy and the full restoration of their mana. Tamati Kruger is eyeing a 40 year timetable for autonomy, I’m eyeing a shorter timetable.

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.  

Colin Craig on Maori (and I'm on Twitter)

With Craig and the Conservative Party in the news recently, I’ve been searching for clues to their approach and opinion on Maori issues. Yesterday I stumbled on this interview Craig gave with Claudette Hauiti from Waatea Radio. The interview is one of the more in-depth and instructive that Craig has given and, arguably, indicates that Craig is pragmatic when it comes to things Maori.

I initially expected Craig and the Conservative Party to be openly hostile on Maori issues. Given the segment of the electorate Craig is targeting, I thought anti-Maori sentiment would be a given. Take, as one example, this pamphlet the Conservative produced last year. The pamphlet explains “why National is wrong on the foreshore and seabed” and proceeds to attack the Maori seats, The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and treaty settlements.

However, in contrast with the above pamphlet, Craig took a more pragmatic approach to Maori issues on Waatea. Much of the interview consisted of, for want of a better term, cuddly responses from Craig. For example, when describing his time in the Maori department at AUT, Craig reckoned that “everyone was everyone’s friend” and it was “a wonderful experience for me”. Thankfully, however, Hauiti managed to pry some very instructive answers from Craig.

On education, Craig supports Kura Kaupapa and Kohanga Reo saying that we need a “variety of educational institutions” and “schools should have the freedom to do what works”. Although this position clashes with the Conservative Party’s opposition to policies that “divide us based on race”, for example the Maori seats, it indicates a pragmatic approach to Maori issues. Kura and Kohanga work, that’s undisputed, and it is encouraging to know that Craig supports what works. It would be easy, and perhaps politically expedient, for Craig to oppose Kura and Kohanga on ideological grounds.

If anything, the above indicates that Craig’s ideology is flexible and that, for a politician at least, is an asset.

Hauiti also asked Craig whether he thought, and I’m paraphrasing here, Maori held the key to their own destiny. In other words, does he support Maori self-determination (tino rangatiratanga). At first, Craig didn’t recognise what was implicit in the question. When the question was put to him for a second and third time, he didn’t give a straight answer. Actually, Craig’s answer was contradictory. At first he started speaking about individual responsibility, which I read as meaning that the individual has the key to their own destiny rather than Maori as a collective, but then Craig went on to endorse Maori organisations and their efforts in Maori development which seemed to indicate that he does endorse Maori formulating solutions for Maori. I find it difficult to reconcile those two positions.

Interestingly, Craig thinks the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was wrong and that every New Zealander should have “the right to go to Court on an issue”. However, Craig is opposed to Maori customary title holding the foreshore and seabed should be held in the commons, read owned by all New Zealanders. However, Craig endorsed customary rights to fishing, usage and so on. Again, this is a contradictory position. It recognises that Maori have special rights, for example fishing rights, however the Conservative Party's position is that everyone has the same rights. Again, this indicates a degree of pragmatism on Craig’s part. Perhaps aware that the party will have to rely on and, if elected to Parliament, work with Maori, Craig is attempting to find positions that will satisfy his target market and at the same time provide a base for working with Maori politicians.

On the question of how well the Conservatives will represent Maori, Craig reckons “very well” and says that for “New Zealand to succeed we need Maori to succeed”. If you had to attribute that comment to someone, you’d probably pick Hone Harawira before Colin Craig. In another moment that could have come from Hone Harawira or Tariana Turia, Craig claims not to put much faith in the free market. On the subject of Maori unemployment, Craig does not believe “the free market is going to sort everything out”. Instead, Craig believes in creating initiatives “that work” (what works is a common thread throughout the interview) and he does not want people “forced into situations where they have to put their hand out”.

At the end of the interview Craig says he supports Whanau Ora, but before he can qualify/explain that answer he was cut off. Again, this may indicate an openness to what works, but we can’t know for certain without a more wholesome answer.

In all, it was an interesting interview. I don’t necessarily agree with Craig’s positions, but he appears open to Maori ideas – or at least not openly hostile. This could, of course, change with time and change in response to shifting political circumstances. But, for the moment, Craig poses no threat to Maori progress.

*Just a reminder I'm on Twitter now. You can follow me here. 

Stand Up - a lesson in political expression

Mana has released a brilliant piece of electioneering. Stand Up is a fusion of reggae, rap and hip hop from Genocide and Rah. The song is an outstanding example of political expression. The message is immediately apparent – stand up and join the political process – and the subtext is easily understood too – join/vote Mana for change. Given the genre (reggae/hip hop) the song is clearly aimed at a younger demographic. One of Mana’s focuses is the youth vote. So far the movement has relied on the fact young people are naturally drawn to Hone’s “rebel” persona and anti-establishment rhetoric and policy, but until now the movement hadn’t really taken many active steps to encourage young people to participate in politics (I should clarify that when I refer to young I don’t mean all young people - mainly Maori and Pasifika and, but to a lesser extent, poor Pakeha). The lyrics are reminiscent of the protest songs of the 80’s. The song speaks of the 1% “taking our land” (aimed at Maori voters), the “streets” (aimed at urban youth), but I particularly enjoyed the line “the left and right paradigm obey the corporations”. The song creates a clear dichotomy – it’s us against them. The 99% vs the 1%. Now I don’t think this song is going to take off, I do think it will play a part in encouraging more young people to vote Mana though, but it’s not going to generate a mass movement.

(Sorry I'm having trouble embedding the video so you can follow this link instead).

UPDATE: Josh points out in the comments section that there is no authorisation statement - this could spell trouble.

Williams CJ?

Apparently one or two appointments will be made to the Supreme Court within the next year. I have no idea who will be appointed but I would like to see Justice Joe Williams considered. Williams is Maori, but that is not the sole reason why he should be appointed. Appointments should be based on merit and merit alone. However, were a situation to arise where one has two equally qualified candidates, one of whom happens to be Maori, then a compelling case exists to appoint the Maori. As far as I am aware Williams is a well respected legal mind. As former Chief Judge of the Maori Land, former head of the Waitangi Tribunal, the first Maori law lecturer at Victoria and current High Court Justice, Williams is most certainly qualified.

From my quick research into William’s background I think it is fair to say he is undeniably Maori in outlook, yet conscious and accepting of the fact that Maori must operate under a Pakeha framework. He is realistic. I would classify Williams as something of a tino rangatiratanga advocate, however not in an ideological sense. He does not believe in Maori self government and all those other unrealistic expectations and desires. Rather he believes in the pragmatic notion of tino rangatiratanga – enhanced wellbeing as opposed to self rule.

Ultimately, the decision on who to appoint sits with the Attorney-General. I am fairly confident Justice Williams will not be overlooked by either Chris Finlayson or, if Labour is in power, David Parker. It is something of an anomaly that in New Zealand, in 2011 might I add, that Maori are absent in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.