In defence (well, sort of) of Whanau Ora

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

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

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

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

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

Towards a "Separate" Maori Justice System

Via the Police News Centre:

Iwi and Police are joining together to implement an innovative strategy aimed at reducing victimisation, offending, road fatalities and injuries among Maori. 

'The Turning of the Tide - a Whanau Ora Crime and Crash Prevention Strategy' was developed by the Police Commissioner's Maori Focus Forum, consisting of senior Iwi representatives from around the country, with help from Police. 

Police Commissioner Peter Marshall says there is an obvious need to reduce the number of Maori entering and re-entering the criminal justice system and dying on the roads. 

"Maori now comprise more than 40% of all police apprehensions, more than 50% of the prison population and more than 20% of crash fatalities, despite making up only 15% of the general population.” 

 Firstly, credit to the Police and iwi. There's a lot to like. The plan adopts the Whanau Ora approach. In other words, an inter-iwi and inter-agency approach. The plan also considers the relevant issues in the context of the extended family (which is consistent with the more literal definition of Whanau Ora).

Taking people out of their families to ‘fi x’ them and then putting them back doesn’t work, especially when the family is a gang. Sometimes, we’re our own worst enemies and let our families lead lifestyles that encourage crime. ‘Fixing’ individuals doesn’t change the family.

Reintegration is an essential part of rehabilitation, but reuniting offenders with their whanau can - in a significant number of cases - increase the risk of reoffending. The traditional risk factors include poverty, education, housing, and unemployment. However, family circumstance - read having a criminal family - is often overlooked in sentencing and parole decisions. There can be little point in releasing or reintegrating an offender whose own whanau represents an invitation to reoffend. The plan recognises this factor and aims to create "positive family relationships" to reduce the risk of reoffending among offenders in the above circumstances.

The plan also acknowledges that a culture change is necessary:

We want as many people as possible talking about why crime is wrong, who gets hurt, and what each and every one of us can do to prevent it. It’s time to stop paying lip service to tikanga and put our cultural values into action. Until we do, the people who suff er are our children, siblings, parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles.

Yes. Yes. However, the report's silent on a culture change in the Police ( it's probably outside the brief). The Salvation Army writes in their State of the Nation Report that Maori are three times more likely than non-Maori to be apprehended and "also more likely to be prosecuted by the Police for their offending". The Sallies add that "not only has this trend continued... but it may be getting worse". Kylee Quince has found that:*

Maori are 3.3 times more likely to be apprehended for a criminal offence than non-Maori. Ministry of Justice figures for 1999 report a prosecution rate for young Maori people aged ten-16 years at 76.2 per 1000 population, compared with 16.95 per 1000 population for non-Maori. Maori adults were 3.8 times more likely to be prosecuted than non-Maori and 3.9 times more likely to be convicted of an offence. Nine times as many Maori than non-Maori are remanded in custody awaiting trial.

Prosecution is a discretionary decision, but the Police will (apparently) consider the seriousness of the offence, the strength of evidence, the number and type of associated offences for which the person may also have been arrested on that occasion, previous offending and so on. The unspoken consideration is, of course, race (or race coupled with class). After all, Maori are more likely to be prosecuted than a non-Maori for committing the same crime. This indicates, to me, that race is an aggravating factor in the decision to prosecute. Consider this (also from Quince):

At least two thirds of the 737 police respondents reported hearing colleagues use racist language about Maori. Many reported a greater tendency to suspect Maori of an offence, or to stop and query Maori driving “flash” cars. Overall, the data suggested that about 25 per cent of police have negative attitudes towards Maori.**

No Maori (or should that be dark-skinned Maori with no money?) with experience in or with the Police needs an academic paper to alert them to Police racism. It's known to the point that it's intuitive among many Maori. But getting to the point: there needs to be a culture change within the Police. It is all well and good for the Turning the Tide plan to call for a culture change among Maori, but that call must be reciprocated if it's to have any legitimacy. It's a start, and an encouraging one I suppose, that the Police aim to slash the Maori prosecution rate by 25%.

I'm a cautious supporter of a Maori criminal justice system.*** The, for want of a better term, western justice system doesn't cater to Maori notions of justice. The current system enjoys a monopoly on justice, but many of the values it embodies and expresses are not universal. Judge Andrew Beacroft (Principal Judge of the Youth Court) has found that the most effective programmes for Maori 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. A Maori justice system would do this and more. Rangatahi Courts, Marae hearings and the Whanau Ora approach represent small scale change in that direction, but come nowhere close to challenging the hegemony of Pakeha justice.

It's not like this idea is particularly radical. The Treaty guarantees Maori tino rangatiratanga and article 34 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples holds that "Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their... juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards". In the US, the Navajo Peoples maintain their own police force, judicial system and corrections system (jurisdiction is shared with the state). Surely, if they can do it, we can.

Post Script: JustSpeak provides a position paper (Maori and the Criminal Justice System 2012) from a youth perspective. Very interesting. 

*This is a very good paper from Kylee Quince from Auckland University Law School. Quince uses to the trauma of colonisation to help explain Maori offending. 

**See G Maxwell and C Smith  Police Perceptions of Maori Victoria University of Wellington, 
Institute of Criminology, 1998, Summary and Recommendations. Note that of the 737 
police respondents, 8 per cent of the sample identified as Maori.

***The most famous and most instructive paper on point is He Whaipaanga Hou (The Maori and the Criminal Justice System) by Moana Jackson. It's the go to paper for any discussion of Maori and the criminal justice system. I say cautious because I'm more pragmatic than principled on this point. 

  

The problem with Whanau Ora

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

Whanau Ora comes under fire

The Maori Party has come to the defence of Whanau Ora. From Stuff:

The Maori Party has defended a Whanau Ora grant which paid for a 'family reunion', despite New Zealand First leader Winston Peters questioning the entire premise of the scheme.

Whanau Ora is the Maori Party's flagship programme and aims to help families by redirecting funds rather than having multiple agencies working at loggerheads to each other.

In the past questions have been raised about other successful programmes being cut in order to fund Whanau Ora.

Yesterday Peters said about $6 million of tax-payer cash had been "squandered" on a Whanau Ora programme that funded "family reunions".

An official Whanau Ora report showed more than 200 applications for the scheme - known as "Whanau Integration, Innovation and Engagement funding" - had been accepted, he said.

You have to question the benefit of funding family reunions as opposed to funding, say, uhhm, real social problems. This is bad news for the Maori Party because it undermines the case for Whanau Ora – a case the Maori Party never really made. Although I agree with and support Whanau Ora in principle, I don’t think the Maori Party sold the idea to New Zealand. The party highlighted a structural problem in social service funding and delivery, but Tariana Turia (and to a lesser degree Pita Sharples) never really convinced the public why Whanau Ora was the right response. As a result, support for the program is soft.

Expect Whanau Ora to be a common theme with Winston Peters. Peters has been waging an ideological campaign against the program for some time now. He attacked the program during the election campaign and, more recently, managed to steer a RNZ interview on s9 and the Maori Party into a tirade against Whanau Ora. This isn’t entirely unexpected, Whanau Ora doesn’t play well with Peter’s base, nor blue collar rednecks (Peter’s wider base), but most significantly the Maori Party is an easy target. Poor performers in the House and politically incompetent, the Maori Party is easy meat for Peters. Expect more of this from Winston Peters.

On a side note, none of the Maori Party's MPs were in the House yesterday. I don't know why Turia wasn't, but Pita Sharples and Te Ururoa Flavell were attending the opening of a new Kura Kaupapa in Kawerau (Sharples is the Associate Minister of Education and Flavell is the local MP) - I don't think they were hiding from Winston like some have suggested. 

Maori issues in 2012

Last year the Parliamentary Library released a number of research papers. The papers deal with selected issues from different portfolio areas. I’ve taken a look at the Maori affairs paper, here are some key points:

----------

It is estimated all historic claims will be settled by 2016 (not 2014 which is National’s “aspirational” date). The relativity mechanism in Tainui and Ngai Tahu’s settlements are expected to be triggered this year or next. The government is expected to respond to the WAI262 report, Ko Aotearoa Tenei, this year.

----------

The Maori Economic Development Panel will present their report in July. The panel will produce a Maori economic strategy and action plan.

----------

The implementation of Whanau Ora is expected to continue. TPK is providing ongoing monitoring. As part of the government and the Maori Party’s plans to restructure TPK, a new high level policy unit will be created and, according to my sources, focus on Whanau Ora.

---------- 

The discussion phase of the constitutional review will begin in 2013. The review will consider, among other things, Maori electoral participation, Maori seats in government (local and national) and the role of the treaty within New Zealand’s constitutional framework. For some odd reason the only legal expert on the panel is Professor John Burrows.

On the Maori Party deal with National

Despite taking a hit, the Maori Party has signed up for another three years with National. The two parties have signed a confidence and supply agreement as well as a new relationship accord. The agreement differs from the last in that the Maori Party can vote on an issue by issue basis (except on matters of confidence and supply, for example the budget). Obviously, this gives the Maori Party room to oppose asset sales. However, as much as the Maori Party would like to distance themselves from asset sales, and the government’s larger agenda for that matter, the party is still going to be tainted by association.

The agreement includes the establishment of a ministerial committee on poverty, chaired by Bill English and deputy chaired by Tariana Turia. With English at the helm I doubt the government will dismiss the committee in the same way Act’s economic taskforce was ignored last term. The Maori Party needs to reclaim Maori poverty from Mana (Mana owned the issue last term) and bust the perception that they favour the symbolic over the substantive. Having said that, with the government committed to returning to surplus the next three budgets will probably be zero sum. With that in mind the committee will just be a flash vehicle for reshuffled funding and, as a result, just another symbolic win for the Maori Party.

The agreement also includes an undertaking to shift the focus of Te Puni Kokiri (TPK) towards jobs, education and housing. Again, an attempt at making substantive gains, however, again, the win is weak. It is difficult for many Maori, if not most, to connect changes in TPK to real world gains. I think this particular policy is more about protecting TPK. TPK was, I think, first in line for cuts this term. However, with an increased and broadened focus I doubt the government can cut staff and funding without crippling the agency and undermining the Maori Party. Then again, when has that ever stopped them.

The big announcement is the retention and expansion of whanau ora – the Maori Party’s trophy policy. A stand alone commissioning agency, whatever the hell that is, will be established and funding for rheumatic fever will be doubled to $24m, 20,000 more low income homes will be insulated and work will progress on iwi providing social housing. The Maori Party’s re-election strategy revolved around whanau ora so no surprise to see the above. The rheumatic fever funding is, in my opinion, a huge win for the Maori Party. For example, in Tai Tokerau rheumatic fever was the dominant health issue and many voters were calling on their MP, Hone Harawira, to address the problem. Of course, Hone was and is in no position to do so – he actually had to point to work done when he was a member of the Maori Party thus undermining his decision to split from the party. The home insulation win is neither here nor there. Iwi providing social housing is not new, but with government backing we should see proliferation.

Overall, a good deal for the Maori Party. The party is free to oppose the government on all issues except confidence and supply. This should, in theory, lead to a more independent image this term. In other words, it’ll be hard to accuse the Maori Party of being the National Party’s proxies in the Maori electorates. In terms of policy gains, I’d give the Maori Party 6/10. Nothing to set the world on fire, but nothing to complain about either. The challenge for the Maori Party will be to distance themselves from National’s agenda and destroy the perceptions created last term. For example, the perception (or reality some say) that the Maori Party sold Maori down the drain with the MCA Act, ETS, GST, ACC changes, the 90 day law and so on while only winning symbolic gains like the TRT flag over the harbour bridge. The symbol over substance argument.  

On a Maori Party deal with National

Some on the left are throwing around the theory that once the special votes are counted National could drop two seats to the Greens. On past trends this is plausible. That would give National 58 seats, or 60 with Banks and Dunne, meaning the right would need the Maori Party to form a majority. The question then becomes: will the Maori Party oblige. The answer: yes.

If Maori Party agree, and I’m almost certain they would, the party would expect some heavy concessions from National. The Maori Party have had to, as the minor partner in the relationship, bear the consequences of heavy compromise. However, should the above situation eventuate the Maori Party will be in a stronger position to exact major gains.

I expect the Maori Party to demand retention of their ministerial positions and a guarantee Tariana Turia’s portfolios will pass to Te Ururoa Flavell if or when she stands down. An expansion of Whanau Ora will be the only bottom line. The Maori Party campaign revolved almost exclusively on Whanau Ora and the flow on effects the policy will have on “strengthening the whanau” and addressing problems like poverty. Whanau Ora is inclusive of a range of Maori Party policies like the Marae Hubs idea too. I expect the Maori Party to push for universal access to te reo classes in high schools. Some of the more low key policies which will be a Maori Party priority are establishing a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Treaty, reviewing Te Puni Kokiri and a commitment to implementing the recommendations of the constitutional review (given Bill English is heading the review with Sharples I expect concrete action to be taken anyway). On the subject of the constitutional review this is one of the primary reasons the Maori Party will hesitate to go with Labour – the Maori Party have a number of ongoing projects with National (both visible i.e. the review and behind the scenes with Whanau Ora and Maori education).

Asset sales will not, as both leaders have said, be a deal breaker. The Maori Party opposition to asset sales is hollow. They oppose the sales, but should they go ahead they will support iwi access. Some on the left have hoped, should the above situation eventuate, that the Maori Party block asset sales. This won’t happen. Asset sales will be a bottom line for John Key and the Maori Party will accept this when Key agrees to give preferential access to New Zealanders and New Zealand bodies (iwi, Kiwisaver schemes etc). Key came under increasing pressure in the last week of the campaign to ensure assets will stay in New Zealand hands and I don’t expect Labour and New Zealand First to allow that pressure to ease. Key will not just give preferential access to iwi. He cannot, for the sake of the ‘separatist’ vote, allow New Zealand First to cultivate the perception that National are giving Maori special treatment. However, the electorate has, I think, moved on from the separatism issue. At least the issue doesn’t hold as much salience anymore thanks to the, in Pakeha eyes, reasonable behaviour of the Maori Party and John Key’s symbolic olive branch in 2008. Giving NZders the right of pre-emption if you will satisfies both sides really. Firstly, the assets are kept in New Zealand hands (satisfying a plank where National is weak). Secondly, National will placate a powerful and increasingly friendly bloc – iwi. If National align with iwi interests I don’t doubt that iwi will begin throwing themselves behind the Tories. Certainly Labour and the Green’s platforms may hurt iwi. For example, no asset sales and water charges (iwi and countless Maori land trusts run farms with irrigation etc).

Iwi will also help determine who the Maori Party go with. The Maori Party will, and rightfully so, consult the people. However, the only people to turn up will be conservative, mainly rural Maori with connections to their Marae and Runanga. The sort of Maori who are more likely to support National and whatever is good for the Runanga. The Maori Party is no longer a party where all Maori will flock (like they were in 2005 and 2008). The Maori Party have fractured their base. Some of whom have fled to Mana while others have returned to Labour. The Green’s seem to be benefiting too.

I’m going to break with the orthodox here and suggest that another term with National may not be a death sentence. In fact, if the Maori Party play it right they could hold steady. Over the past term the Maori Party have carved out a niche. They no longer play to all Maori, but the emerging Maori middle class. A middle class that sees Maori rights as paramount, but recognise that they – as in the Maori middle class – need to breach the power structures and insert themselves where they can make change, read the Cabinet table, and this approach takes compromise. They got to the middle, and in some cases the top, by sacrificing things like their cultural values in the workplace and they analogise this to government. Often the Maori middle class comes from existing iwi power structures. Maori who were never as disenfranchised as, if I can use this metaphor, the Jake Hekes of the Maori world. I’ve said this time and again that the Maori Party and the Mana Party represent the divide between the haves and the have nots in the Maori world. The haves are iwi with their settlements and emerging middle class. The have nots are the mainly urban and some rural Maori without trusts, without settlements and sometimes without Runanga. Both groups, although working towards the same goal, embody different approaches. The have nots, who are perhaps naïve in the ways of the world, want to see rapid change and uncompromising politics. The have nots are, in my opinion, probably sick of seeing their whanaunga getting ahead well they are stubbornly stuck at the bottom. They see the way to advancement as tearing down the walls. The haves are a bit more street wise about it. They know how to manipulate the Pakeha game and will do so. Working for gradual change from the inside. Some Maori probably resent the fact that other Maori are engaging like that, but that’s an approach I support (even though I don’t support the Maori Party per se).

Anyway, I’m heading way off track here. The second niche the Maori Party have carved are conservative Maori. Maori are, in my opinion anyway, naturally conservative. Not always politically, but socially. Also on many Marae I think conservatism tends to reign. For example, a lot of Marae like to hold steadfast, and fair enough, to old traditions rather than letting those traditions change like cultures eventually do.

Back to the original topic. Assuming the Maori Party play to these groups and stem anymore bleed then they will not die. If the Maori Party can give practical effect to the line that it’s better to be at the table then survival beyond 2014 will be likely. Giving effect to this will involve tangible policy wins and a perception that the Maori Party are negating the worst effects of the global economic crisis. Of course, much, much easier said than done. If the Maori Party position themselves as a counter balance against National then the above groups will certainly see the value in keeping them around. The only situation where the Maori Party can expect to claim the counterbalance title though is if they stop asset sales, but as I said I doubt that’ll happen. For the counterbalance narrative to work the Maori Party need to stop just one, for lack of a better term, big bang nutcase policy e.g. asset sales. When Tariana abdicates her throne the Maori Party could solve their succession issue quiet easily and, thus, secure their post-2014 future too; they could put up Rahui Katene in Te Tai Hauauru. Though I don’t think she has whakapapa connection to the area which would count against her.

I didn’t intend to write anywhere near this much, so I’ll conclude essay style. The Maori Party will almost certainly renew their relationship with National. The Maori Party will expect heavier policy concessions this time around with Whanau Ora as a bottom line. Asset sales will not be a deal breaker. Iwi will determine who the Maori Party go with and another term with National will not spell death so long as the Maori Party play to their new base – the Maori middle class (of which iwi are a part) and conservative mainly older Maori. I don’t agree with what the Maori Party did last term, but I would feel assured if they were at the table this time around. I think a second term National government with a strong mandate is far scarier than a first term government with a shakier share of the vote. We could be in the shit.

Iwi and investment

Closeup ran an interesting story on Wednesday night around the use of treaty settlement money. The show invited John Tamihere, as CEO of the Waipareira Trust, and Tuku Morgan, as Chair of Te Arataura, to discuss whether or not Iwi are using their settlement funds appropriately. The gist of John Tamihere’s argument was that more money should be directed towards the people and, as a consequence, preventing Maori entering the health system, the prison system and so on. Tamihere would rather see money directed towards social services as opposed to “buying assets”. Tuku Morgan, on the other hand, thinks Iwi do not have the economies of scale to make a major difference. Tuku also pointed to the fact that Iwi investment in, for example, the Te Awa mall in Hamilton is creating employment for Maori.

I agree with both men here. It is not the role of Iwi to stand in place of government. The provision of social services is, first and foremost, the role of government. Having said that, there are cultural obligations on the part of Iwi to help their people, think whanaungatanga. Rather than have Iwi use their own capital to invest in the provision of social services, I would like to see more Iwi pursue government contracts. This is a plausible avenue given the implementation of Whanau Ora.

The primary role of settlement money should be to level the playing field. Iwi should, and are, using settlement money to increase Maori economic power and, as a result, Maori political power. Iwi are attempting to move into a position where they cannot be ignored. Hence Tainui’s interest in strategic assets (e.g. Auckland Airport, electricity companies and Air New Zealand).

I think this is a debate that needs to occur. Are Iwi fixated with growth at the expense of ordinary Maori or is growth a means to an end?   

Will Whanau Ora be Cut?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the government is currently reviewing the Whanau Ora budget. Having said that Key has signalled, albeit in an ambiguous manner, that there are no plans to cut back the scheme’s budget. From Waatea News:

Prime Minister John Key has warned his support parties that the money is not there to fund their pet projects.

He says while there are no plans to cut back the whanau ora scheme for delivering social services through Maori providers, an expected boost in spending isn't going to happen either.

“There are no proposals to trim back whanau ora. The question is just how much more money goes into the programme. I think as a starting off programme it is doing well. There is a great concept behind it and Tariana is working very hard on it,” Mr Key says.

So Whanau Ora will face neither an increase in funding nor a decrease. Fair enough. However, I cannot help but feel this is an empty assurance. Fiscal pressures are mounting and the government is responding with cuts, cuts and more cuts. One would have thought, given the nature of Whanau Ora, that it would be one of the first projects in line for cuts.

Whanau Ora is, as far as I am aware, untested – beyond one or two local pilots that is. The scheme does not enjoy wide spread political support. The public is generally suspicious, yet largely accepting of the fact that a new approach is necessary, and there is no external pressure for change. Lastly, but most importantly, Whanau Ora is the pet project of a dispensable coalition partner.

Given the above, it is fair to assume that the Nat’s will, or at least can, cut the Whanau Ora budget without consequence. So what is stopping them? The prospect of a second term.

At the moment the Maori Party is expendable. However, after the election the Maori Party will probably hold the casting vote (assuming Rodney falls). The Prime Minister realises that he needs to keep the Maori Party on side if he is to have any chance of forming a government post-election and savaging the Whanau Ora budget would decrease his chances of doing so. Interfering with your long term coalition partner’s showpiece policy is beyond dumb. The Nat’s are a lot of things, but not, politically speaking, dumb.  

What sparked this post is the apparent “rumour” that the Whanau Ora budget is up for the chop. From Waatea News:

rumours that funding for the new service delivery model could be cut by as much as $70 million are causing alarm.

Read this with caution. It has come from Malcolm Mulholland, an advisor to Hone Harawira. Keep in mind that it suits Hone to have such a destabilising rumour in the public domain. But also keep in mind that it is entirely plausible given the reasons I outlined in my third paragraph. 

I, personally, am in favour of Whanau Ora. The scheme is practical and necessary. It is universally accepted that New Zealand needs a new model, the question is whether or not Whanau Ora is the right model. It would be a tragedy if the government decided to cut funding – the scheme was under funded in the first place. Ultimately, everything is up for review. But is Whanau Ora really, for want of a better term, superfluous? I don’t think it is.  

Part 1: WWG Report and The Maori Party

In this post I want to address two events which understandably fell under the radar yesterday. The release of the Welfare Working Group’s report and, in a separate post, The Maori Party Disciplinary and Disputes Committee recommendation to cancel Hone Harawira’s membership.

A small number of New Zealanders will feel, as John Key so aptly put it, “queasy” when digesting the recommendations of the WWG. We all assumed the report would recommend options for radical reform, but what we received was beyond radical – it was militant, violence in paper form. I do not want to throw around strong words indiscriminately but the report is heinous and depraved. I sit here wondering how, how the hell can any feeling person, any person with even the slightest hint of humanity, recommend that, for example, women be penalised for the most native human characteristic – reproduction. Homo Sapiens are genetically programmed to reproduce. It’s so fucking repugnant to suggest financial incentives, or should that be penalties, can suppress nature. 

I was also struck with how profoundly unimaginative the report is. We all know Rebstock et. al. do not have the capacity for original thought, or perhaps more accurately the capacity to follow logical reasoning pathways, but a single joblseekers benefit? Other commentators have already pointed out how nonsensical, inane and shallow this is so I will not repeat their points.

Ultimately, the report is plagued by stupidity, riddled with sloppy economic assumptions and absolutely malicious in intent. The sad thing is the government will rubbish the most extreme and moderate suggestions, as we have come to expect, while one breath later they will endorse the middle ground. Classic false compromise that this government is getting so good at. The fallacy of the middle ground. The lazy mind that is the New Zealand public falls for it every time. I hope the government will be so preoccupied with the Chch rebuild that this report falls to the wayside and we can vote them out before they get the chance to act. However, the Nat’s are the true masters of the game of politics and they will not miss such a golden opportunity to smash the deprived without scrutiny.   

But anyway I’m getting distracted. What I want to examine is the effect this report has on The Maori Party’s relationship with National.

The relationship between the two parties is already strained. The Maori Party are compromising on every issue and suffering the political damage as a result. The Maori Party has failed to exercise any power in the relationship. For example over the ETS. The Nat’s needed The Maori Party to pass the ETS, their showpiece climate change legislation, however even though the Nat’s were totally reliant on the votes of The Maori Party, they still caved. Even the concessions the Nats have offered as part of their supply and confidence agreement with The Maori Party, for example Whanau Ora, have resulted in compromise on The Maori Party’s part. The most recent episode to cause tension is the MCA bill. The Maori Party wants meaningful concessions that will quell discontent. However, they have not received any of the concessions they are seeking. Even the iwi leaders are angry that their concerns were ignored at Waitangi. The relationship simply cannot continue if the Maori Party is going to take all the political hits. One hit too many and the Nat’s will sink their best chance at governing post election.

The final hit may come in the form of the WWG report. The Maori Party simply cannot support the report or any government that does. Tariana has already come out saying she opposes attacks on mother and attacks on beneficiaries in general. However, what is more interesting is that merely a press realease later she says she supports moves to get the unemployed into work earlier. Perhaps this signals she will toe the National Party line and take up a middle ground position? Doing so will be a fatal mistake. In the wake of the UN report highlighting the extreme disadvantage Maori face Tariana cannot, or at least be perceived to be, entrenching that disadvantage.  It could be argued that the Maori Party would survive any hit to beneficiaries because beneficiaries do not vote. This is true but it misses the fact that every Maori, and I mean every Maori, will know at the very least one beneficiary, and furthermore many Maori will know what it is like to struggle as a beneficiary. What it is like to be stigmatised, made to run around in circles and ultimately receive crumbs as a result.

If the Nats do follow through, even with the most moderate recommendation, The Maori Party must pull back from the coalition. Remaining with the Nat’s will be seen as lending legitimacy to the government and will feed the narrative that The Maori Party is working against Maori interests. The discontent is out there, and supporting more anti-Maori policy will surely ignite that discontent. If the Nats follow through The Maori Party is left with two straightforward options;

1. Pull back immediately, with mana intact, and renegotiate post-election. Hope that electoral damage can be mitigated.
2. Remain and attempt to soften the government’s stance but risk electoral oblivion as a result.  

I prefer the first option. If The Maori Party pull out Maori may be inclined to forgive them. The Maori Party can lay claim to some integrity. The only outcome in taking the second option is, as I said, oblivion. So will The Maori Party realise that the WWG report is one compromise too far and their relationship with the Nats can take no more strain. Hopefully. And will the Nats realise they will sink their only viable long term coalition partner if they force the Maori Party to support their plans for welfare. Probably. So I am hopeful that the Maori Party will say no to the WWG report.

Happy-go-lucky JK

John Key is doing a shitload of smiling and waving at Te Matatini. No news story is complete without mention of Keys presence at the festival and a cute audio or visual accompaniment. But the question is why bother? This isn’t the A&P festival, it is Te Matatini, meaning National supporters are scarce. But that is the key, National supporters are scarce. Key approaches politics as if it is some sort of glorified marketing exercise. This is all about increasing brand awareness and reaching into a new political marketplace.

Over the past two years Key has attempted to break into the Maori market. Soften the Maori vote so when the political climate generates the right circumstances National can have a serious stab at the Maori vote. To do so Key needs to develop a strong relationship between Maori voters and his brand. This is a huge challenge because brand loyalty must be sufficiently strong as to offset policy sensitivities. Of course John Key will realise this but I tend to think he has underestimated the challenge. How does one build brand loyalty that is so strong that it offsets policy concerns? Well this is how I think John Key is doing it.  

First of all Key went for symbolism. He firmly attached his brand to The Maori Party, especially Pita Sharples (in a personal capacity). He also elevated Hekia Parata and advanced Maori policy such as Whanau Ora. This created the perception that Key is not hostile towards Maori aspirations, in fact quite the opposite and he shares the same goals and aspirations as Maori.   

The next step, and the most difficult, was personalising Brand Key. The symbolism is there but how will Key reach out to ordinary Maori voters? The answer: by immersing himself in Maori culture (i.e. Te Matatini). The best way to connect with Maori is on a cultural level. Forget class it’s all about cultural identity. This is where Brand Key will earn the trust and respect of Maori. Key creates the image that he shares the same values as Maori.

Of course there is a risk in attaching Brand Key to Maori. His image may become diluted, confused or outright spoilt. However, this is unlikely, It just reinforces the idea that Key is an everyman with the common touch.

In all honesty I am probably overanalysing this. Maybe Key just wanted to laugh at Pita Sharples or have another day off. Either way Labour should take a few lessons from Key on how to reach out to Maori.

Evaluating The Maori Party - Part 1

                                                        Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples

I originally intended my first substantive post to deal with the local body elections however the controversy that is beginning to engulf the new foreshore and seabed deal led me to consider whether the Maori Party has been good for Maori. The short answer is no and yes. Although the MP has made some considerable policy gains on behalf of Maori they have also supported some destructive policies. In this post I will examine what the MP has achieved.

A common criticism from the left is the MP have favoured symbol over substance. To a lesser extent they have shown far too much deference to the "Iwi elite" and not enough compassion towards urban Maori – or poor Maori. In my opinion the first criticism holds true. Many, if not most, of the MP policy wins have had very little practical effect. The Tino Rangatiratanga flag on the harbour bridge, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), the Maori Economic Taskforce and so on. On the other hand the MP has achieved some substantial policy wins. Whanau Ora, a constitutional review, guaranteed future of the Maori seats and of course a bill to replace the much hated Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.  

If you examine these policy wins you’ll finds that they do very little to improve the lives of ordinary Maori, with the exception of Whanau Ora. The most notable effect is that Maori issues have firmly entered the government’s agenda and the mainstream consciousness.

The flag over the harbour bridge was a pitiful gesture to the MP yet at the same time a powerful symbol of unity and maturity on Waitangi Day. A symbol of the enduring partnership between the Crown and Maori.  

The UNDRIP is perhaps a more potent symbol of the place of Maori in New Zealand. It strongly acknowledges the special status of Maori as tangata whenua. In purely practical terms however the UNDRIP will not benefit Maori unless it is incorporated into domestic legislation. The chances of that happening are below zero. I am not a qualified lawyer, however I should mention that if a case that concerned Maori rights were to come before the Courts then the UNDRIP may become persuasive (a finding in favour of Maori could be seen as giving effect to our international obligations). Having said that the executive, more specifically Cabinet, has made it clear that they intend the UNDRIP to have no practical effect. So this may count against the UNDRIP in the eyes of the Court. Furthermore, the UNDRIP is not a legally binding instrument under international law. On balance the UNDRIP is more show than substance.

Securing a constitutional review was one of the MP’s more potent and important wins. It will certainly spark debate about the nature and direction of New Zealand in the 21^st century. I expect the republicanism debate to surface, a debate about the place of immigrant New Zealanders and hopefully it will spark a conversation about what it means to be Pakeha. I also expect the review to be very controversial. I think the Maori Party will push hard for entrenchment of the Maori seats, a proposal to incorporate the Treaty into law or at least incorporate the principles of the Treaty into new bills and a proposal to somehow increase the power of tribal authorities. The make up of the review panel will be all important. I hope it is non-partisan and expert. I hold this MP achievement in high regard.

The Maori Economic Taskforces’ recommendations will probably be paid lip service then not implemented due to “fiscal constraints”. This would be a shame because I think there is potential there. I don’t know much about the members of the group, nor have I heard or seen anything from them in form of updates, invitations to consult and so on, but I think it will be one of the more ideologically neutral of the various taskforces set up by the government.

The MP cannot survive on the Party vote alone so the Maori seats are vital. The retention of the Maori seats guarantees the survival of the Maori Party. On a side note I think Maori are the most effective tactical voters. They overwhelmingly give their electorate votes to the MP and their party vote to sympathetic parties (Labour, Greens).

Whanau Ora is both a victory and a worry. Despite its weaknesses and limited funding I generally support the idea on the grounds that we need a new model. However, I do have some very deep seated reservations. Make no mistake; this is the outsourcing of government responsibility into the hands of private providers, albeit Maori providers who do have a special interest in the provision of services to their people. But this special interest is not enough to protect the scheme from corruption. There is little detail surrounding how providers will be selected, what amount of oversight they will be subject to, what sort of framework they will be operating under and how incompetence and other such problems will be detected and rectified.

And then there’s the trophy win. The repeal and replacement of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Although I do not think the new bill differs significantly from the FSA nor do I think it goes far enough but for the moment I think it is as much as Maori can achieve. I like the bill in that it gives regard to certain roles and responsibilities that could be held by iwi. Local Government would continue to have regulatory responsibility but this would be in conjunction with iwi. For example iwi would help determine how coastal permits are granted and would have a representative on resource consent committees. Iwi could also impose rahui or define areas as tapu and would have rights to certain resources.

I think it is open for debate whether customary title is sufficient to restore mana whenua or whether a stronger form of title is required to achieve the restoration of mana. If customary title is sufficient then only a small number of iwi will regain their mana whenua under the Act as the threshold is far too high.

The method of gaining title I prefer is negotiations with the Crown. Although this process will contain the same weaknesses as the treaty negotiations process such as vast inequality between the parties (the Crown has vast resources where iwi have none), stalling tactics, unfaithful negotiating and general fatigue on the part of iwi etc. Despite these weaknesses there is room for give and take, compromise and flexibility.  

If iwi were to pursue title through the Courts they would have to satisfy a rigid legal test. There would be no room for compromise, flexibility and other similar notions.

Needless to say there are deep divisions within Maoridom regarding the MP support for the new bill. The activist faction of the MP (Hone Harawira, Annette Sykes and the like) are opposed to the bill on the grounds it is a sop and does not go anywhere near far enough. Moana Jackson is also opposed for similar reasons. The Tai Tokerau and Wellington electoral committees want the MP to drop their support as do Ngati Kahungungu and Ngai Tahu – two powerful iwi. Another point of contention among Maori is that under the bill Maori will have fewer rights than private, mostly foreign, owners. There has been a lot of speculation about whether these concerns will translate to large scale revolt or the electoral demise of the MP. I do not think so. Maori are a patient people and they will accept incremental steps. The party will receive a boot up the backside no doubt but the MP stands for more than the foreshore and seabed. The MP is now bigger than the foreshore and seabed. Lastly I don not think the depth of feeling around the issue is there anymore. We are in a recession – Maori have bigger things to worry about.

To sum up, I think what has underpinned all of the MP’s policy wins is that they benefit iwi but not ordinary Maori. The Maori Economic Taskforce will most probably recommend courses of action that will strengthen the position and power of tribal runanga. Whanau Ora will also benefit iwi runanga. The new F&S bill will give runanga economic power over the foreshore and seabed. It will not lead to a more educated, healthy and prosperous people (Whanau Ora might if managed right but I do not have high hopes given, from personal experience, the incompetence and lack of vision I have come to expect from many Maori authorities). What is good for the runanga is not necessarily good for the people. Although runanga give generously to the elderly and those seeking higher education little support goes out to struggling, mainly urban, Maori. The, for lack of a better term, “Once were Warriors” type Maori receive nothing.

In my next post I will examine where the MP have gone wrong.