The country that white supremacy made

"Two wongs don't make a white"

To believe that racism is the property of the morally corrupt, rather than the property of liberal democracy itself, is comforting to those who think racism is an individual failing. If racism is reduced to a private act – one where the racist carries the shame, not his or her enabler – then there is no need to consider, let alone admit, what makes calculated acts of racism acceptable. Thus Colin Craig, Jamie Whyte, Steven Gibson and Winston Peters are not seen as products of our impoverished political culture – one where racism is strategy – but merely lone bigots. 

But the racism of the individual can’t be separated from the society that supports it. When we offer a moral account of racism while ignoring a political analysis of racism we sanction the more insidious form. Racism is part of our ancestral memory and when something is so embedded in the political culture - as racism is - then the discourse is going to reflect it. Thus Colin Craig, Jamie Whyte, Steven Gibson and Winston Peters are more than just morally corrupt individuals; they’re the descendants of an old tradition – political racism. This is where politicians articulate private racism for public consumption. 

The practice persists because racism is foundational. Our country was built on the theft and exploitation of indigenous land. While New Zealand still wears the scars of settler colonialism, Māori aren’t the only victims of racism in our little settler colony. There is a long and loud history of anti-Asian racism and underhanded anti-Semitism. Racism designed to create the perception that the majority is under ideological and demographic siege. From Jewish bankers to Chinese investors, people of colour are “issues” to win. 

The history of Māori bashing is well known and the practice itself is not exhausted, but the history of anti-Asian racism and anti-Semitism is less known. Asian peoples generally and the Chinese in particular have always been at the hard edge of New Zealand racism. Winston Peters knows as much and is prepared to exploit that history every three years. Political racism is a sort of low-grade fever that flares up every election and puts us – the body politic – at risk. 

They say "investor" or "foreign buyer" but what they mean is "of colour" with a "funny accent"
— Duckie (@DuckieMcDuck) August 11, 2014

Not that this is particularly unusual. The political class seeds and exploits fear of the Asian invasion across the world. Our parochial politicians in the 19th century were familiar with the political benefits of anti-Asian racism and in 1881 Parliament passed the Chinese Immigrants Act. The act imposed a poll tax of 10 pounds on new immigrants from China. In 1896 the tax was increased tenfold and in 1899, in an effort to further restrict “undesirable” Chinese, Parliament imposed an education test on immigrants without British or Irish parentage. When the Old Age Pensions Act was passed in 1898, Asians were excluded (even if they were citizens). All of this happened while we maintained an almost open border policy for migrants from Western Europe and, by the standards of the time, were cultivating the roots of a universal welfare state. 

It’s this ugly history that Winston Peter’s is channeling. Settler colonies work through replacement. It would seem the unspoken fear is the pattern of replacement will reverse and the next cycle, bound to happen by 2050, will be one of the non-white kind. Winston knows it, the audience fears it. Thus “two Wongs don’t make a white” was not an off the cuff and off colour joke, it was a political tactic. Winston knew it would be reported without context and those for whom it was designed would think that it refers to immigration. Racism, then, not only lives in the hearts of particularly cynical individuals – like Winston - but it lives in the heart of our society – with the voters. 

Steven Gibson is part of the same grubby tradition. Whether he knew the stigma behind Shylock or not – he must have, why use a notorious Jewish lender to describe another Jewish banker unless one intended to make a racialised slur? – ignorance is no excuse. Although there might be comparatively little organised anti-Semitism in New Zealand –meaning little statutory discrimination – social attitudes are as toxic here as anywhere. Former Premier Julius Vogel, a practising Jew, had to endure regular cracks at his faith while the political cartoonists of the day were not afraid of deploying Jewish stereotypes. The fact that Vogel served as Treasurer was seen as particularly funny (Jewish Bankers!). The echoes with Key are uncanny. From defaced billboard depicting an orthodox Jew to political cartoons where the cartoonist draws, what seems to be, a hook nose. Like Winston, we should not view Gibson as a lone fool, but a product of our political culture. One where racism is an acceptable political strategy and tactic. The same must be said of Colin Craig and Jamie Whyte too. Each is indulging in a sort of ritualistic racism. Racism is a virus looking for host. Essentially formless, but always persistent. 

Ok Steven Gibson, stop talking now, you're making it worse. "I'm not quite sure what Merchant of Venice is about... a bad deal?"
— Graham Cameron (@mvlgrimace) August 11, 2014

But where to from here? How do we change the political culture? Some suggest that racism is not long for this earth. In other words, we should wait for the racists to just die out. The offensiveness of that suggestion aside, people said this in the 60s too. Yet the thing about racism – like settler colonialism – is that it works through replacement. It’s protean. The leopard really can change its spots. 

The assumption is that history is linear – from ignorance to enlightenment. It’s true that we’re closer to racial justice than we were, say, a century ago, but here’s the paradox: while we might be more diverse, more tolerant and more committed to racial justice than our ancestors, we’re committed to an ideology that makes racial justice impossible – colorblindness. 

That is, where the way to solve the “race problem” is to pretend the problems – like inequality or closed borders – aren’t racialised. Thus measures to reduce racial inequality are, according to the colourblind advocates, racist. As one wag put it, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”. 

This is the ideology that Brash, Craig, Whyte and (I’m willing to bet) at least half of the country are committed to. Racism is seen as a matter of legal distinctions, not unfair outcomes. Where many think that if we remove race from, say, legislation then the “race problem” is solved. It’s not. Racism can’t be reduced to mere distinctions in legislation, policy or social settings. If it could be then measures to correct racial inequality - like the Māori Representation Act - are as racist as the process that necessitated them – that is, settler colonialism. 

Unlike many people of colour – and some movements of the left – just as many young people reject a political analysis of racism. Ours is a moral account of racism. Racism is Bad, thus we must remove race. When one thinks like this it’s then possible to claim that we’ve built a post-racial society. We really haven’t, though. It takes a determined effort in self-deception to think that, say, if we just remove Māori placements in university then, by magic, racism disappears. If we stop talking about race, racism disappears. 

The reasoning is seductive, but a deception. Racism , as Gary Younge put it, is “discrimination planted by history, nourished by politics and nurtured by economics, in which some groups face endemic disadvantage”. Thus racism is not so morally bad that we should never talk about it, rather it is too important that we can’t afford not to. As another wag put it, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race”. 

Thus the way to confront the racism of Colin Craig, Jamie Whyte, Steven Gibson and Winston Peters is not to pretend that they are lone wolves feeding off of a dying voter base, the way to confront racism is to take it out of the private domain and put it in public. Pretending race doesn’t exist solves nothing, the solution is where people of colour tackle the spoken and unspoken bigotries. It is where we take the opportunities politicians create and lead the discussion. Don’t let well-meaning liberals or anyone else wish it away - that only creates more seething resentment (on both sides) - we need to establish that, actually: race matters. Let's not stop talking about it.  

The meaning of Winston Peter's race talk

This is from Winston Peter's state of the nation speech. Don’t act surprised:

New Zealand has gone from a nation of united people to an urban collection of communities, many clinging to where they were, rather than where they are now. 

We have the Chinese community, the Pacific Islands community, the Sri Lankans, the Indians - the list is endless. All hyphenated New Zealanders… 

It’s as simple as this. Our last census had boxes for virtually every race on earth. Except one. There was no box for you to tick that you are a New Zealander… 

When people come to New Zealand, New Zealand First says they should fit in and contribute to our laws, our values, our culture, language and traditions. 

That doesn’t mean abandoning identity. The Irish, Scots, Welsh, Dalmatians never did, nor did the Dutch.

This is vintage Winston. Except the wine has turned to vinegar. Winston speaks to a New Zealand that thinks it's under ideological and demographic siege. Parse the tortuous language of “urban… communities”, “values” and “identity” and you’ll find New Zealanders who yearn for a New Zealand that never existed. Winston speaks to their imaginary past.

If Colin Craig’s “entire political movement and history is based on feelings of humiliation” then Winston Peter’s political movement is based on feelings of betrayal. It’s aimed at New Zealanders who went to sleep in one country and woke up in another: the strong state communitarianism of Kirk and the strong state conservatism of Muldoon had disappeared, the borders had become porous – for both capital and labour - and New Zealand had been “opened for business”.

If you scratch the itch you’ll find that Winston’s people are worried about economics and leadership. That’s the source of their angst, but race is its expression. Why? Because race represents their ideological losses today and their demographic irrelevance tomorrow. Immigration – and Maori bashing, of course – is the lightning rod of their unease and hostilities. But its real source is the economic transformation of the 80s and 90s.

Consider this:

But the so-called economic reformers of the past 30 years dismantled the industries and state enterprises that were the economic life blood of Maori. 

Freezing works closed, the Ministry of Works, Forest Service, Government Print and so many others. When the Forestry Service was privatised, thousands of jobs were lost and 80 per cent of those jobs had been held by Māori. 

Heartland New Zealand had the heart ripped out.

Tens of thousands of Maori were thrown on the industrial scrap heap. Along with unemployment came the twin curses of alcohol and drugs which are creating mayhem among Maori…

Along with the new age economics of selling everything and bringing in more immigrants, a new political arrangement was entered into. 

This is the politics of appeasement to radical Māori demands.

That's a straightforward description of the economic reforms of the 80s and 90s, but it's framed as a problem of Maori radicalism. Now I don't think Winston buys his own rhetoric and that makes it fundamentally dishonest. But it works. When the walls are closing in people fight to apportion blame. It’s easier to blame the other than blame your own political impotence. Communities of colour become a totem for the decline of Winston's provincialists. Don Brash fell short, but he demonstrated the electoral reward for politicians who can tap the reservoir of racism.

When you peel away the forced politeness, the urge to please everyone and suppressed anger in some parts of provincial New Zealand you’ll find a country that’s deeply scarred. If it looks to in the mirror, it's ashamed. If it looks to the future, it's afraid. If it looks to the (imaginary) past, it's at home.

Winston understands this and he uses race to channel their fears. But race isn't the source of their angst and non-racialism isn't the solution to it. Winston's failure to craft a strategic response to his voter's angst only serves to reinforce it. You can't craft a strategic response to neoliberalism off the back of a cabal of hardcore racists. They might like their imaginary past, but Winston can only give them an imaginary future.

The pot calling the kettle brown: why Winston Peters can't talk about "separatism"

Winston’s up to his old tricks:

Mr Peters, speaking at Ratana Pa, says his party would never support "separatist" Maori Party policies such as having separate Maori units in prison, the separate Maori social welfare system Whanau Ora and the Tino Rangatiratanga Flag.

"What Maori need is housing, decent healthcare, decent education system and first world jobs and wages," Mr Peters says. 

"The Maori Party has abandoned that for sociological objectives which are of no interest to Maoridom at all.
"Apartheid policies are based on racial preference. This is, too."

Winston likes to rewrite his own history. It wasn’t that long ago that Winston held the office of the Minister of Maori Affairs. And it wasn’t that long ago that New Zealand First held the five Maori seats. Winston grumbles about separatism, except when it suits Winston.

It might seem counterintuitive, but in 1991 - the year Winston was sacked as Minister of Maori Affairs - “busloads” of Maori arrived in Wellington to protest the move. Odd, you might think, for a person who opposes Maori policy. Except it isn’t.

There’s rhetoric and reality: there is the party leader who argues that “hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are to be siphoned off social services for the race-based Whanau Ora programme”. And then there’s the Minister of Maori Affairs who commissioned the Ka Awatea report, created the foundations of Te Puni Kokiri and – a few years later - contested the Maori seats. The pot is calling the kettle brown.

When Winston debates race he’s making an unstated political claim. His opposition to whanau ora is less to do with race and more to with his opposition to devolution. In the early 1990s Winston aggressively opposed the New Public Management model (NPMM). The Ka Awatea report he presided over was, essentially, a broadside against the NPMM and the fragmentation of the state it created. The report argued Maori interests are best served under a centralised agency combining policy and operational functions. But that advice went against the trends in public sector management and society.

Whanau ora is part of that trend. Winston is trying to make up lost ground. He may have won one battle – over the nature of Te Puni Kokiri – but he lost the war. He’s fighting the battles of the 80s and 90s with Victoria racial rhetoric. Even if it means forgetting his own history.

Winston’s comments overshadowed the real issues at Rātana

It’s a real shame that Winston Peters decided to launch his latest dog-whistle attack while waiting to be welcomed on to Rātana Pā on Friday. As was predictable, his comments became the major story of the day in the media, and they distracted from the very real kaupapa that were raised by the Rātana people themselves as politicians came to honour the birthday of the prophet Tahupotiki Wiremu Rātana. 

Te Temepara Tapu, Rātana Pā

For those who were lucky enough not to hear Winston’s comments, he essentially referred to the Māori Party’s policy gains in Government as “apartheid”. Supposedly, flying the Tino Rangatiratanga flag on Auckland Harbour Bridge, whānau ora, and separate Māori prison units are all apartheid policies. 

For Winston, this is all about electioneering. He is playing to his core constituency with these dog-whistle tactics. The desperate tone of his comments reveal a politician of a by-gone era trying to stay relevant. 

The comments were inappropriate given where he was speaking – one of T.W Rātana’s primary goals was the just restitution of Te Tiriti of Waitangi, a goal which he essentially disparaged with his attack on the Māori Party. They were also hugely inappropriate considering how recently Nelson Mandela passed away, a leader of the liberation movement that broke the stranglehold of real apartheid - a brutal, racist and completely inhumane regime. To compare that with the Māori Party's policies is extremely offensive.

I had the privilege of listening to and contributing to the kōrero on the paepae that day. We were informed by te iwi mōrehu (followers of the Rātana faith), of the realities of the day-to-day lives of their people. They implored political parties to work together for the benefit of the Māori people. Their key proposals were for a strong regional development strategy, investment in reducing youth unemployment, warm dry housing and an inclusive education system that equips tamariki and rangatahi with skills required for the jobs of the 21st Century. 

These are the issues that should have been debated in the media, and the issues political leaders should have been asked for comment on. But no, Winston’s strategy of grabbing the media attention with hyperbole worked for him – as it always does.

Kōtahitanga and the Labour-Green relationship 

The Labour and Green parties were welcomed on to the marae together – as has been the case for the last several years. Labour had a large delegation of MPs and candidates and the Greens were represented by co-leader Metiria Turei, Māori Green MPs Denise Roche and David Clendon, and candidates Marama Davidson and myself (Jack McDonald). 

Labour the Greens being welcomed on to Rātana

One thing that was very apparent was the health of the Lab-Green relationship; both parties work well together and are driven by many of the same core values, both are committed to raising the living standards of Māori, and working in collaboration for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 

Māori expect the parties of the Left to work together and embrace kōtahitanga. To honour Te Tiriti and eliminate poverty, we must change the government. Neither Labour nor the Greens can do that without the other. It's imperative that these parties look and act like a government-in-waiting, ready to get stuck in and work together so they can hit the ground running in the first 100 days of a new progressive government.

Of course the parties have their differences, some substantial, and the debate over risky deep sea oil drilling is a timely reminder of that. That is the nature of MMP and those differences can be thrashed out in post-election negotiations. 

At the end of the day, both Labour and the Greens need to listen to the teachings of T.W Rātana, who always stressed kōtahitanga and unity. Nothing less will improve the lives of those who need us most; the vulnerable, the disillusioned and marginalised in our society.

Post by Jack McDonald

The Daily Blog, Native Affairs and Rongoa

The Daily Blog

I'm excited to be part of the Daily Blog - a congregation of "weak, stupid, effeminate, erectile dysfunctional, naïve, apologist, namby-pamby, thumb-sucking, lefty pinko fantasy-land moron [sic]". Note that that's meant as a compliment and a sign of affection.

In Bomber's words

TheDailyBlog.co.nz will bring together 30 of the best left-wing bloggers and progressive opinion shapers in NZ all onto one site to critique the news, the media, and politics to provide the other side of the story.

The first challenge is to build a community. The first step in that challenge is easy - bring together a community of bloggers and their readers. The second step is harder - build a community of readers and commenters from outside of the leftwing blogosphere. I'm optimistic about that.

Native Affairs 

I'm sure most of you know, but for those that don't Julian Wilcox (the country's best news and current affairs presenter) is the new head of news and current affairs at Maori TV. His replacement on Native is Mihingarangi Forbes. She's a great addition to the strongest line-up in current affairs. Julian had a hypnotic voice and manner. He could lull guests into a false sense of security and hit them. Mihi is more combative - witness her demolition of Alasdair Thompson. I'm looking forward to it. The show returns March 11 at 8.30pm.


Winston has a go at Rongoa Maori

Winston's back up to his old tricks:

Rongoa Māori is under attack from New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, who says the Health Ministry is shelling out almost $2 million a year supporting traditional healers without any monitoring or accountability.

$2m is peanuts in the context of Vote Health's $14b appropriation. In other words, Rongoa Maori funding accounts for about 0.01% of the Health budget. The Silver Fox isn't really concerned about an unaccountable $2m, it's the idea of unaccountable Maori money. Although, there should be accountability for any and all taxpayer money, but that isn't to diminish the place of Rongoa Maori - even if it were only operating as a placebo.

Richard Prosser and white privilege

I didn’t think I had much to add on Richard Prosser and Wogistan. Aside from noting the encouraging response from the political establishment and fair-minded New Zealanders, it didn’t bear thinking about. However, listening to and reading arguments in Prossers' defence made me lose it. I couldn’t sit around without reiterating that free speech is qualified by the right not to be vilified as an individual or a member of a group. And that’s what it is, vilification of Muslims and anyone who looks Muslim (translation: anyone a darker shade of olive). Prosser is admitting that the “language used wasn’t appropriate”, but he refuses to apologise for the sentiment expressed. He still doesn’t get it. The words sting, but the hurt stems from the ideas that underpin Prossers’ column.

Tim Watkin does a good job of demolishing the reasoning (or lack of) behind Prossers’ diarrhea. For Prosser, this isn’t about making a point or stimulating reasoned debate; its toilet-grade shock-jockism. It’s worth remembering that this isn’t the first time Prossers had a go at something that isn’t a white middle-aged male. Behold:

Because our society, New Zealand society, Western society in general, has been hijacked by a conspiracy of Silly Little Girls. They’re everywhere; in the schools, in the media, in the public service, in the judiciary, even in Cabinet.

Everywhere we turn, the foundations of masculinity, the pillars of male-ness which have underpinned the construction and development of our very civilisation, are being undermined, by Silly Little Girls. And we are putting up with it.

If you visit Stormfront, a prominent neo-nazi website, this sort of sentiment is standard fare. But from a member of New Zealand’s Parliament… it’s not on. There’s no need to attack the logic behind Prossers’ views (because there is none), the more interesting point is to note that Prosser is a perfect example of white-male-establishment privilege.*

Feminist writer Peggy McIntosh argues that white privilege is largely unconscious and she lists 50 instances of it (and that’s not a comprehensive list). At 9. McIntosh writes that:

If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

The freedom to speak freely (in other words). McIntosh lists other instances: “I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race” (which speaks to the privilege of assuming the universality and supremacy of ones’ own experiences and beliefs). This applies to Prosser, yes, but the most important privilege he is using is the freedom to speak freely

If Titewhai Harawira, a woman of colour, were to express the same sentiment against white people, well, she’d be destroyed. Say she suggested that white men be banned from primary schools because they’re more likely to sexually abuse underage girls or that white men should be barred from owning a business because they’re more likely to commit fraud. It would not be defended as “one woman’s opinion”. But more significantly she would never get the opportunity to speak so freely (there are a negligible number of non-white writers and broadcasters in the media – and fewer to none with the institutional security to express opinions like Prosser). Unlike Prosser whose defenders affirm the worth of his ideas (a spinoff of WMEP - think of Michael Laws and his listeners), a writer of colour would not have the freedom to speak so freely let alone expect defenders.

It happens regularly, white men of the establishment are given the right to say whatever they want and vilify whoever they want. Paul Holmes enjoyed the right to take a dump all over Maori. The consequences he faced were pro-forma and he enjoyed an affirmation of his own worth and the normality of his ideas from blogs, letter writers and talkback (also remember the mountain of shit he started that was directed against Maori). Michael Laws is given the right to slur Maori every week and even suggest that certain people be sterilised. This also speaks to how New Zealanders are desensitised to racism against Maori (and also discrimination beneficiaries, unionists and other marginalised groups).

If it were up to me, I’d have sacked Prosser the moment he contemplated publishing his piece. In an ideal society, no one should hold the views that he does – least of all a Member of Parliament. Take a moment to think about that - a Member of Parliament. I’ll be voting for a party of the left in 2014, but it won’t be going to a party that is part of a coalition that includes Richard Prosser.

Post Script: Bryce Edwards has written an interesting post titled Richard Prosser’s role in making mainstream politicians look progressive, but the best, most articulate piece (and deeply personal) is from a Bengali Muslim describing how it "hurts" and the process of Prossers' "othering". She captures beautifully the human consequences of discrimination. The posts holds true for people of colour in "western" (read white) societies.  

*White privilege is a controversial theory. I think the theory is better described as white-male-establishment privilege – privilege is our society is not isolated. There is an intersection between being white, male and part of the establishment. Some people argue that the theory is better described as economic privilege. The idea isn’t without merit, but again privilege isn’t isolated. Even if we described privilege through class lenses it is still common to see racial stratification in labour (more so American labor – I don’t think it holds true to the same extent in the New Zealand union movement). After all, a poor white person is still a member of the dominant culture and will enjoy some of the privileges that come with that.

Upholding the Treaty

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

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

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

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

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


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

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.

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. 

More on TPK and the Maori Party

The picture at TPK is becoming a little clearer. Pita Sharples has finally released a statement, a short one at that, expressing his support for staff. Sharples claims:

“How the Ministry manages their fiscal pressures and efficiency dividend is of course an operational matter for management. I expect to be consulted on the Chief Executive’s proposals for how Te Puni Kokiri continues to deliver the most effective services to the public, within the budget they have been allocated,” he said.

Firstly, passing the ball to management is a cop out. But most importantly, Sharples statement is, if one reads between or beyond the lines, a couched endorsement of the cuts. The Maori Party made no secret of their intentions to reform TPK, but I don’t think anyone knew their intentions were to cut jobs.

Winston Peters continues to hammer away at the Maori Party. He accuses the party of gutting TPK as a trade off for increased funding for Whanau Ora. Parekura Horomia also highlights the inadequacy of the Maori Party’s “at the table” argument. Horomia notes that as a Minister outside of Cabinet Sharples was unable to fight for the survival of TPK when Cabinet, or the appropriate Cabinet Committee, was thrashing out the details. However, that logic assumes the Maori Party actually wanted restructuring at TPK to be neutral, meaning no cuts, no increases, just a reshuffle. I tend to think the Maori Party supported cuts all along.

The Maori Party isn’t attacking National’s decision to impose cuts, nor is the party publicly lobbying for cuts to be deferred or cancelled. Instead, the party has remained silent, bar Sharples one statement expressing support for people who are about to lose their jobs. It appears the Maori Party wanted this, they just don’t want to wear the consequences. Hence Sharples attempt to deflect this as an operational matter.

What support the Maori Party clawed back with their threat to leave National has now evaporated. I struggle to see how the party has any future post-2014.

Native Affairs post-election special

If you didn’t watch Native Affairs last night, you should. In their last show for the year, and probably the best of the year, Julian and Annabelle hosted a raft of MPs and a brilliant panel (minus Mike King who was pretty bad).

Julian interviewed Pita Sharples, Winston Peters, Hone Harawira, Shane Jones, Meteria Turei, Rino Tirikatene, Simon Bridges and Louisa Wall. Annabelle discussed the interviews with Sandra Lee, Matt McCarten and Mike King. I don’t want to have a moan about Mike King, but I can’t let it slide that following Meteria’s interview King admitted to having never seen Meteria in action before. Even worse King then proceeded to speak of Meteria as if he’s never seen a sharp Maori women nor ever expected to see one. Prior to that King was salivating all over Winston again, just like he did on Saturday night.

Anyway, Pita Sharples came across as despondent. He found himself having to defend why the Maori Party lost a seat, had their party vote slashed and majorities in their remaining electorates slashed. Pita did have the good sense to admit the party’s relationship with National contributed to, or is still contributing to, the decline of the Maori Party.

Winston was, well he was Winston. Hugely charismatic, likeable in a mischief way and abrasive. Winston touched on good themes, for example poverty and asset sales, but he reverted to attacking the media when it wasn’t justified. He tried to dump Maori TV in the same basket as the mainstream media which was, in my opinion, patently unfair and a great way to burn bridges. After all, the Maori media have given Winston fair and consistent coverage.

Hone, true to form, gave a good interview. He was upfront and he added a dash of humour. Nothing really stood out.

Shane Jones. What a waste. The panel pointed out Shane was the first Labour MP to give an honest account of their loss. He didn’t sugar coat it, he didn’t repeat Labour’s lines, he called it as he saw it. 3 out 4 New Zealanders didn’t vote Labour (discounting the one million who didn’t vote) and that’s a problem they need to address.

Meteria Turei was the best performer of the night. As Mike King found out, Meteria is hugely intelligent, incredibly articulate and she’s pretty charismatic. The best Maori leader in Parliament in my opinion. Every thing was to the point and she didn’t deviate from the script.

Rino was given a soft interview and still seems like the win is yet to sink in. Julian almost caught Rino out when he put the proposition to him that would he support Ngai Tahu if they want to snap up SOEs. Rino seemed surprised and quickly stated Labour’s position.

Simon Bridges and Louisa Wall appeared together. Both MPs won huge majorities in their respective electorates. Louisa is the first Maori woman from Labour to win a general electorate and Simon is one of National’s best, no the best, Maori MP. Yes, better than Hekia Parata. In Mike King’s best call of the night he called Simon on his smugness. Mike correctly identified that NZders hate smug politicians, or smug people in general actually.The panel agreed Simon is a future leader of the National Party and maybe the first Maori Prime Minister. Agreed.

On the two political debates

Did anyone notice that three of the six leaders in TVNZ’s multi party debate were Maori? If Meteria Turei was put in the place of Russell Norman then four of the six would have been Maori – a clear majority. Maori must be doing something right huh. The two kaupapa Maori leaders, Hone and Tariana, came out of the debate looking good. Hone found an unlikely friend in Claire Robinson who commended Hone for his communication skills. Even John Armstrong declares Hone a “surprise standout”. The Dom’s Tracey Watkins praises Tariana as “the kuia of the nation” and I have nothing but praise for her performance too.

I’m only going to focus on Hone and Tariana and then I’ll review Native Affairs Hauraki Waikato debate.

Hone was probably the stronger of the two. He really is the master communicator and, along with the other Maori in the room Winston Peters, had the audience enthralled. Hone was strong on the financial transactions tax and never strayed far from focussing on the poor. A minor highlight of the debate was trying to decide who, out of Hone and Tariana, came up with their respective policies first. A common line was “I agree with Hone” or “I agree with Tari”. Tariana did particularly well during the race relations section. She really underlined her reputation as a strong advocate for Maori. She was all class. Tariana never strayed far from focussing on Whanau Ora too – the Maori Party’s trophy policy win in my opinion. It was a smart appeal to her base.

The question on coalitions was also interesting. Tariana certainly didn’t express a preference for any party pointing out that the Maori Party can and will work with anyone – except Act. This signalled, to me at least, that should the Maori Party hold the balance of power on November 27 they will support a Labour led government. In other words a government that does not include Act. However, if Act is a no show on November 27 and the Maori Party holds the balance of power, well, in that scenario I think they would support a National led government. As Winston said, you develop an amount of respect and admiration for the people you work with, but then again familiarity breeds contempt (or so they say).

On that note it was unfair of Hone to paint the Maori Party as if they are in a coalition with Act. Hone knows this isn’t true. The Maori Party has a relationship, more specifically a confidence and supply agreement, with the National Party – not Act. Act just happen to have one with the Nats too.


Native Affairs debate:


Nanaia Mahuta was the stand out. Hands down. Angeline Greensill was close second while Tau Bruce Mataki from the Maori Party rounded off the night.

Initially, the candidates were evenly matched. Angeline was aggressive off the mark, Mataki was strong on the Maori Party’s policy of asking all Maori organisation to hire two rangatahi while Nanaia was in blazing form on asset sales.

As the night wore on Nanaia proved to be the most consistent. Nanaia showed her experience in response to a question on co-management deals with the Crown and Iwi. Nanaia highlighted Labour’s work in that area, especially around the Waikato river. In response to a question on child abuse Nanaia, quite impressively in my opinion, highlighted specific legislation Labour enacted to reduce assaults on children.

Angeline was strong too. On the child abuse question Angeline linked the problem to poverty and then reeled off Mana’s policies to combat poverty and, as a result, reduce child abuse. On health Angeline skilfully linked her answers to the principles that Princess Te Puea stood for. Angeline also expressed the need for better support for rongoa and Pharmac.

Mataki started strong, but wore off as the night progressed. He managed to recover when discussing the Maori Party’s policy of turning Marae into economic hubs. He also did well to highlight Whanau Ora, as I said the Maori Party’s trophy policy, and link this in with other themes like child abuse.

All three candidates were strong on employment. Nanaia talked about shifting benefits to apprenticeships, Angeline talked about governments role in creating jobs and Mataki talked about the Marae as economic hubs idea.

The debate was probably most notable for Nanaia’s stinging attacks on the Maori Party. She accused the Maori Party of being the National Party’s proxies in the Maori seats and acting as a “Trojan horse” for the Nats. Ouch. Angeline probably garnered the biggest roar at the end of the night when she said if the Maori Party go with the Nats then then your, as in Maori, only option is to vote for the Greens, Labour or Mana.

So the night belongs to Nanaia. She was the most consistent. I guess her experience showed. If last night proved anything though, it’s that Labour will struggle to retain the seat when Nanaia retires (probably next term). The same is true of Ikaroa-Rawhiti. If Angeline runs again I think she’ll take Waikato and if Na Raihania runs in Ikaroa I think he’ll take that seat in the absence of Parekura.

Winston Peters targets the Maori vote (updated)

Has Winston Peters always attracted so much attention in the Maori media? I haven’t been following politics long enough to really know, but it seems like he is quoted several times a week by Waatea News. Was this always the case?

Perhaps what is most interesting is that Winston is speaking to Maori issues rather than generic issues or, for lack of a better term, mainstream issues. New Zealand First is not a kaupapa Maori party nor a party overly concerned with issues which are exclusively Maori. However, Winston appears to be making a concerted effort to be heard on issues affecting Maori. For instance the sale of land to Tainui and East Coast iwi's opposition to oil exploration.

I think Winston has identified the Maori vote as soft. The Maori Party is losing support at a rate of knots; Labour, having failed to regain Maori trust following the FSA 2004, is in no position to pick up frustrated voters; For some odd reason the Greens never penetrate the Maori electorate and National remains, for the most part, hostile towards Maori aspirations for tino rangatiratanga.

With the above in mind I see two options. The dark horse – Hone Harawira – and the old war horse - Winston Peters. Hone Harawira will naturally and rightfully scoop most dissatisfied Maori voters; however the centre right vote is open. Winston’s regular punts in the Maori media are an attempt to hit the centre right in my opinion.

One could politely label Winston a Maori basher. But I do not think he is that simple. He is certainly comfortable with his whakapapa, at ease on the Marae by all accounts and sympathetic towards Maori aspirations for full employment, higher education and so. Maori do connect with Winston on a personal level and he understands the Maori psyche. Taking this into account we can assume Winston will, as he tends to do, ignite a personal following. However, the challenge is build an ideological following. This will be difficult considering Winston's opposition to treaty settlements and affirmative action (to name a few).  A dig at these issues will evoke a less than positive response from Maori.

I think this election is, for Winston, a chance to get back at Rodney Hide, the Nats and the media. But most of all Winston Peters wants to leave on his own terms. He does not want to bow out at the hands of his enemies. This is his show and dammit he wants to write the script.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention when I posted this that Winston has yet to really register with the mainstream media. I would actually speculate that this is a deliberate approach. Winston appears to be taking a community approach to campaigning. He is holding town hall meetings, giving guest lectures - he has given several here at Vic - and targeting niche media outlets (e.g. the Maori media and local rags). He is not holding extravagant dinners or staging political stunts. He does enough to keep his name in the public consciousness, but 'media whore Winston' is nowhere to be seen.    

Winston Peters supports Te Whanau a Apanui

Te Whanau a Apanui have found an unlikely ally:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is backing Te Whanau a Apanaui's protest against oil exploration off the East Coast.

Mr Peters says New Zealanders have no confidence the government has properly weighted the environmental and social risks.

“The key issue is, have we been asked or consulted on this issue and the answer is no. It just went ahead like what Gerry Brownlee tried to do on the national parks, when they got rolled. That’s what they tried to do,” he says.

Mr Peters says the royalty rates are so low that that New Zealanders stand to make very little if Petrobras does discover oil.

Prima facie, Winston is an unlikely source of support. However, this issue touches our nationalist sentiment, naturally it is core New Zealand First policy.

I wonder when the Maori Party will follow suit. No time soon judging by this comment From Tariana Turia:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says it's up to individual iwi whether they want to oppose mining and oil exploration.

Of course it is. But when iwi chose to oppose, and oppose vehemently, then the Maori Party should support iwi.  

“Those who don’t want to have either oil exploration or sand mining, that’s their business. We’re not in Parliament to speak for the hapu and iwi. That’s their job to uphold their rangatiratanga and that’s what they’ve chose to do and that’s their right,” Mrs Turia says.

This is an odd comment. Let’s think back to the ETS. The Maori Party were speaking/acting on behalf of iwi (at their request apparently). The Maori Party acted as a medium between government and the self proclaimed iwi leaders. The same thing happened with regard to mining Maori land. However, different rules seem to apply to Te Whanau a Apanui. The Maori Party has refused to back Te Whanau a Apanui.

Te Whanau a Apanui cannot uphold their rangatiratanga against the might of the New Zealand state. No iwi can, has or ever will. The Maori Party, as the strongest Maori political entity, is obligated to act in the best interests of Te Whanau a Apanui. A failure to act, or a remission of responsibility, is a cop out.    

The Maori Party claim to act on behalf of Maori. Maori, as in the collective. The party quite often speaks of iwi katoa. It is now becoming apparent that this was just fanciful rhetoric. If faced with a choice between political expediency and principle, the Maori Party will side with expediency.  

Sad. That is the only way to describe the Maori Party’s position on this issue. Sad.

Harden up, Labour

The more I think about Phil Goff and the events of the past few days the more unlikely it seems, in my mind at least, that Goff will be able to form a coalition government post-election. Ultimately, Goff does not have the ability to bring together and manage a coalition of competing and disparate interests. The Darren Hughes controversy and the Parekura/Nanaia rebuke indicates, in incredibly stark terms, that Goff is a political amateur.

For the sake of this post let’s say Labour’s coalition arrangement post election will be Labour/Winston/the Greens/Hone Harawira. Managing this coalition would be problematic for even the most competent political manager. The four parties share some common ground on economic issues, for example foreign ownership, yet in almost all other respects the four parties differ significantly. There is little ideological common ground between Winston (or should I say New Zealand First) and the Greens/Hone Harawira. The three will almost certainly be at logger heads on almost everything. Take the foreshore and seabed. Nationalisation of the foreshore and seabed is bedrock policy for Winston. The issue will form the basis of his campaign and, assuming he is re-elected, will probably feature in any agreement he signs. On the other hand, the Greens and Hone Harawira will be campaigning on the amending the current act with the intention of strengthening Maori rights. Hone Harawira will accept no less. Which brings me to the question, how will Goff, an appalling political manager, reconcile Winston’s position with the Greens/Hone Harawira’s position. That is assuming Goff even has the ability to pull together a coalition in the first place.

I am of the view that it is beyond Goff to even attempt to pull together such an incongruent coalition. If Goff cannot even form and maintain a functioning and effective opposition, how the hell is he going to form and maintain a functioning government, let alone an effective one.

The Darren Hughes controversy has shown, once again, that Goff’s judgement is poor. The Parekura/Nanaia rebuke illustrates that Goff is presiding over a divided caucus as well as an ill-disciplined caucus that is ostracised from the decision making process. The Goffice has adopted a top down approach to political management. The decisions are made at the top, by Goff’s advisors, while the party is informed after the fact and expected to swallow the political poison that results. No wonder there are whispers of discontent. If Goff were to continue this approach in government, he will soon find his partners on the cross benches. 

If Goff cannot control his own party he sure as hell cannot control Hone Harawira and Winston Peters. Ultimately, Goff does not have the political nous required to hold together a coalition of disparate and competing interests. Therefore, Goff needs to go. The left will need a skilled and intuitive political manager if we are to have any hope of forming the next government. I am hesitant to put forward any names, having said that I do like the sound of David Parker and Shane Jones as deputy, or even David Cunliffe at number one and Shane at number two. Broadly speaking, Parker and Cunliffe speak to identity politics while Jones speaks to class politics.

Sadly, Goff has been harshly criticised – I actually think quite unjustly at times. However, Goff is always one step behind and one step out of line with everything he does. The left cannot afford to go into the election with someone so terrible. Labour has nothing to lose and everything to gain. The party has polled at around 30-35% consistently. This indicates their base is solid and probably will not move. Goff is the problem. Labour’s policy resonates with the electorate, the problem is the face, and in some cases faces, of that policy. What is the harm in replacing a leader who is deeply unpopular with the electorate?

Balls up Labour. If not, you deserve to lose.   

Armstrong has it wrong

John Armstrong is, without doubt, an astute political commentator. Having said that I think his latest column is well off the mark. In this post I want to address a few points Armstrong makes. Consider this:

(re MCA Bill) Having thrown out the cuckoo from their nest, they have since largely kept their silence. In doing so, they have kept their dignity.

This is simply untrue. In keeping largely silent the party has lost all dignity and credibility among Maori. Maori in general, and some Maori Party supporters, have and continue to demand a two way conversation with the Maori Party. Significant concerns remain and Maori want to work over those concerns, however the Maori Party has effectively shut the door. The views of thousands of Maori were ignored at the select committee stage, the leadership refuse to substantively justify their stance beyond “it is what we promised” and the only person within the party who had the courage to reflect the views of almost all iwi and indeed Maori is no longer around. I do not see how this amounts to a dignified position. Silence is insulting.

The overwhelming desire of most parties is not to revisit this potential political hornets' nest once the bill is law.

That is one reason why the solution hammered out by National and the Maori Party should endure.

Armstrong is right in suggesting that most parties will not want to revisit this issue. As I have said many times this is one of the reasons I oppose the current bill. If the MCA bill passes then the issue is closed. The foreshore and seabed is electoral poison and neither Labour nor National will swallow it again. Where I disagree with Armstrong is in his suggestion that the solution should endure because no one will want to revisit it. This is weak reasoning and, frankly, a cop out. The electoral interests and desires of two political parties should not dictate policy. In reality it usually does dictate policy, but in terms of the foreshore and seabed issue, notions of justice should dictate whether the issue is reopened. At some point the issue will resurface because Maori are not satisfied. As Maori electoral power increases it will become harder and harder for the government of the day to ignore Maori desires.

Even the Maori Party might well prefer the new status quo be given time to bed-in, regardless of whether the party is propping up a Labour-led or National-led Administration.

I don’t think so. The Maori Party will revisit the issue as soon as the situation allows. For all the false rhetoric the party does not actually like the bill.

The Maori Party knows that no matter what further concessions it might be able to extract from National almost certainly none _ it can never satisfy its critics who demand full and unfettered Maori ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

I consider myself a critic - and a somewhat representative one at that. I, like most Maori, are moderate on the issue and I do not demand full and unfettered ownership of the foreshore and seabed. I demand a fairer and more sensible test to establish customary title. But more especially I demand the same rights as  private owners. It really, really fucks me off that Maori are expected to do with less rights than private, mostly foreign, owners. The private ownership vs Maori ownership issue really highlights what a repugnant, racist country New Zealand is. Why does the Coastal Coalition et. al. believe that Maori will restrict access and mine all the minerals beneath the foreshore and seabed while staying silent on private owners who already do this?

Moreover, Harawira is also fast being consigned to irrelevancy. He refuses to work with National. Now Labour has announced it will not work with him.

Phil Goff may have left people _ including his own caucus _ confused and wondering what happened to his maxim that no one be ruled in or out of postelection deals and accommodations until after the people had decided. Goff, however, can count. And four is bigger than one.    

Harawira will remain relevant so long as he holds his seat – which he will. Any old layman knows that if Hone holds the casting vote then Labour will come knocking. Goff is a notorious flip flopper and he will not pick principle over three years as Prime Minister. Who would? Is Harawira irrelevant if he manages to bring in one or more MP’s? Armstrong also assumes ceteris paribus – that Hone will remain a one man party while the Maori Party will retain their four seats. This is, in my opinion, unlikely. Rahui Katene is unstable in Te Tai Tonga, Te Ururoa is hardly guaranteed to romp home and Pita is vulnerable. On the other hand Hone holds the safest seat in New Zealand and commands the support of 32% of Maori voters. If anything Hone will hold four seats while the Maori Party holds one.

Better that he choose one or other now. Goff's effective choice of with whom he is prepared to work amounts to the biggest olive branch Labour has thrust in the Maori Party's direction.

It will not go unnoticed. Just as Labour's opposition to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill won't either.

Of course Goff would love nothing more than to work with the right wing Maori Party. Labour governments tend to spurn the left. But anyway, Labours opposition to the MCA bill has nothing to do with principle or common position with the Maori Party. Labour is just searching for a few votes.

By this time next week, the bill will be law or very close to it. Public debate will go into hiatus. No longer will Harawira be able to garner attention and publicity solely through his rejection of the legislation now before Parliament.

He will still try to provoke the Maori Party into fighting the battle over who speaks for Maoridom. Turia and company will ignore him. They can afford to do so. They have already won.

Armstrong should know, in terms of attentions seeking success, Hone rates first (or perhaps second to Winston Peters). Armstrong is wrong in suggesting that Hone will battle the Maori Party over who speaks for Maori. Hone accepts that the Maori Party speaks for Maori and that he speaks for Te Tai Tokerau. But the debate is not about who speaks for Maori. It is about what is best for Maori. Mandate is not the issue, direction is and always has been. Ultimately the leadership cannot ignore Hone because Maori listen to him. If his views are not confronted they will be accepted de facto. If the Maori Party remains silent they fall out of view and they fade into irrelevancy.   

The Maori Party is losing. They have been losing ever since Te Ururoa’s complaint letter. Hone has embarrassed and utterly outplayed the Maori Party. I do not know what Armstrong’s definition of winning is, but if it includes large scale loss of support and potential electoral doom, then yes the Maori Party has won.

Maori MP's - updated

I completely forgot to update the Maori MP’s page at the end of last month. I’m back at uni so I do not have the time to blog as often as I did.

Hone Harawira remains in the top 5 but slips somewhat. Winston Peters also retains his position in the top 5.

The Maori Party leaders retain their bottom place positions, and with good reason. Hekia Parata also joins the worst performers in the bottom five.

For the full list and summation visit the page. Either click on the link in the top bar or here.