Katene shoots herself in the foot

Well, it turns out Rahui Katene has been advertising herself as the MP for Te Tai Tonga on Facebook. 

Katene was claiming yesterday that people were still coming to her “for help”. Well, that’s no surprise when she’s advertising herself as the MP for Te Tai Tonga.

In any event, I find it almost impossible to believe that Christchurch residents are going to Rahui for help. After all, she’s based in Wellington – far removed from Christchurch. Christchurch residents would have to have access to Katene’s personal number, email or address. It’s not plausible that anyone outside of the Maori Party circles have those details. Therefore, it’s likely that Maori Party supporters or those connected with the party are still going to Rahui - if anyone is at all. 

I don’t want to make this story any bigger than it is, because that gives undeserved oxygen to Rahui Katene in her increasingly desperate bid to remain relevant.

 

Rahui Katene claiming to be the MP for Te Tai Tonga

The best and worst Maori MPs for May

Well, it doesn’t take long for the tables to turn. Last month I named Hekia Parata one of the best performing Maori MPs - this month she is one of the worst. Tariana Turia and Te Ururoa Flavell didn’t even rate a mention, but this month they occupy the top positions. Rino Tirikatene wasn’t on the radar, but his push for Maori seats on the Nelson City Council and across New Zealand pushes him to the top list. True to form Hone Harawira rated as one of the best performing MPs last month, yet a dismal performance – by his own high standards – sees him fall off the radar this month. 

For the full list and explanation click here or on the tab at the top of the page.

Rahui Katene stirs the pot

RNZ’s Te Manu Korihi is leading with some interesting news:

Rino Tirikatene's political record of representing Maori in Christchurch is coming under attack from the woman he ousted from the Te Tai Tonga electorate last year.

Former Maori Party MP Rahui Katene says people affected by the earthquake are being ignored and constituents are still coming to her for help on issues such as roads, water and jobs.

She says that's a real problem because Labour Party MP Rino Tirikatene does not seem to be doing anything to help Maori he represents.

Ms Katene claims Mr Tirikatene is referring Maori constituents to the Pakeha MPs in Christchurch.

Rahui Katene is doing what she can to remain relevant and that involves stirring the pot. Rino has responded, quite rightly too, saying that many constituents have come to him citing the poor service Rahui gave last term. This, I think when examining the evidence, holds true. Rahui lost Christchurch despite having cultivated a significant profile in the wake of the earthquakes. If Rahui was doing a good job, then it follows that she would win more votes than Rino in Christchurch. This, however, was not the case and can only be read as an indictment against Rahui’s record in the city.

Rahui doesn’t have the coverage and connections Rino has across the electorate. Add to that the likelihood of Dora Langsbury and a Mana candidate standing and it becomes near impossible for Rahui to win – especially without the advantage of incumbency. Rahui can tend to her media profile, but that isn’t nearly enough to win a Maori electorate. Failure will be a deathblow against Rahui’s political career. You can’t, after all, lead the Maori Party without a seat in Parliament – it just isn’t practical.

----------

I have done some work for Rino in the past. 

The Urewera sentence and the reaction from Maori

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

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

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

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

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

Te Ururoa Flavell expressed a similar sentiment:

This was never just about the charges or the offences.

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

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

And David Clendon from the Greens had this to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget 2012: What's in for Maori

Well, there isn’t much to report from Budget 2012 – not for Maori at least.

As signalled, tobacco excise tax will increase 10 percent each year for the next four years. On this issue, Bill English acknowledged the work of the Maori Party.

Most significantly, however, the Maori Party has secured $19m for “Maori medium early childhood education providers”, $10m towards Maori trade training, the changes to teacher ratios will not affect Maori immersion schools and $24m was allocated to combat rheumatic fever. As far as cuts go, Maori development funding has been cut and transferred to policy functions, Whanau Ora administration funding has been decreased, as has funding for Maori radio and Maori tourism. Surprisingly, I think, Te Puni Kokiri’s budget has decreased a mere $1m to $60m.

In all, the budget is neither here nor there for the Maori Party. The wins offset the losses, but that cannot be considered a win. The Maori Party needed to secure a big bang win and create a narrative from there. For example, a 50m win for education. The Maori Party could then claim they are protecting Maori education from the government’s agenda, read cuts. Of course, to be fair, the Maori Party have secured significant wins in Maori education, but not enough to leave a lasting impression nor enough to create a sustainable narrative. It was, I think, essential for the Maori Party to distance themselves from what was, on the whole, an austerity budget. However, they are, thanks to only meagre wins, tainted by association.

Having said that, the Maori Party should be applauded for securing what they did, especially considering the government’s approach to the budget. In an environment of cuts, the Maori Party has secured some funding increases and, for all intents and purposes, the Vote Maori Affairs Budget has remained the same.

Before moving on, I should point out the significance of Maori immersion schools avoiding the student/teacher ratio changes. First of all it shows that Hekia Parata has not sold out tino rangatiratanga entirely, secondly it shows that Hekia implicitly acknowledges that higher teacher ratios hurt education:

"Proportionately immersion schools are more successful in raising Maori achievement than mainstream and we do not want to impair that progress"

In other words, higher student to teacher ratios hurt education.

So, in all, the Maori Party have done well considering the circumstances, but not enough to boost their support.

As for cuts, there were a few. For me, it’s not the cuts themselves that worry, it’s where the savings from those cuts were transferred. Maori development funding has suffered and the savings have been transferred to policy advice under Crown/Maori relationships, ministerial servicing and Maori development. Effectively Maori development funding is going towards supporting government ministers so, in other words, the funding is going towards fattening up the Maori bureaucracy (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it’s questionable). In all, the policy advice budget comes in at $23m which seems very, very gratuitous. Surely much of that money is better spent on Maori development.

Maori radio has had a minor cut while Maori TV’s budget remains the same – again. Significantly, Te Puni Kokiri’s budget has fallen to $60m – a $1m cut. Of course, this is only what is budgeted, one would expect savings to be made within that budget.

Lastly, the Treaty negotiations budget is $170m of which $66m is to support lending to implement the Ngāti Whatua o Orakei Deed of Settlement and $24m for the administration and implementation of the MCA Act.

In all, that’s the budget for Maori. Nothing much, but enough considering the circumstances I suppose. If the above signals all the Maori Party can achieve in the next two budgets, then their demise becomes more certain.

Budget coverage

The Budget's out today. I don't think I'll get time to blog anything today, but tomorrow I should have a post ready on what's in the budget for Maori, the consequences and so on.

Iwi leaders force AFFCO's hand

The Iwi Leaders Group, in what I think is a welcome and significant power play, have brokered a provisional agreement between AFFCO and the Meatworkers Union:

A resolution in the long running Affco dispute is close at hand, following talks over the weekend.

After a three-month lockout, more than 1000 workers at all eight North Island freezing works will return to the job.

An agreement has also been reached to withdraw or suspend all legal action until the final details are agreed.

In a joint statement the parties say they have reached a provisional agreement on a core document and are working through site-specific details.

An Employment Court hearing began last week after the union challenged the validity of the lockout and that has since been adjourned.

The involvement of the Iwi Leaders Group (ILG) appears to have broken the deadlock. Earlier this month Nga Puhi leader Sonny Tau urged Maori farmers to stop supplying AFFCO. The suggestion was endorsed by other Maori leaders, most significantly Pita Sharples. However, what seems to have forced the company’s back down was a threat - apparently from Waikato-Tainui - that Maori would open a rival meat processing plant. The Talley family, eager to protect their market share, appear to have caved at the threat.

This illustrates the growing importance of iwi, in particular the ILG, in the New Zealand economy. The move also reinforces the group’s political power. With assets well in excess of $1b, iwi are in a position to leverage business with economic threats. This is certainly true in the case of AFFCO, a medium sized business, as Maori control between 10 and 15 percent of the country’s sheep and beef stock. It’s unclear, however, whether iwi could leverage larger companies like Fletcher Building.

Full credit to the ILG for falling behind the Maori whanau affected. Estimates suggest Maori make up more than 60% of AFFCO’s workforce. Aside from lobbying AFFCO for resolution, Tainui and Ngati Kahungungu also provided food parcels for the families of locked out workers. Tom Roa has, from what I’ve seen, played an integral part and kudos to him. Roa succeeded Tuku Morgan as the head of Te Arataura (Tainui’s executive committee).

Maybe this signals an ideological shift in the ILG. I’ve been critical in the past and maybe it’s time to revisit my conclusions, but that’s a post for another day. For now, kudos to the ILG and hopefully the workers are back on the job soon.

A toast to Joris De Bres

Bryce Edwards makes an interesting observation:

The Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres has become increasingly outspoken about politics recently - using his public office to adjudicate on highly political and partisan issues.

Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of his pronouncements, some will be uncomfortable with an office of the state being so interventionist.

First of all, I think it’s wrong to label De Bres’ public comments as interventionist. They are, after all, just public comments. If De Bres was using his powers under the Human Rights Act to force a situation on another person or organisation, then that would be interventionist. I think public comments lack the tangibility to be labelled interventionist.

Anywho, De Bres’ increasing activity is coinciding with an increasing amount of anti-Maori sentiment - read racism. As a few examples, think of Paul Holmes’ Waitangi column, the coverage and response to the Popata brothers, the senseless opposition to Ngati Whatua’s treaty settlement and Louis Crimp.

There have been regional racism incidents too. In the Taranaki internet commentators tore into local Maori for ‘daring’ to exercise their legal right to apply for customary title. In all of these situations, De Bres has largely been the only voice of opposition. Morally speaking, De Bres is obligated to oppose racism and, quite unsurprisingly, he is legally obliged to do so under s5(2)(l) of the Human Rights Act 1993:

The Commission is to “make public statements in relation to any group of persons in, or who may be coming to, New Zealand who are or may be subject to hostility, or who have been or may be brought into contempt, on the basis that that group consists of persons against whom discrimination is unlawful under this Act”

As I’ve argued, Holmes Waitangi column brought Maori into contempt, as did much of the discussion around Ngati Whatua’s treaty settlement, the Popata brother’s story and discussion and Louis Crimp’s comments. So, taking that view, De Bres is obligated to comment under the Act.

I’m bloody glad De Bres is commenting on these issues because there aren’t enough Maori with the ability, position and willingness to comment on these issues. Racism should never go unchallenged and De Bres deserves credit for acting on that principle.

Native Affairs tonight

Coming up on Native Affairs: 

How racist is sport in New Zealand?

That topic will be up for a panel discussion on Native Affaris, Maori Television’s acclaimed current affairs show.

After yet another racist diatribe, this time by text message, against Auckland Blues coach Pat Lamb we debate the issue with a range of panellists including former All Black great Andy Haden, former double international (Black Fern and Silver Fern) and now Labour MP Louisa Wall and Race Relations Commissioner Joris De Bres. 

Native Affairs won the Aotearoa Film and Television Award (AFTA) for best current affairs series in 2011.

Native Affairs screens at 8.30pm tonight on Maori TV.

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.